1

EUROCHIP PILOT STUDIES IN POLAND

Varenna, October 2007

Magdalena Bielska-Lasota and the Polish EUROCHIP WG

2

Main problem:

expected difficulties in organization and conducting population-based study on cancer treatment.

That resulted in delay of starting the EUROCHIP Pilot Studies formally.

Conclusions from:

EUROCHIP - Domain Group of Care & Treatment – EUROCHIP Pilot StudiesEUROCHIP - Domain Group of Care & Treatment – EUROCHIP Pilot Studies

Brighton (UK), 15th February 2006Brighton (UK), 15th February 2006

were presented at the Meeting of Polish Cancer Registries in Warsaw,

16th February 2006

3

Number of inhabitants in the regions covered

by CRs participating in EUROCHIP Pilot Studies

Males Females Total %

Gliwice Kielce OpoleTotal

Polska

2 275 879634 170510 455

3 420 504

18 478 368

2 430 780665 804542 623

3 639 207

19 701 881

4 706 6591 299 9741 053 0787 059 711

38 180 249

12.33.42.8

18.5 100

Zatoński W. et al

4

Cancer incidence /ASR/ in the regions covered

by CRs participating in EUROCHIP Pilot Studies

BreastFemales

Colon (C 18)

Males

Colon (C 18)

Females

Rectum(C 20)Males

Rectum(C 20)

Females

Gliwice KielceOpole

Polska

39.035.138.8

40.6

15.415.716.7

15.2

10.49.88.9

9.9

10.413.0

15.1

10.8

5.67.27.4

5.6

http://85.128.14.124/krn

5

Breast cancer patientsAge distribution in Poland, and participating regions

Age group 

Poland Silesia + Holycross + Opolskie

N % N %

0-39 596 4.9 99 4.6

40-49 2349 19.5 435 20.0

50-59 3640 30.2 615 28.3

60-69 2631 21.8 500 23.0

70+ 2833 23.5 524 24.1

6

Colon and rectal cancers Age distribution in Poland and participating regions

Age group 

Poland Silesia + Holycross + Opolskie

N % N %

0-39 215 1.6 39 1.5

40-49 766 6.8 138 5.3

50-59 2260 17.1 452 17.4

60-69 3624 27.5 817 31.5

70+ 6316 47.9 1145 44.2

7

Number of cases collected for the Study and number of new cases in the regions

BreastFemales

Colon (C 18-21)M + F

Total

Gliwice No %Kielce No %Opole No %Total No %    

40/14732.7

90/37024.3

60/33018,2

190/21738.7

80/16764.8

94/51518.3

60/40015.0

234/25919.0

4248.9

8

Breast cancer patients. Age distribution in participating regions,

and cases collected for the study

  Region StudyAge group N % N %

  Silesia Gliwice0-39 63 4.3 1 2.4

40-49 311 21.1 11 26.850-59 424 28.8 11 26.860-69 353 24.0 11 26.870+ 322 21.9 7 17.1

  Holycross Kielce0-39 21 5.7 7 7.8

40-49 58 15.7 13 14.450-59 109 29.5 29 32.260-69 76 20.5 20 22.270+ 106 28.6 21 23.3

  Opolskie Opole0-39 15 4.5 0 0.0

40-49 66 20.0 15 25.050-59 82 24.8 14 23.360-69 71 21.5 14 23.370+ 96 29.1 17 28.3

9

Colon + rectal cancersAge distribution in participating regions

and cases collected for the studyRegion Study

  N % N %  Silesia Gliwice

0-39 26 1.6 4 5.040-49 88 5.3 1 1.350-59 320 19.1 20 25.060-69 512 30.5 31 38.870+ 730 43.6 24 30.0

  Holycross Kielce0-39 8 1.6 3 3.2

40-49 22 4.3 6 6.450-59 77 15.0 20 21.360-69 157 30.5 34 36.270+ 251 48.7 31 33.0

  Opolskie Opole0-39 5 1.3 0 0.0

40-49 28 7.0 7 11.750-59 55 13.8 9 15.060-69 148 37.0 22 36.770+ 164 41.0 22 36.7

10

Methods of data collection

Every 10-th patient recorded in population based CRs in Gliwice (Silesia voivodship) was selected and every 5-th recorded in Kielce (Holycross ) and Opole (Opolskie)

Clinical data were collected from: Medical records of the patients treated or consulted in regional Cancer Center Sometimes pathological laboratories were contacted Patients treated in other hospitals: - Gliwice - they called local hospitals by phone - Kielce - CRs workers travelled themselves to the local hospitals - Opole - medical records were sent from local hospitals to the CR upon request Sometimes pathological laboratories were also contacted

If medical records were not available: In Gliwice - they skipped and came to the next patient registered in CR

(estimation was not done) In Kielce - they skipped and came to the next 5-th registered patient

(estimation: ca 8%) In Opole - they skipped and came to the next 5-th registered patient

(estimation: ca 10%)

11

Difficulties in data collection

1. Limitation of CRs data in scope of data on diagnosis and treatment

2. Lack of unified system of data transferring between CRs and local

hospitals treating cancer patients

3. Heterogeneous system in recording of medical procedures in various

hospitals

12

Final Remarks

CRs in Gliwice, Kielce and Opole are convinced that having above

experience they will be able to develop better collaboration with local

hospitals in the next step of the study in order to minimise the selection

biasand produce more accurate data.

CRs in Gliwice, Kielce and Opole declare their wish to participate in the

project in future, if it comes to its realization

13

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Scientific publications:

1. Delays in treatment of breast and colorectal cancers in Holycross, Silesia and Opolskie woivodsips. Results of EUROCHIP pilot study in Poland. Bielska-Lasota M, Czerw K, Góźdź S, Kołosza Z, Siudowska U, Rabczenko D, Zemła B and EUROCHIP WG. In preparation for Nowotwory J. Oncol. /Polish, abstract in English/

2. Cancer indicators – the necessity for regular monitoring in Poland. Bielska-Lasota M et al. In preparation for Nowotwory J. Oncol. /Polish, abstract in English/

3. The reasons of poor results of cervical cancer treatment in Poland. Bielska-Lasota M. Warszawa 2006. /Polish, abstract in English/

Lecture:

Cancer as the health problem in Europe. Strategies for cancer control. Bielska-Lasota M. National Institute of Hygiene. Scientific Committee Meeting. 26 September 2007

14

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Other:

Participation in public education activity and support of urological cancer patients group with the foundation – „Wygrajmy Zdrowie“ (“Win the health”)

1. How can we fight cancer at the national level in Poland. Skoneczna I, Bielska-Lasota M. and EUROCHIP WG [in:] Guide for the patients receiving chemotherapy. Michalski W. Publication free of charge at the state of searching for the printing founder

2. http://www.wygrajmyzdrowie.pl/about-us.htm

15