Article

Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG).

Joakim Larsens Vej 14, 3. th., 2000 Frederiksberg. .
Danish medical bulletin (Impact Factor: 1.01). 06/2008; 55(2):129.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG) constitutes a multidisciplinary organization established in 1975 by the Danish Surgical Society. The aims of DBCG are first and foremost a nation-wide standardization of breast cancer treatment based on novel therapeutic principles, collaboration between experts handling diagnostic work-up, surgery, radiotherapy, medical oncology, and basic research, and, further, a complete registration of relevant clinical data in a national database attached to DBCG. Data are processed by the Secretariat personnel composed of statisticians, data managers, and data secretaries making current analyses of outcome results feasible. DBCG is run by the Executive Committee, which consists of expert members appointed by their respective scientific societies. From 1978, the DBCG project gained widely accession from participating units, and since then nearly all newly diagnosed breast cancer incident cases have been reported and registered in the national database. Today, the database includes approximately 80,000 incidents of primary breast cancer. Annually, the Secretariat receives roughly 1.5 million parameters to be entered into the database. Over the years, DBCG has generated five treatment programmes including in situ lesions and primary invasive breast cancer. Probands are subdivided into risk groups based on a given risk pattern and allocated to various treatment programmes accordingly. The scientific initiatives are conducted in the form of register- and cohort analysis or randomized trials in national and international protocolized settings. Yearly, about 4000 new incident cases of primary invasive breast cancer and about 200 in situ lesions enter the national programmes. Further, about 600 women with hereditary disposition of breast cancer are registered and evaluated on a risk scale. The main achievement of DBCG is a reduction of the relative risk of death of up to 20% and a 5-year overall survival ascending from 60% to roughly 80%.

0 Followers
 · 
122 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to compare the treatment efficacies of subcutaneous interferon-α-2A (IFN-α-2A) injections versus prednisolone enemas in active left-sided ulcerative colitis in an open-labeled, randomized study.METHODS:Sixteen ulcerative colitis patients received IFN-α-2A subcutaneously (dosage: first wk, 9 MIU three times weekly [t.i.w.]; second wk, 6 MIU t.i.w.; wk 3–12, 3 MIU t.i.w.), and 16 received prednisolone enemas for 30 days (100 ml once daily, 0.25 mg of prednisolone/ml). The Powell-Tuck Index, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) score, and rectal histological activities were assessed before and after treatment. Thirteen patients in the IFN-α-2A group and all 16 in the prednisolone enema group completed the treatment.RESULTS:IFN-α-2A treatment showed significant improvements in the Powell-Tuck Index (p = 0.0002), IBDQ score (p = 0.002), and rectal histological activity scores (p = 0.02). In the enema group, significant improvements were found in the Powell-Tuck Index (p = 0.0009), whereas no significant improvements were detected in the IBDQ scores (p = 0.055) or rectal histological scores (p = 0.052). There were no differences between scores of the two groups either before or after treatment. Only moderate side effects from the IFN-α-2A treatment were seen during the first 2–4 wk of treatment.CONCLUSION:IFN-α-2A treatment resulted in significant depression of the disease activity as reflected by the Powell-Tuck Index, IBDQ score, and histological disease activity scoring. The preliminary trial thus suggests that IFN-α-2A may be effective in the treatment of active left-sided ulcerative colitis. Larger, randomized trials are, however, warranted to confirm this finding, owing to possible type II errors in group comparisons.
    The American Journal of Gastroenterology 01/2001; 96(6):1807-1815. DOI:10.1016/S0002-9270(01)02438-8 · 9.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to compare the treatment efficacies of subcutaneous interferon-alpha-2A (IFN-alpha-2A) injections versus prednisolone enemas in active left-sided ulcerative colitis in an open-labeled, randomized study. Sixteen ulcerative colitis patients received IFN-alpha-2A subcutaneously (dosage: first wk, 9 MIU three times weekly [t.i.w.]; second wk, 6 MIU t.i.w.; wk 3-12, 3 MIU t.i.w.), and 16 received prednisolone enemas for 30 days (100 ml once daily, 0.25 mg of prednisolone/ml). The Powell-Tuck Index, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) score, and rectal histological activities were assessed before and after treatment. Thirteen patients in the IFN-alpha-2A group and all 16 in the prednisolone enema group completed the treatment. IFN-alpha-2A treatment showed significant improvements in the Powell-Tuck Index (p = 0.0002), IBDQ score (p = 0.002), and rectal histological activity scores (p = 0.02). In the enema group, significant improvements were found in the Powell-Tuck Index (p = 0.0009), whereas no significant improvements were detected in the IBDQ scores (p = 0.055) or rectal histological scores (p = 0.052). There were no differences between scores of the two groups either before or after treatment. Only moderate side effects from the IFN-alpha-2A treatment were seen during the first 2-4 wk of treatment. IFN-alpha-2A treatment resulted in significant depression of the disease activity as reflected by the Powell-Tuck Index, IBDQ score, and histological disease activity scoring. The preliminary trial thus suggests that IFN-alpha-2A may be effective in the treatment of active left-sided ulcerative colitis. Larger, randomized trials are, however, warranted to confirm this finding, owing to possible type II errors in group comparisons.
    The American Journal of Gastroenterology 07/2001; 96(6):1807-15. DOI:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03875.x · 9.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate attitudes to clinical research amongst cancer trial participants and nonparticipants, and to compare results with those from previous studies amongst participants in noncancer trials. Trial participating respondents were given three questionnaires during the clinical trials. Respondents amongst patients declining randomization answered a single questionnaire. Participants and nonparticipants in randomized clinical cancer trials. Forty-one participants and 47 nonparticipants in cancer trials. Altruistic motives of physicians to conduct medical research were highly rated. Attitudes towards clinical research were positive in all groups, with nonparticipant respondents being the least positive. Eight to nine tenths found scientific testing necessary before general health service implementation. Trial participants were, as compared with nonparticipating respondents, more positive towards both participation of self and others. Both personal and altruistic motives for participation were highly rated. Primary reasons for nonparticipation were fear of 'the unknown' and/or unease with randomization. Only a minority felt a moral problem created by declining trial participation. Respondents amongst noncancer participants were more satisfied with the information given than both cancer participants and cancer nonparticipants. Negative experiences in cancer participants generally dealt with frustration related to seeing too many physicians at check-up appointments. Attitudes towards clinical research are generally positive even in cancer nonparticipants. Both personal and altruistic motives for participation were highly rated. A fear of 'the unknown' and resentments towards randomization were primary reasons to renounce participation. Seeing too many physicians at check-up appointments seems to be an important factor for negative experiences in cancer trial participants.
    Journal of Internal Medicine 03/2002; 251(2):156-68. DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2796.2002.00949.x · 5.79 Impact Factor
Show more