Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41212198›Full record

ReviewStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2026

Research with cancer registry data in radiation oncology-current possibilities and perspectives : A narrative review.

Jörg Andreas Müller, Ahmed Bedir, Alexander Katalinic, Florian Oesterling, Aleksandra Graw, Alexander Kluttig, Stefanie Corradini, Dirk Vordermark, Daniel Medenwald

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. How do you handle post-radiotherapy follow-up care? Results of a national pattern-of-care study.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jörg Andreas MüllerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Halle (Saale), Ernst-Grube-Str. 40, 06120, Halle (Saale), Germany. joerg-andreas.mueller@uk-halle.de.ORCID 0000-0003-0843-7373
Ahmed BedirUniversity Clinic for Radiation Therapy, University Hospital Magdeburg A. ö. R, Magdeburg, Germany.
Alexander KatalinicInstitute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, University of Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23562, Lübeck, Germany.
Florian OesterlingCancer Registry North Rhine-Westphalia, 44801, Bochum, Germany.
Aleksandra GrawCancer Registry North Rhine-Westphalia, 44801, Bochum, Germany.
Alexander KluttigClinical Cancer Registry Saxony-Anhalt (Klinische Krebsregister Sachsen-Anhalt GmbH), Doctor-Eisenbart-Ring 2, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
Stefanie CorradiniDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Dirk VordermarkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Halle (Saale), Ernst-Grube-Str. 40, 06120, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Daniel MedenwaldDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Halle (Saale), Ernst-Grube-Str. 40, 06120, Halle (Saale), Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CLINICAL

backgroundCancer registry data are an essential resource for population-based oncology research and quality assurance in Germany. With the revision of the Federal Cancer Registry Data Act in 2021, for the first time, a legal basis was created for the development of a nationwide clinical cancer dataset. This registry offers new opportunities for research, particularly in radiation oncology.

objectiveThis review aims to provide an overview of the current possibilities of and challenges to using German cancer registry data in radiation oncology, with a focus on data structure, missing data, access procedures, and methodological aspects for scientific research.

methodsWe examined legal frameworks, data access procedures, and the structure of the nationwide basic oncology dataset (oBDS), particularly the components relevant to radiotherapy (RT). The completeness and comprehensiveness of RT data across federal states were assessed using national registry data from the German Center for Cancer Registry Data (ZfKD) for the years 2020-2022.

resultsThe cancer registries provide structured data on RT through the oBDS, including treatment intent, technique, target area, and side effects. However, significant variability in terms of completeness and reporting standards persists among federal states. Missing data rates remain high in some regions, particularly for key RT parameters such as treatment technique, the relationship to surgery, and boost application. Methodological challenges for scientific use include handling missing data, confounding, immortal time bias, and exposure misclassification.

conclusionDespite existing limitations, cancer registry data in Germany represent a valuable resource for real-world research in radiation oncology. They allow for large-scale population-based studies beyond the constraints of clinical trials. With improved data harmonization, methodological rigor, and future data linkages (e.g., to health insurance data), registry-based studies can contribute significantly to evidence-based decision-making and quality improvement in radiation oncology.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsRadiation OncologyRegistriesGermanyHumansCancer registryData completeness and qualityMethodological challengesRadiation oncologyReal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID41212198
PMCPMC12819489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.