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

 

 Permissions and Reprints

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.

• 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
  Google Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Herpel E, Hummel M. [Research biobanks–development and structure]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2013; 138: 1069-1072
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Hewitt RE. Biobanking: the foundation of personalized medicine. Curr Opin Oncol 2011; 23: 112-119
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 WBC Westdeutsches Brust-Centrum GmbH Hrsg. Benchmarking WBC. Jahresbericht 2009. Bonn: Mediengestaltung Claus; 2010
  Google Scholar
• 11 Donnachie E, Hofmann F, Keller M et al., Hrsg. Qualitätsbericht 2010. Disease Management Programme in Bayern. München; 2011
  Google Scholar
• 12 Hagen B, Altenhofen L, Blaschy S et al. Hrsg. Qualitätssicherungsbericht 2009. Disease-Management-Programme in Nordrhein. Aufl. Köln-Weiden: Echo VERLAGSGRUPPE GmbH; 2010
  Google Scholar
• 13 Altman D, Machin D, Bryant TN et al. Statistics with confidence: confidence intervals and statistical guidelines. London: John Wiley & Sons; 2003
  Google Scholar
• 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
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Oberst K, Bradley CJ, Schenk M. Breast and prostate cancer patientʼs reliability of treatment reporting. J Registry Manag 2009; 36: 12-15
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Cowan C, Hoskins R. Information preferences of women receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Care 2007; 16: 543-550
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Raupach JC, Hiller JE. Information and support for women following the primary treatment of breast cancer. Health Expect 2002; 5: 289-301
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 42 Satterlund MJ, McCaul KD, Sandgren AK. Information gathering over time by breast cancer patients. J Med Internet Res 2003; 5: e15
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 44 Sharpley CF, Christie DR. Patient information preferences among breast and prostate cancer patients. Australas Radiol 2007; 51: 154-158
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

• Supplementary Material