ArticleBMC health services research2024
Quality-assured treatment in certified cancer center networks in upper Franconia, Germany: a population-centered retrospective cohort analysis based on data of the Bavarian cancer registry.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer is the second most common cause of death in Germany, and treatment in certified cancer networks is recommended to ensure high-quality care. This study sought to (1) determine the percentage of all primary tumors that might potentially have been treated in certified cancer networks and (2) assess the development and current state of quality-assured cancer care for all cancer patients from a locally defined region in Upper Franconia, Germany.
methodsThis study was a population-centered retrospective cohort analysis based on data from the Bavarian Cancer Registry (2017-2023). First, we determined all potentially available cancer network certifications and calculated the percentage of cancer care that could potentially have been conducted in certified cancer networks. Second, we considered the certification status of the involved healthcare providers and analyzed whether or not cancer care was actually carried out in certified cancer networks.
resultsOverall, 90.1% (62,119/68,973) of all primary tumors, from a total of 63,372 patients, might potentially have been treated in certified cancer networks. The percentage of patients actually receiving care in certified cancer center networks was 40.7% for initial diagnosis, 59.0% for surgery, 53.2% for chemotherapy, and 50.7% for radiotherapy; the weighted mean was 50.3%. The results thus ranged between 46.9% (2023) and 52.8% (2022). The highest proportions of patients who received quality-assured treatment in certified cancer center networks were determined for breast cancer (79.5%), colon cancer (73.1%), and lymphoma (60.1%); in contrast, the lowest results were shown for lung cancer (2.7%), anal cancer (0.0%), and mesothelioma (0.0%). Female patients as well as younger patients were significantly more likely to receive care in certified care networks compared with their counterparts. In addition, we did not find a clear trend whether patients in different tumor stages were more or less likely to receive care in certified care networks.
conclusionsWe found meaningful differences in the proportion of patients who received quality-assured treatment in certified cancer center networks. Following this, patients should receive comprehensive information about receiving care in certified cancer center networks and consider longer travel distances, especially for those cancer types without locally available certified cancer networks.
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.