ArticleBMJ open2020
Trends in cancer incidence and survival in the Augsburg study region-results from the Augsburg cancer registry.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A global review and perspective on prostate cancer survival: findings from survival studies of cancer registration data.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2026Article
- Article
- Associations between Weather, Air Quality and Moderate Extreme Cancer-Related Mortality Events in Augsburg, Southern Germany.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesKnowledge about time trends of cancer incidence and cancer survival in a defined region is an essential prerequisite for the planning of regional healthcare infrastructure. The aim of the study was to provide population-based analyses of all common tumour sites to assess the cancer burden in the Augsburg study region.
settingTotal population of the study region of Augsburg (668 522 residents), Southern Germany.
participantsThe data obtained from the Cancer Registry Augsburg comprised 37 487 incident cases of malignant tumours (19 313 men and 18 174 women) diagnosed between 2005 and 2016 in the Augsburg region's resident population. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We calculated sex-specific, age-standardised incidence rates and annual percent change to assess time trends. In men and in women, 3-year and 5-year relative survival was calculated and results were compared with the latest German estimates. Survival trends were presented for the most common cancers only.
resultsDecreasing age-standardised incidence rates were observed for prostate cancer and for colorectal cancer in men. For oropharyngeal cancer, rates declined in men, but significantly increased in women. Incidence for female breast cancer remained stable. Five-year relative survival ranged between 6.4% (95% CI: 4.1% to 10.1%) for pancreatic cancer and 97.7% (95% CI: 96.0% to 99.4%) for prostate cancer in men and between 10.2% (95% CI: 7.1% to 14.6%) for pancreatic cancer and 96.6% (95% CI: 93.6% to 99.6%) for malignant melanoma in women. Trends in 3-year survival of the five most common tumour sites in men showed a significant increase for lung and oropharyngeal cancer. In women, continuously rising survival trends were observed for breast cancer.
conclusionsSurvival of cancer patients in the Augsburg study region was largely concordant with the situation in Germany as a whole, while incidence showed slight deviations in some cancer sites. Regional evaluations on cancer survival are a valuable instrument for identifying deficits and determining advances in oncological health management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.