1. 1 EUROCHIP PILOT STUDIES IN POLAND Varenna, October 2007 Magdalena Bielska-Lasota and the Polish EUROCHIP WG

2. 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 Studies Brighton (UK), 15th February 2006 were presented at the Meeting of Polish Cancer Registries in Warsaw, 16th February 2006

3. 3 Number of inhabitants in the regions covered by CRs participating in EUROCHIP Pilot Studies MalesFemalesTotal% Gliwice Kielce Opole Total Polska 2 275 879 634 170 510 455 3 420 504 18 478 368 2 430 780 665 804 542 623 3 639 207 19 701 881 4 706 659 1 299 974 1 053 078 7 059 711 38 180 249 12.3 3.4 2.8 18.5 100 Zatoński W. et al

4. 4 Cancer incidence /ASR/ in the regions covered by CRs participating in EUROCHIP Pilot Studies Breast Females Colon (C 18) Males Colon (C 18) Females Rectum (C 20) Males Rectum (C 20) Females Gliwice Kielce Opole Polska 39.0 35.1 38.8 40.6 15.4 15.7 16.7 15.2 10.4 9.8 8.9 9.9 10.4 13.0 15.1 10.8 5.6 7.2 7.4 5.6 http://85.128.14.124/krn

5. 5 Breast cancer patients Age distribution in Poland, and participating regions Age group Poland Silesia + Holycross + Opolskie N%N% 0-395964.9994.6 40-49234919.543520.0 50-59364030.261528.3 60-69263121.850023.0 70+283323.552424.1

6. 6 Colon and rectal cancers Age distribution in Poland and participating regions Age group Poland Silesia + Holycross + Opolskie N%N% 0-392151.6391.5 40-497666.81385.3 50-59226017.145217.4 60-69362427.581731.5 70+631647.9114544.2

7. 7 Number of cases collected for the Study and number of new cases in the regions Breast Females Colon (C 18-21) M + F Total Gliwice No % Kielce No % Opole No % Total No % 40/1473 2.7 90/370 24.3 60/330 18,2 190/2173 8.7 80/1676 4.8 94/515 18.3 60/400 15.0 234/2591 9.0 424 8.9

8. 8 Breast cancer patients. Age distribution in participating regions, and cases collected for the study RegionStudy Age groupN%N% SilesiaGliwice 0-39634.312.4 40-4931121.11126.8 50-5942428.81126.8 60-6935324.01126.8 70+32221.9717.1 HolycrossKielce 0-39215.777.8 40-495815.71314.4 50-5910929.52932.2 60-697620.52022.2 70+10628.62123.3 OpolskieOpole 0-39154.500.0 40-496620.01525.0 50-598224.81423.3 60-697121.51423.3 70+9629.11728.3

9. 9 Colon + rectal cancers Age distribution in participating regions and cases collected for the study RegionStudy N%N% SilesiaGliwice 0-39261.645.0 40-49885.311.3 50-5932019.12025.0 60-6951230.53138.8 70+73043.62430.0 HolycrossKielce 0-3981.633.2 40-49224.366.4 50-597715.02021.3 60-6915730.53436.2 70+25148.73133.0 OpolskieOpole 0-3951.300.0 40-49287.0711.7 50-595513.8915.0 60-6914837.02236.7 70+16441.02236.7

10. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.htmhttp://www.wygrajmyzdrowie.pl/about-us.htm

15. 15