In a large population-based case-control study in Germany, including 3,464 breast cancer cases aged 50-74 at diagnosis and 6,657 population based and frequency matched controls, we investigated the effects of menopausal hormone therapy (HT) by type, regimen, timing and progestagenic constituent on postmenopausal breast cancer risk overall and according to histological type. Data were collected by face-to-face interviews. Logistic and polytomous logistic regression analysis were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95%-confidence intervals (95% CI). Risk of invasive breast cancer was significantly elevated in current users (OR, 1.73, 95% CI, 1.55-1.94) and heterogeneous by histological type (p < 0.01), being more than 2-fold higher for lobular and tubular than for ductal cancer. Risks for current users varied significantly by type and regimen of HT, with ORs per year of use of 1.05 (95% CI, 1.04-1.06) for continuous combined estrogen-progestagen, 1.03 (95% CI, 1.02-1.04) for cyclical EP and 1.01 (95% CI, 1.00-1.03) for estrogen-only therapy. No statistically significant increase in risk was observed after 5 years of cessation of HT use for any histological type. Analyses of progestagenic content by regimen revealed a significantly higher risk for continuously administered norethisterone-or levonorgestrel-derived progestagens than for continuously administered progesterone-derived progestagens (OR, 2.27, 95% CI, 1.98-2.62 vs. 1.47, 95% CI, 1.12-1.93, respectively, p 5 0.003), which may be explained by dose rather than type of progestagen. These data suggest that the risks associated with menopausal HT differ by type and regimen of HT and histological type of breast cancer and may vary by progestagenic component, depending on the effective dose. ' 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.Key words: breast cancer; histological type; hormone therapy; progestin; epidemiology Menopausal hormone therapy (HT) has been established as a risk factor for the development of breast cancer, 1 with combined estrogen-progestagen (EP) therapy posing a greater risk than mono-estrogen therapy.2-7 The extent to which this risk difference is in turn affected by duration and recency of use, particularly for past long-term users, requires further clarification. Recent evidence from observational studies has shown that risk varies according to tumor histology, with current use of both mono-estrogen and EP therapy carrying greater risks for invasive lobular and tubular cancers than for invasive ductal cancer. 4,[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] The higher risk associated with EP therapy compared to mono-estrogen therapy has also been observed across different histological tumor types. 6,17,18 Several studies have investigated differences in risk by regimen, 2,5,18-21 however, a higher risk for continuous than for cyclical EP therapy was found only in Scandinavian studies. 18,20,22 Less information is available on the role of progestagens in EP therapy, specifically regarding the effects of type, dose and the number of days it is administered each month. Wh...

The monitoring of cancer survival by population-based cancer registries is a prerequisite to evaluate the current quality of cancer care. Our study provides 1-, 5-and 10-year relative survival as well as 5-year relative survival conditional on 1-year survival estimates and recent survival trends for Germany using data from 11 population-based cancer registries, covering around one-third of the German population. Period analysis was used to estimate relative survival for 24 common and Among the 24 most common cancers, largest improvements were seen for multiple myeloma (8.0% units), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (6.2% units), prostate cancer (5.2% units) and colorectal cancer (4.6% units). In 2007-2010, the survival disadvantage in Germany compared to the United States was largest for cancers of the mouth/pharynx (211.0% units), thyroid (26.8% units) and prostate (27.5% units). Although survival estimates were much lower for elderly patients in both countries, differences in age patterns were observed for some cancer sites. The reported improvements in cancer survival might reflect advances in the quality of cancer care on the population level as well as increased use of screening in Germany. The survival differences across countries and the survival disadvantage in the elderly require further investigation.In 2012, cancer accounted for 8.2 million deaths worldwide.

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionThe advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors has produced 5-year survival of 90 + % for chronic myelocytic leukemia (CML) patients in clinical trials. However, population level survival has been lower, especially in older patients. Here, we examine survival of patients with CML in Germany and compare it to survival of patients in the United States (US).MethodsData were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database in the US and 11 cancer registries in Germany. Patients 15–69 years old diagnosed with CML were included in the analysis. Period analysis for 2002–2006 was used to provide the most up-to-date possible estimates of five-year relative survival.ResultsFive-year relative survival was 68.7% overall in Germany and 72.7% in the US. Survival was higher in the US for all age groups except for ages 15–39 years, but the difference was only statistically significant for ages 50–59 years (at 67.5% vs 77.7% in Germany and the US, respectively). Survival decreased with age, ranging from 83.1% and 81.9%, respectively, in Germany and the US for patients 15–39 years old to 54.2% and 54.5%, respectively, in patients 65–69 years old. Survival increased between 2002 and 2006 by 12.0% points in Germany and 17.1% points in the US.ConclusionsFive-year survival estimates were higher in the US than in Germany overall, but the difference was only significant for ages 50–59 years. Survival did not equal that seen in clinical trials for either country, but strong improvement in survival was seen between 2002 and 2006.