Patients and Methods of the PATH Biobank – A Resource for Breast Cancer Research

Abstract

Introduction: The foundation PATH (Patientsʼ Tumour Bank of Hope) collects in a tumour bank samples of blood, tumour, and tumour-near normal tissue from breast cancer patients and supplements them systematically with health-care data. Material and Methods: For patients from the diagnosis years 2006–2009 quantitative data were evaluated with the help of mean values and standard deviations while for qualitative data absolute and relative incidences were assessed. Demographic and clinical features of women who used different numbers of information sources were tested for statistical significance by means of ANOVA and χ² tests. The benchmark report of the WBC and two DMP reports were used to compare oncological care. Results: For research purposes tumour tissue samples are available for 59 % of the cases, normal tissue for 62 % and blood serum samples for 92 %. From 3573 women (diagnoses 2006–2009), a total of 2697 women (75.5 %) took part in follow-up. The characteristics of the follow-up patients did not relevantly differ from those of all the patients. The responsible physician was named as the most important source of information about the disease. Young women in particular consulted several sources and also used the internet to obtain information. Discussion: Compared with data on therapy from WBC and the DMP breast cancer in Bavaria or, respectively, North Rhineland reports, the PATH patients represent an only slightly selected sample. The PATH biobank is a (still) poorly used data and sample source, which is made available upon request and positive evaluation of the study protocol. Thus, it is possible to address current questions in a short time without having to undertake extensive recruiting procedures.

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung: Die Stiftung PATH (Patientsʼ Tumor Bank of Hope) sammelt in einer Biobank Blut, Tumor- und tumornahes Normalgewebe von Brustkrebspatienten und reichert diese systematisch mit Versorgungsdaten an. Material und Methodik: Für Patientinnen aus den Diagnosejahren 2006–2009 wurden quantitative Daten mittels Mittelwerten und Standardabweichungen, qualitative Daten mit absoluten und relativen Häufigkeiten ausgewertet. Demografische und klinische Merkmale von Frauen, die unterschiedliche Anzahlen von Informationsquellen nutzen, wurden mittels ANOVA und χ²-Test auf statistische Signifikanz getestet. Der Benchmarkbericht des WBC und 2 DMP-Berichte werden zum Vergleich der onkologischen Versorgung genutzt. Ergebnisse: Zu Forschungszwecken liegen Tumorgewebeproben in 59 %, Normalgewebe in 62 % und Blutserumproben in 92 % der Fälle bereit. Von 3573 Frauen (Diagnose 2006–2009) wurden 2697 Frauen (75,5 %) nachbefragt. Die Charakteristika der Follow-up-Patientinnen unterscheiden sich nicht relevant von allen Patientinnen. Die Ärztin bzw. der Arzt wird als wichtigste Quelle für Informationen zur Erkrankung genannt. Insbesondere junge Frauen nutzen mehrere Quellen und ziehen auch das Internet zur Informationsbeschaffung heran. Diskussion: Verglichen mit Daten zur Therapie aus dem WBC und dem DMP Brustkrebs in Bayern bzw. Nordrhein sind die PATH-Patientinnen eine wenig selektierte Stichprobe. Die PATH-Biobank ist eine (noch) wenig genutzte Daten- und Probenquelle, die auf Anfrage und Begutachtung des Studienprotokolls zur Verfügung gestellt wird. Somit bietet sich die Möglichkeit, aktuelle Fragestellungen ohne aufwendige Rekrutierungsmaßnahmen zeitnah zu bearbeiten.

Key words

breast - epidemiology - breast cancer

Schlüsselwörter

Mamma - Epidemiologie - Mammakarzinom

• References

• 1 RKI, GEKID. Krebs in Deutschland 2007 – 2008. Häufigkeiten und Trends. 8.. überarbeitete Auflage. Saarbrücken: Robert Koch-Institut und die Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland, Hrsg.; 2012
• 2 Brenner H, Stegmaier C, Ziegler H. Long-term survival of cancer patients in Germany achieved by the beginning of the third millenium. Ann Oncol 2005; 16: 981-986
• 3 De Angelis R, Tavilla A, Verdecchia A et al. Breast cancer survivors in the United States: geographic variability and time trends, 2005–2015. Cancer 2009; 115: 1954-1966
• 4 Warren JL, Mariotto AB, Meekins A et al. Current and future utilization of services from medical oncologists. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 3242-3247
• 5 Herpel E, Hummel M. [Research biobanks–development and structure]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2013; 138: 1069-1072
• 6 Hewitt RE. Biobanking: the foundation of personalized medicine. Curr Opin Oncol 2011; 23: 112-119
• 7 Fick E, Anzeneder T, Katalinic A et al. Bisphosphonates and their role in therapy for breast cancer – results from the PATH biobank [Bisphosphonate und ihre Rolle in der Therapie des Mammakarzinoms – Ergebnisse aus der Biobank PATH]. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2013; 73: 412-421
• 8 Gevensleben H, Gohring UJ, Buttner R et al. Comparison of MammaPrint and TargetPrint results with clinical parameters in German patients with early stage breast cancer. Int J Mol Med 2010; 26: 837-843
• 9 Kloten V, Becker B, Winner K et al. Promoter hypermethylation of the tumor-suppressor genes ITIH5, DKK3, and RASSF1A as novel biomarkers for blood-based breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res 2013; 15: R4
• 10 WBC Westdeutsches Brust-Centrum GmbH Hrsg. Benchmarking WBC. Jahresbericht 2009. Bonn: Mediengestaltung Claus; 2010
• 11 Donnachie E, Hofmann F, Keller M et al., Hrsg. Qualitätsbericht 2010. Disease Management Programme in Bayern. München; 2011
• 12 Hagen B, Altenhofen L, Blaschy S et al. Hrsg. Qualitätssicherungsbericht 2009. Disease-Management-Programme in Nordrhein. Aufl. Köln-Weiden: Echo VERLAGSGRUPPE GmbH; 2010
• 13 Altman D, Machin D, Bryant TN et al. Statistics with confidence: confidence intervals and statistical guidelines. London: John Wiley & Sons; 2003
• 14 Waldmann A, Pritzkuleit R, Raspe H et al. Guideline-compatible treatment of breast cancer patients: the status quo in Schleswig-Holstein. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2008; 105: 337-343
• 15 Arndt V, Merx H, Sturmer T et al. Age-specific detriments to quality of life among breast cancer patients one year after diagnosis. Eur J Cancer 2004; 40: 673-680
• 16 Kemeny MM, Peterson BL, Kornblith AB et al. Barriers to clinical trial participation by older women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2268-2275
• 17 Lakerveld J, Ijzelenberg W, van Tulder MW et al. Motives for (not) participating in a lifestyle intervention trial. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008; 8: 17
• 18 Pritzkuleit R, Waldmann A, Raspe H et al. The population-based oncological health care study OVIS – recruitment of the patients and analysis of the non-participants. BMC Cancer 2008; 8: 311
• 19 Simon MS, Du W, Flaherty L et al. Factors associated with breast cancer clinical trials participation and enrollment at a large academic medical center. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 2046-2052
• 20 Arndt V, Merx H, Stegmaier C et al. Quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer 1 year after diagnosis compared with the general population: a population-based study. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 4829-4836
• 21 Lehto US, Ojanen M, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen P. Predictors of quality of life in newly diagnosed melanoma and breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2005; 16: 805-816
• 22 Karakiewicz PI, Tanguay S, Kattan MW et al. Erectile and urinary dysfunction after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in Quebec: a population-based study of 2415 men. Eur Urol 2004; 46: 188-194
• 23 Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Ziegler H et al. A population-based study of the impact of specific symptoms on quality of life in women with breast cancer 1 year after diagnosis. Cancer 2006; 107: 2496-2503
• 24 Adelstein B, Irwig L, Macaskill P et al. A self administered reliable questionnaire to assess lower bowel symptoms. BMC Gastroenterol 2008; 8: 8-17
• 25 Oberst K, Bradley CJ, Schenk M. Breast and prostate cancer patientʼs reliability of treatment reporting. J Registry Manag 2009; 36: 12-15
• 26 Penfold RB, Kullgren JT, Miroshnik I et al. Reliability of a patient survey assessing cost-related changes in health care use among high deductible health plan enrollees. BMC Health Serv Res 2011; 11: 133
• 27 Radbruch L, Sabatowski R, Elsner F et al. Validation of the German version of the brief fatigue inventory. J Pain Symptom Manage 2003; 25: 449-458
• 28 Renzi C, Mastroeni S, Mannooranparampil TJ et al. Reliability of self-reported information on skin cancer among elderly patients with squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Epidemiol 2011; 21: 551-554
• 29 Slanger T, Mutschelknauss E, Kropp S et al. Test-retest reliability of self-reported reproductive and lifestyle data in the context of a German case-control study on breast cancer and postmenopausal hormone therapy. Ann Epidemiol 2007; 17: 993-998
• 30 Waldmann A, Dreckschmidt J, Pritzkuleit R et al. Test-Retest Reliabilität des OVIS-Fragebogens – ein Instrument zur Evaluation der onkologischen Versorgung aus Patientensicht. [Test-retest reliability of the OVIS Questionnaire – an instrument to evaluate oncological care from a patientʼs point of view]. Gesundheitswesen 2010; 72: 707-713
• 31 Greenlaw SM, Yentzer BA, OʼNeill JL et al. Assessing adherence to dermatology treatments: a review of self-report and electronic measures. Skin Res Technol 2010; 16: 253-258
• 32 Gupta V, Gu K, Chen Z et al. Concordance of self-reported and medical chart information on cancer diagnosis and treatment. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011; 11: 72
• 33 Jones JM, McPherson CJ, Zimmermann C et al. Assessing agreement between terminally ill cancer patientsʼ reports of their quality of life and family caregiver and palliative care physician proxy ratings. J Pain Symptom Manage 2011; 42: 354-365
• 34 Ritterhoff N. Wie gut kennen Patienten ihre Krankheit und Behandlung? Ein Vergleich von Patientenangaben, Arztangeben und Registerdaten in der onkologischen Versorgung. Dissertation. Institut für Krebsepidemiologie e.V., Universität zu Lübeck; 2010
• 35 Fisher DA, Voils CI, Coffman CJ et al. Validation of a questionnaire to assess self-reported colorectal cancer screening status using face-to-face administration. Dig Dis Sci 2009; 54: 1297-1306
• 36 McAdams MA, Maynard JW, Baer AN et al. Reliability and sensitivity of the self-report of physician-diagnosed gout in the campaign against cancer and heart disease and the atherosclerosis risk in the community cohorts. J Rheumatol 2011; 38: 135-141
• 37 Cowan C, Hoskins R. Information preferences of women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Care 2007; 16: 543-550
• 38 Raupach JC, Hiller JE. Information and support for women following the primary treatment of breast cancer. Health Expect 2002; 5: 289-301
• 39 Nagler RH, Gray SW, Romantan A et al. Differences in information seeking among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer patients: results from a population-based survey. Patient Educ Couns 2010; 81 (Suppl.) S54-S62
• 40 Rokade A, Kapoor PK, Rao S et al. Has the internet overtaken other traditional sources of health information? Questionnaire survey of patients attending ENT outpatient clinics. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2002; 27: 526-528
• 41 Talosig-Garcia M, Davis SW. Information-seeking behavior of minority breast cancer patients: an exploratory study. J Health Commun 2005; 10 (Suppl. 01) 53-64
• 42 Satterlund MJ, McCaul KD, Sandgren AK. Information gathering over time by breast cancer patients. J Med Internet Res 2003; 5: e15
• 43 Mancini J, Nogues C, Adenis C et al. Patientsʼ characteristics and rate of Internet use to obtain cancer information. J Public Health (Oxf) 2006; 28: 235-237
• 44 Sharpley CF, Christie DR. Patient information preferences among breast and prostate cancer patients. Australas Radiol 2007; 51: 154-158
• 45 van de Poll-Franse LV, van Eenbergen MC. Internet use by cancer survivors: current use and future wishes. Support Care Cancer 2008; 16: 1189-1195