gms | German Medical Science

27. Deutscher Krebskongress

Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft e. V.

22. - 26.03.2006, Berlin

Recurrence status as a predictor of quality in breast cancer centres – pitfalls derived from patients lost to follow up

Meeting Abstract

  • corresponding author presenting/speaker Peter A. Fasching - Frauenklinik des Universitätsklinikums Erlangen, Deutschland
  • Stefan Schick - Tumorzentrum der Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
  • Michael P. Lux - Frauenklinik des Universitätsklinikums Erlangen
  • Mayada R. Bani - Frauenklinik des Universitätsklinikums Erlangen
  • Sabrina Petsch - Tumorzentrum der Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
  • Thomas Papadopoulos - Institut für Pathologie, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
  • Matthias W. Beckmann - Frauenklinik des Universitätsklinikums Erlangen

27. Deutscher Krebskongress. Berlin, 22.-26.03.2006. Düsseldorf, Köln: German Medical Science; 2006. DocPO525

Die elektronische Version dieses Artikels ist vollständig und ist verfügbar unter:

Veröffentlicht: 20. März 2006

© 2006 Fasching et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open Access-Artikel und steht unter den Creative Commons Lizenzbedingungen ( Er darf vervielf&aauml;ltigt, verbreitet und &oauml;ffentlich zug&aauml;nglich gemacht werden, vorausgesetzt dass Autor und Quelle genannt werden.



Introduction: Death and recurrence of disease are the most stringent quality indicators for certified breast cancer centres, showing an effect for the individual concering the quality of therapy and follow-up care. Up to now no certified breast cancer centre has reached a follow-up of 5 years since certification. Analysing survival data censored cases prior to the end of a predefined interval limitates the quality of results. Independent from breast cancer centres in Bavaria tumor registries already have a funded infrastructure for the collection of this data for an interval of 5 years. Aim of our study was to assess the percentage of breast cancer patients for each yearly cohort since 2000, whose data reached the required follow-up according to the S3-guidellines of the AWMF.

Methods: The database of the tumor registry of the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg was analyzed concerning documented follow-up visits. 2026 patients with a diagnosis of invasive (IC) and non-invasive (DCIS) breast cancer were included in this analysis. The required interval for follow up care was defined according to the statistical requirements to use the data (death, recurrence, no evidence of recurrence) for the construction of a survival function and calculating the hazard rate. Database closure was the 25. October 2005.

Results: 12,4% of patients had DCIS and 87,6% IC. For the cohort of 2000 20,5% of patients reached the hypothetical end point for recurrence status. The percentage of the cohorts for the years 2001 to 2005 was 29,41% (2001), 28,44% (2002), 34,63% (2003), 72,47% (2004), and 99,99% (2005). In average for the heterogenous cohort (2000-2004) 38,6% of the patients were suitable for the analysis of survival data. However survival status was obtained by death certificates in almost all of the patients.

Conclusion: With the established infrastructure of the local tumor registry Erlangen-Nürnberg, analysis of survival data regarding recurrence is not possible in a sufficient way. Too many patients are lost to follow-up. The completeness of survival data is up to now not included in the aims of a certified breast cancer centre. It is doubtful that modeling survival data in terms of cause studying are possible in the first annual cohorts of certified breast cancer centres.