@article{LichthardtKerscherDietzetal.2016,
  author    = {Lichthardt, Sven and Kerscher, Alexander and Dietz, Ulrich A. and Jurowich, Christian and Kunzmann, Volker and von Rahden, Burkhard H. A. and Germer, Christoph-Thomas and Wiegering, Armin},
  title     = {Original article: role of adjuvant chemotherapy in a perioperative chemotherapy regimen for gastric cancer},
  series = {BMC Cancer},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {BMC Cancer},
  number    = {650},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12885-016-2708-0},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-147743},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Background Multimodal treatment strategies - perioperative chemotherapy (CTx) and radical surgery - are currently accepted as treatment standard for locally advanced gastric cancer. However, the role of adjuvant postoperative CTx (postCTx) in addition to neoadjuvant preoperative CTx (preCTx) in this setting remains controversial. Methods Between 4/2006 and 12/2013, 116 patients with locally advanced gastric cancer were treated with preCTx. 72 patients (62 \%), in whom complete tumor resection (R0, subtotal/total gastrectomy with D2-lymphadenectomy) was achieved, were divided into two groups, one of which receiving adjuvant therapy (n = 52) and one without (n = 20). These groups were analyzed with regard to survival and exclusion criteria for adjuvant therapy. Results Postoperative complications, as well as their severity grade, did not correlate with fewer postCTx cycles administered (p = n.s.). Long-term survival was shorter in patients receiving postCTx in comparison to patients without postCTx, but did not show statistical significance. In per protocol analysis by excluding two patients with perioperative death, a shorter 3-year survival rate was observed in patients receiving postCTx compared to patients without postCTx (3-year survival: 71.2 \% postCTx group vs. 90.0 \% non-postCTx group; p = 0.038). Conclusion These results appear contradicting to the anticipated outcome. While speculative, they question the value of post-CTx. Prospectively randomized studies are needed to elucidate the role of postCTx.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WiegeringIsbertDietzetal.2014,
  author    = {Wiegering, Armin and Isbert, Christoph and Dietz, Ulrich A. and Kunzmann, Volker and Ackermann, Sabine and Kerscher, Alexander and Maeder, Uwe and Flentje, Michael and Schlegel, Nicolas and Reibetanz, Joachim and Germer, Christoph-Thomas and Klein, Ingo},
  title     = {Multimodal therapy in treatment of rectal cancer is associated with improved survival and reduced local recurrence - a retrospective analysis over two decades},
  doi       = {10.1186/1471-2407-14-816},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-110606},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Background The management of rectal cancer (RC) has substantially changed over the last decades with the implementation of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, adjuvant therapy and improved surgery such as total mesorectal excision (TME). It remains unclear in which way these approaches overall influenced the rate of local recurrence and overall survival. Methods Clinical, histological and survival data of 658 out of 662 consecutive patients with RC were analyzed for treatment and prognostic factors from a prospectively expanded single-institutional database. Findings were then stratified according to time of diagnosis in patient groups treated between 1993 and 2001 and 2002 and 2010. Results The study population included 658 consecutive patients with rectal cancer between 1993 and 2010. Follow up data was available for 99.6\% of all 662 treated patients. During the time period between 2002 and 2010 significantly more patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (17.6\% vs. 60\%) and adjuvant chemotherapy (37.9\% vs. 58.4\%). Also, the rate of reported TME during surgery increased. The rate of local or distant metastasis decreased over time, and tumor related 5-year survival increased significantly with from 60\% to 79\%. Conclusion In our study population, the implementation of treatment changes over the last decade improved the patient's outcome significantly. Improvements were most evident for UICC stage III rectal cancer.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{LuekeHallerUtpateletal.2022,
  author    = {L{\"u}ke, Florian and Haller, Florian and Utpatel, Kirsten and Krebs, Markus and Meidenbauer, Norbert and Scheiter, Alexander and Spoerl, Silvia and Heudobler, Daniel and Sparrer, Daniela and Kaiser, Ulrich and Keil, Felix and Schubart, Christoph and T{\"o}gel, Lars and Einhell, Sabine and Dietmaier, Wolfgang and Huss, Ralf and Dintner, Sebastian and Sommer, Sebastian and Jordan, Frank and Goebeler, Maria-Elisabeth and Metz, Michaela and Haake, Diana and Scheytt, Mithun and Gerhard-Hartmann, Elena and Maurus, Katja and Br{\"a}ndlein, Stephanie and Rosenwald, Andreas and Hartmann, Arndt and M{\"a}rkl, Bruno and Einsele, Hermann and Mackensen, Andreas and Herr, Wolfgang and Kunzmann, Volker and Bargou, Ralf and Beckmann, Matthias W. and Pukrop, Tobias and Trepel, Martin and Evert, Matthias and Claus, Rainer and Kerscher, Alexander},
  title     = {Identification of disparities in personalized cancer care — a joint approach of the German WERA consortium},
  series = {Cancers},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Cancers},
  number    = {20},
  issn      = {2072-6694},
  doi       = {10.3390/cancers14205040},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-290311},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {(1) Background: molecular tumor boards (MTBs) are crucial instruments for discussing and allocating targeted therapies to suitable cancer patients based on genetic findings. Currently, limited evidence is available regarding the regional impact and the outreach component of MTBs; (2) Methods: we analyzed MTB patient data from four neighboring Bavarian tertiary care oncology centers in W{\"u}rzburg, Erlangen, Regensburg, and Augsburg, together constituting the WERA Alliance. Absolute patient numbers and regional distribution across the WERA-wide catchment area were weighted with local population densities; (3) Results: the highest MTB patient numbers were found close to the four cancer centers. However, peaks in absolute patient numbers were also detected in more distant and rural areas. Moreover, weighting absolute numbers with local population density allowed for identifying so-called white spots—regions within our catchment that were relatively underrepresented in WERA MTBs; (4) Conclusions: investigating patient data from four neighboring cancer centers, we comprehensively assessed the regional impact of our MTBs. The results confirmed the success of existing collaborative structures with our regional partners. Additionally, our results help identifying potential white spots in providing precision oncology and help establishing a joint WERA-wide outreach strategy.},
  language  = {en}
}