Search

Aim: Treatment-outcome associations often differ substantially between observational studies (OSs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We investigate causes, focusing on radiotherapy (RT) effects in early breast cancer treatment, to better understand each study type's merits., Methods and Materials: We systematically analyzed three potential causes, by comparing data from a large OS with results from two previously published meta-analyses of RCTs: differences in patient populations combined with heterogeneous treatment effects, non-random treatment decisions in OSs, and differences in therapy administration., Results: RT-survival associations were considerably stronger in our OS than in the RCTs, e.g., a hazard rate for overall survival after breast-conserving therapy of 0.57 in the OS vs 0.90 in the RCTs. The first proposed reason has limited relevance: patient populations differed considerably, but effect heterogeneity between patient groups was limited. The second reason does explain part of the difference: in the OS treatment decisions (being nonrandomized) and prospects differed with patient characteristics. Notably, patients with early recurrences or mortality are generally excluded from RCTs. Their inclusion in OSs leads to stronger treatment-outcome associations., Conclusion: RCTs and OSs each have their own merits. While RCTs have their undisputed benefits, results from OSs that indicate that RT effects in early breast cancer are even stronger than those reported in RCTs should not be ignored.

Background: As the number of people with Internet access rises, so does the use of the Internet as a potentially valuable source for health information. Insight into patient use of this information and its correlates over time may reveal changes in the digital divide based on patient age and education. Existing research has focused on patient characteristics that predict Internet information use and research on treatment context is rare., Objective: This study aims to (1) present data on the proportion of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients treated in German breast centers from 2007 to 2013 who used the Internet for information on their disease, (2) look into correlations between Internet utilization and sociodemographic characteristics and if these change over time, and (3) determine if use of Internet information varies with the hospitals in which the patients were initially treated., Methods: Data about utilization of the Internet for breast cancer-specific health information was obtained in a postal survey of breast cancer patients that is conducted annually in Germany with a steady response rate of 87% of consenting patients. Data from the survey were combined with data obtained by hospital personnel (eg, cancer stage and type of surgery). Data from 27,491 patients from 7 consecutive annual surveys were analyzed for this paper using multilevel regression modeling to account for clustering of patients in specific hospitals., Results: Breast cancer patients seeking disease-specific information on the Internet increased significantly from 26.96% (853/3164) in 2007 to 37.21% (1485/3991) in 2013. Similar patterns of demographic correlates were found for all 7 cohorts. Older patients (≥70 years) and patients with <10 years of formal education were less likely to use the Internet for information on topics related to their disease. Internet use was significantly higher among privately insured patients and patients living with a partner. Higher cancer stage and a foreign native language were associated with decreased use in the overall model. Type of surgery was not found to be associated with Internet use in the multivariable models. Intraclass correlation coefficients were small (0.00-0.03) suggesting only a small contribution of the hospital to the patients' decision to use Internet information. There was no clear indication of a decreased digital divide based on age and education., Conclusions: Use of the Internet for health information is on the rise among breast cancer patients. The strong age- and education-related differences raise the question of how relevant information can be adequately provided to all patients, especially to those with limited education, older age, and living without a partner.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to analyse the extent to which breast cancer patients excuse inconveniences that occur during their hospitalisation, and how this "tendency to excuse" affects their satisfaction with the hospital stay., Methods: Breast cancer patients undergoing treatment at one of 51 breast centres in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) in 2009 were asked to complete the Cologne Patient Questionnaire-Breast Cancer (CPQ-BC). For the analyses, the "tendency to excuse" scale was subdivided into three groups. Linear regressions were performed to investigate associations between the "tendency to excuse" and patient satisfaction., Results: 88 % (3,950) of the patients completed the questionnaire. The results show that the inpatients excused inconsistencies to a moderate degree. The "excusers" and "non-excusers" showed greater satisfaction with hospital services than the "medium-excusers"., Conclusions: The "tendency to excuse" scale could aid future data analysis of patient satisfaction surveys by identifying patients who are more likely to answer in an unbiased fashion. According to hospital survey outcomes, adjusting for the "tendency to excuse" scale however, does not lead to substantially different results when comparing health care providers.

Background: The objective of this study was to show differences between breast cancer patients < or =35 and >35 years with regard to tumor characteristics and to present the patient-relevant outcomes overall survival (OAS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS)., Methods: We analyzed data from 119 women aged 35 years or younger with breast cancer and compared multiple parameters against breast cancer patients between 36 and 55 (n = 1,097), all pre-menopausal. Data were adjusted for tumor characteristics and therapy., Results: There was no statistically significant difference in tumor size, axillary lymph node involvement, and histological subtypes. On the contrary, grading lymphovascular invasion and receptor negativity showed statistically significant differences. Unadjusted hazard ratio are 2.11 (1.32-3.39) (OAS) and 1.92 (1.35-2.73) (RFS). Multi-adjusted hazard ratio are 2.97 (1.70-5.18) (OAS) and 2.11 (1.42-3.13) (RFS)., Conclusions: In conclusion, young breast cancer patients still have a poor prognosis. Even after adjustment of the data, OAS and RFS showed a worse prognosis. Normal prognostic factors like tumor size, axillary lymph node involvement, and grading can therefore be not the explanation for the more aggressive disease progress within early onset breast cancer patients.