Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Stage of cancer diagnoses among migrants from the former Soviet Union in comparison to the German population – are diagnoses among migrants delayed?

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 3 and
  • 1Email author
Contributed equally
BMC Public HealthBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201818:148

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5046-0

  • Received: 18 March 2017
  • Accepted: 8 January 2018
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

In this study, we compared stage at diagnosis, standardized incidence ratio (SIR) and standardized mortality ratio (SMR) of most frequent cancer diagnoses between re-settlers (Aussiedler) from the former Soviet Union and the general population in the Saarland in Germany to assess possible delays in diagnosis of cancer among this migrant group.

Methods

Lung cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, malignant melanoma of the skin and stomach cancer diagnoses among a cohort of 18,619 re-settlers living in the Saarland between 1990 and 2009 were identified by the federal state’s cancer registry. Vital status was available for the respective time-period and used to calculate SIR and SMR in comparison to the autochthonous population. Tumor stages were condensed into local and advanced stages. Odds ratios (OR) for an advanced tumor stage were modeled in dependence of re-settler-status and relevant covariates by logistic regression. Missing values were addressed in a sensitivity analysis. The influence of duration of stay in Germany on advanced stage diagnosis was analyzed among re-settlers.

Results

SIR and SMR of lung and breast cancer were lower among female re-settlers, while SIR and SMR of colorectal and prostate cancer were lower among male re-settlers. SIR and SMR of stomach cancer were elevated among both sexes. Female re-settlers showed an elevated OR for being diagnosed with advanced stage breast cancer. Both male and female re-settlers showed an elevated OR when observing all six sites combined (OR among males 1.47, p = 0.04; OR among females 1.37, p = 0.05). The result of elevated ORs was supported in the sensitivity analysis. Finally, male re-settlers showed a weak association between duration of stay in Germany and reduced risk for advanced stage diagnosis.

Conclusion

Re-settlers were more likely to be diagnosed at an advanced tumor stage. These findings are in line with previous research having shown unfavorable health care utilization of re-settlers. Overall, low mortality rates despite an increased risk of advanced stage at diagnosis argue for a sufficient follow-up care, comparable to the autochthonous population.

Keywords

  • Lung cancer
  • Breast cancer
  • Colorectal cancer
  • Prostate cancer
  • Skin cancer
  • Stomach cancer
  • Migrants
  • Stage at diagnosis
  • Screening
  • Epidemiology

Background

In 2014, every fifth person living in Germany had a foreign background, thereby making Germany a land of immigration [1]. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in Germany [2], and migrant studies are important to provide insight into early detection and follow-up care of cancer among these vulnerable populations [3, 4]. To date, there is no study that investigated tumor stages at time of diagnosis among immigrants in Germany [3].

A special group within the immigrant population in Germany are the so-called re-settlers (“Aussiedler” or “Spätaussiedler” in German), which is the term for ethnic Germans from the former Soviet Union (FSU), whose ancestors had migrated to Russia particularly during the 17th and 18th century [5]. With the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, more than two million ethnic Germans immigrated without restrictions by invitation of the German government from the FSU to Germany, mainly between 1990 and 2000 [6, 7]. The FSU states, where the vast majority of re-settlers originate from, are Kazakhstan (approx. 50%), the Russian Federation (approx. 30%) and Kirgizstan (approx. 5%) [8]. All re-settlers obtained the German citizenship with all rights and duties directly after migration to Germany [8].

The cancer sites examined in this study are lung cancer (LC), colorectal cancer (CRC), breast cancer (BC), prostate cancer (PC), malignant melanoma of the skin (MM) and stomach cancer (SC), representing the most common cancer sites among re-settlers. In our previous research, we set up a cohort of re-settlers in the federal state of the Saarland, which is located in the south-west of Germany at the French border to study cancer incidence. All-cause cancer mortality of the general population of the Saarland is relatively high compared to Germany [9].

PC, BC, LC and CRC are the most common tumors in the general population of Germany. PC is the most frequent cancer among men in Germany (in 2012 age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) 106.7 using European standard population) and the third most common cancer related cause of death among men. Similarly, BC is the most frequent cancer found among women and one out of eight women is estimated to develop BC during her lifetime (in 2012 ASIR 117.4) [10]. LC is the second most common cancer and the most common cause of death related to cancer in men (in 2012 ASIR 59.1) with an increasing incidence among women in Germany in the past decade (in 2012 ASIR 27.7) [10]. CRC is the second most common cancer in Germany with every seventh of all cancers diagnosed being either located in the colon or the rectum (in 2012 ASIR for men 57.0, ASIR for women 36.5).

In Germany, cancer screening programs for BC, CRC, PC and MM are being offered systematically for all members of statutory health insurance (SHI) and private health insurance (PHI) on a voluntary basis, while screening for LC is being discussed for cost-effectiveness [11, 12]. The mammography screening of BC was implemented in the Saarland in 2005, inviting women between the ages of 50 and 69 every second year. Most BC cases are diagnosed at an early stage with tumor sizes smaller than 2 cm accounting for 53% of all diagnoses. Additionally, mammography screening as a method of detection was shown to be an independent favorable prognostic factor for overall survival [13]. Considering secondary prevention of CRC, men and women between 50 and 54 are entitled to an annual fecal occult blood test and from the age of 55 onwards to a colonoscopy every 10 years. Following the implementation of screening colonoscopy in Germany in 2002, age-standardized rates for both incidence and mortality significantly declined within a decade, contrary to the increasing trend of incidence rates in the preceding decades. Also, diagnoses of small tumors increased, while tumors with advanced and missing T status decreased from 2000 to 2008 [14]. Screening for PC entails an annual physical examination including a digital rectal exam for men above 45 and is recommended since 1982 [15]. Three quarters of all diagnoses are early stage diagnoses [12]. Finally, since the implementation of the skin cancer screening program in Germany in 2008, MM incidence in Germany has more than tripled compared to the 1980s (ASIR 19.2 in both sexes in 2012), while mortality rates remain unchanged. Two thirds of all diagnoses are early stage diagnoses [12].

To date, there are no screening methods implemented into clinical routine for LC and SC. Almost 70% of all LC patients are diagnosed at stages III or IV [16] and only 25% of all patients are candidates for surgery at the time of diagnosis, showing the limited possibilities for effective treatment at an advanced stage at diagnosis [17]. While the incidence rates for SC have been falling in Germany and other industrial countries for the last few decades (ASIR for men 15.6, ASIR for women 8.3 in 2012), overall prognosis of SC is still unfavorable with relative 5-year survival rates around 30% for both sexes. Two thirds of all diagnoses are in an advanced stage at the time of diagnosis.

Stage at diagnosis is an indicator for the time of diagnosis and an important determinant for overall prognosis. Cancer incidence and mortality show the actual disease burden and the effectiveness of follow-up therapy. Due to varying risk behavior and health beliefs, migrants often represent a vulnerable subpopulation with reduced health care access and lower participation in health care programs, leading to delay in diagnosis [18].

In this study, we will assess whether tumor diagnoses among re-settlers are delayed by comparing the tumor stages at diagnosis between re-settlers and the autochthonous Saarland population utilizing data from the Saarland cancer registry. The comparison of SIR and standardized mortality ratios (SMR) will contribute evidence to the evaluation of follow-up care of re-settlers and whether it is comparable to the general population in Germany.

Methods

Data and populations

This retrospective, population-based cohort study observed re-settlers from the FSU who migrated to the federal state of the Saarland during the period 1990 through 2005. The study cohort was built-up by collecting records of immigrated re-settlers from regional population registries and finally included 18,619 re-settlers, which depicts 64% of all re-settlers having settled in the Saarland in this period [19]. In this manuscript the terms general population or autochthonous population of the Saarland describe all inhabitants of the federal state excluding the population of our cohort. The representativeness of the cohort for this period has been ensured in previous studies as cardio-vascular disease mortality is similar in a large representative cohort of re-settlers in the state of Northrhine-Westphalia [19]. Vital status and causes of death of re-settlers was Germany-wide ascertained through local population and health registries between 1990 and 2009 for 95% of the cohort [20].

The Saarland Cancer Registry provided information on incident cases of LC (ICD-9: 162), CRC (ICD-9: 153, 154), BC (ICD-9: 174), PC (ICD-9: 185), MM (ICD-9: 172) and SC (ICD-9: 151) from 1990 to 2009. All cancer diagnoses occurring after an initial cancer diagnosis were considered multiple primary tumors. Multiple primary tumors were included in all analyses. The Saarland Cancer Registry was established in 1967 and covers the population of the federal state with its approximately 1.02 million inhabitants by the end of 2009 [21]. The cohort was set up in the Saarland because of high data quality of the state’s cancer registry.

Information on International Classification of Diseases 9 (ICD-9) code, sex, age at diagnosis, region of residence and TNM classification were available. A variable ‘population density of region of residence’ was created by categorizing each of the seven districts of the Saarland into three categories of population density (less than 300 inhabitants per km2 [inh./km2], 300 inh./km2 to 700 inh./km2 and more than 700 inh./km2). We introduced the variable to be able to control for rural-urban differences which we assumed to influence access to health services, as access might be poorer in rural areas [22]. Computer assisted record linkage was used to identify re-settlers within local population registries and the cancer registry data via name and date of birth [19].

For the analysis of cancer registry data, the European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR) recommends a condensed coding of stages [23] due to expected missing values in population-wide data and varying versions of the TNM classification. For this reason, N and M status were used to categorize stages into a local (N0 M0 or N0 Mx), advanced (N + M+ or N + Mx or NxM+) or missing stage (NxM0 or NxMx) for all studied cancer sites. The definition of condensed stages and stage distribution is shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Description and distribution of condensed staging

Stage

T status

N status

M status

Cancer site

Re-settlers N (%)

General population N (%)

Local

Any

Lung cancer

5 (5.3%)

1221 (7.8%)

Colorectal cancer

9 (11.5%)

3059 (16.1%)

Breast cancer

31 (33.7%)

5512 (35.0%)

Prostate cancer

4 (7.5%)

1357 (11.0%)

Malignant melanoma

12 (57.1%)

1514 (53.9%)

Stomach cancer

11 (16.9%)

367 (7.5%)

All sites combined

72 (17.9%)

13,030 (18.5%)

Any

Missing

Lung cancer

1 (1.1%)

436 (2.8%)

Colorectal cancer

17 (21.8%)

3505 (18.5%)

Breast cancer

4 (4.3%)

883 (5.6%)

Prostate cancer

14 (26.4%)

2069 (16.7%)

Malignant melanoma

1 (4.8%)

39 (1.4%)

Stomach cancer

3 (4.6%)

358 (7.3%)

All sites combined

40 (9.9%)

7290 (10.4%)

Advanced

Any

+

Lung cancer

22 (23.4%)

2272 (14.6%)

Colorectal cancer

9 (11.5%)

1862 (9.8%)

Breast cancer

30 (32.6%)

3579 (22.7%)

Prostate cancer

0 (0.0%)

110 (0.9%)

Malignant melanoma

1 (4.8%)

107 (3.8%)

Stomach cancer

8 (12.3%)

462 (9.4%)

All sites combined

70 (17.4%)

8392 (11.9%)

Any

+

Missing

Lung cancer

7 (7.4%)

715 (4.6%)

Colorectal cancer

15 (19.2%)

2555 (13.5%)

Breast cancer

9 (9.8%)

1352 (8.6%)

Prostate cancer

0 (0.0%)

261 (21.1%)

Malignant melanoma

0 (0.0%)

29 (1.0%)

Stomach cancer

7 (10.8%)

622 (12.6%)

All sites combined

38 (9.4%)

5534 (7.9%)

Any

Any

+

Lung cancer

33 (35.1%)

5393 (34.6%)

Colorectal cancer

15 (19.2%)

2861 (15.1%)

Breast cancer

8 (8.7%)

1115 (7.1%)

Prostate cancer

1 (1.9%)

605 (4.9%)

Malignant melanoma

2 (9.5%)

156 (5.6%)

Stomach cancer

14 (21.5%)

988 (20.1%)

All sites combined

73 (18.1%)

11,118 (15.8%)

Missing

Any

Missing

Lung cancer

1 (1.1%)

322 (2.1%)

Colorectal cancer

0 (0.0%)

226 (1.2%)

Breast cancer

0 (0.0%)

312 (2.0%)

Prostate cancer

0 (0.0%)

572 (4.6%)

Malignant melanoma

2 (9.5%)

134 (4.8%)

Stomach cancer

0 (0.0%)

60 (1.2%)

All sites combined

3 (0.7%)

1626 (2.3%)

Any

Missing

Missing

Lung cancer

25 (26.6%)

5206 (33.4%)

Colorectal cancer

13 (16.7%)

4879 (25.8%)

Breast cancer

10 (10.9%)

2989 (19.0%)

Prostate cancer

34 (64.2%)

7400 (59.8%)

Malignant melanoma

3 (14.3%)

830 (29.5%)

Stomach cancer

22 (33.8%)

2063 (41.9%)

All sites combined

107 (26.6%)

23,367 (33.2%)

(−: not involved, +: involved)

Statistical methods

Person-years (PY) were calculated for each sex, five-year age group, and calendar year. SMR for each cancer site was calculated using recorded deaths and PY of re-settlers together with age-specific death rates of the Saarland population. For SIR analysis, re-settlers were censored when moving out of the Saarland and PY were calculated for living within the Saarland accordingly. Incident cancer diagnoses among re-settlers, PY within the Saarland and age-specific incidence rates of the Saarland population were used to calculate SIR. SIR was calculated for each tumor type separately and for all sites combined. Ninety-five percent confidence limits (95%CI) were calculated using the exact method [24].

Logistic regression was performed to assess the association between advanced stage at diagnosis and re-settler status. Condensed stage (advanced-local) at diagnosis was the dependent, and re-settler status the independent variable while adjusting for age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis and population density of region of residence. The model was calculated separately for each sex and cancer site as well as for all sites combined including all LC, CRC, BC, PC, MM and SC diagnoses from the Saarland cancer registry between 1990 and 2009. Male MM cases were not analyzed individually, as there were no advanced stage diagnoses registered among re-settlers, but they were included in the combined analysis.

A sensitivity analysis including all studied cancer sites was performed to assess the influence of cases with missing information on staging, in which two possible scenarios were considered. In the best-case scenario, all cases with missing stage were considered as local stage and in the worst-case scenario as advanced stage.

An additional logistic regression was performed among re-settlers only to assess the influence of duration of stay in Germany on the diagnosis of advanced stages. As we assumed a non-linear trend, condensed stage at diagnosis was modeled conditional to duration of stay in Germany, transformed as a quadratic term. Transformation was determined using fractional polynomials [25]. The analysis was adjusted for age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis and population density of region of residence. We calculated this model separately for each sex and for the six cancer sites combined.

The statistical software R was used to conduct statistical analyses (Version 3.13).

Results

The Saarland Cancer Registry observed 15,565 diagnoses of lung cancer, 18,947 diagnoses of colorectal cancer, 15,742 diagnoses of female breast cancer, 12,374 diagnoses of prostate cancer, 2809 diagnoses of malignant melanoma and 4920 diagnoses of stomach cancer in the Saarland between 1990 and 2009. Among the re-settler cohort 94, 78, 92, 53, 21 and 65 diagnoses were observed, respectively.

A descriptive analysis of the re-settler cohort including their accumulated PY used to calculate SIR and SMR is shown in Table 2. Concerning LC, male re-settlers’ SIR and SMR was somewhat higher than the general population of the Saarland however not significantly, while female re-settlers had significantly lower SIR and SMR of LC (Table 3, SIR = 0.42 95%CI 0.21–0.76, SMR = 0.53 95%CI 0.29–0.89). Male re-settlers had lower SIR and SMR of CRC (SIR = 0.50 95%CI 0.34–0.72, SMR = 0.52 95%CI 0.30–0.85), while female re-settlers had comparable SIR and SMR. Female re-settlers had lower SIR and SMR of BC (SIR = 0.80 95%CI 0.65–0.98, SMR = 0.63 95%CI 0.42–0.93), while male re-settlers had lower SIR and SMR of PC (SIR = 0.75 95%CI 0.57–0.98, SMR = 0.30 95%CI 0.11–0.65). Both male and female re-settlers had comparable SIR and SMR of MM. Considering SC, both male and female re-settlers had higher SIR and SMR (SIR for males = 2.22 95%CI 1.55–3.07, SMR for males = 1.91 95%CI 1.25–2.81, SIR for females = 2.32 95%CI 1.56–3.35, SMR for females = 2.15 95%CI 1.38–3.18). Finally, for all cancer sites combined, male re-settlers had comparable SIR and SMR and female re-settlers had somewhat lower SIR and SMR however not significantly. Additionally, SMR was comparable to SIR in all cases.
Table 2

Descriptive results of the re-settler cohort for the follow-up period 1990–2009

Number of cohort members

18,619

 Male

8976 (48.2%)

 Female

9643 (51.8%)

Immigration period

1990–2005

 1990–1993

6933

 1994–1997

6536

 1998–2005

5150

End of follow-up

 Alive

16,391 (88.0%)

 Dead

1314 (7.1%)

 Cause of death known

1204 (91.6%)

 Lost to follow up

914 (4.9%)

 

Incidence (inside Saarland)

Mortality (Germany-wide)

Person-years

204,366.3

243,369.1

 Males

98,622.6

117,310.7

 Females

105,743.7

126,059.1

Table 3

Standardized incidence ratios and standardized mortality ratios

Tumor type

Males

Females

(ICD-10)

Observed

SIR

SMR

Observed

SIR

SMR

Incidence

Mortality

(95% CI)

(95% CI)

Incidence

Mortality

(95% CI)

(95% CI)

Lung (C33–34)

83

87

1.16 (0.94–1.44)

1.09 (0.89–1.35)

11

14

0.42 (0.21–0.76)

0.53 (0.29–0.89)

Colorectal (C17–21)

29

16

0.50 (0.34–0.72)

0.52 (0.30–0.85)

49

27

0.92 (0.68–1.22)

0.91 (0.60–1.33)

Breast (C50)

    

92

27

0.80 (0.65–0.98)

0.63 (0.42–0.93)

Prostate (C61)

53

6

0.75 (0.57–0.98)

0.30 (0.11–0.65)

    

Malignant melanoma (C43)

9

2

0.89 (0.41–1.69)

0.73 (0.09–2.64)

12

2

1.00 (0.52–1.76)

0.86 (0.10–3.11)

Stomach (C16)

36

26

2.22 (1.55–3.07)

1.91 (1.25–2.81)

29

24

2.32 (1.56–3.35)

2.15 (1.38–3.18)

Results of the logistic regression of condensed staging are shown in Table 4. Both male and female re-settlers were more likely to be diagnosed at an advanced condensed stage than the general population, yielding an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 1.47 (95%CI 1.02–2.10) for males and 1.37 (95%CI 1.00–1.89) for females when analyzing all six sites combined. Male re-settlers had elevated ORs for advanced stage diagnosis of LC and CRC, although not significantly. Female re-settlers showed a higher percentage distribution of advanced stage at diagnosis of BC with an adjusted OR of 1.60 (95%CI 1.03–2.48) and of MM with an adjusted OR of 4.29 (95%CI 0.99–18.60). Female re-settlers also had increased ORs in LC and CRC cases. Re-settlers had a reduced OR of advanced stage diagnosis of SC and PC cases, however not significantly. In the sensitivity analysis, re-settler status was associated with an advanced stage at diagnosis for both sexes in the best-case scenario with adjusted ORs of 1.32 (95%CI 1.00–1.75) for male and 1.44 (95%CI 1.08–1.91) for female re-settlers. Re-settlers also presented elevated ORs in the worst-case scenario, however not significantly. Re-settlers had significantly less missing data on condensed staging than the general population (p < 0.01).
Table 4

Logistic regression of advanced stage diagnosis in dependence of re-settler status, adjusted for possible confounders

Tumor type

Males

Females

 

Odds ratio (95% CI)

p-value

Odds ratio (95% CI)

p-value

Lung cancer

2.05 (0.82–5.12)

0.13

1.48 (0.18–12.12)

0.71

Colorectal cancer

1.47 (0.64–3.53)

0.37

1.24 (0.66–2.31)

0.50

Breast cancer

  

1.60 (1.03–2.48)

0.04

Prostate cancer

0.24 (0.03–1.84)

0.17

  

Malignant melanoma of the skin

NAa

NAa

4.29 (0.99–18.60)

0.05

Stomach cancer

0.77 (0.29–2.04)

0.60

0.54 (0.21–1.39)

0.20

All sites combined

1.47 (1.02–2.10)

0.04

1.37 (1.00–1.89)

0.05

Sensitivity analysis

    

Best case scenario (all missings as local)

1.32 (1.00–1.75)

0.05

1.44 (1.08–1.91)

0.01

Worst case scenario (all missings as advanced)

1.32 (0.95–1.84)

0.09

1.22 (0.90–1.65)

0.20

anot applicable due to low number of cases

There was a quadratic association (p = 0.10) between the duration of stay (years) in Germany and a reduced risk of an advanced stage at diagnosis in male re-settlers (Table 5). For female re-settlers, no association was found.
Table 5

Association between duration of stay in Germany and advanced stage diagnosis in re-settlers

 

Males

Females

Coefficients

Odds ratio

p-value

Odds ratio

p-value

Duration of stay (years2)

0.995

0.10

1.002

0.37

Age at diagnosis (years)

0.963

0.04

0.996

0.77

Year of diagnosisa

1.113

0.07

0.894

0.02

Population density of region of residence [inhabitants/km2]

 

0.26

 

0.75

  < 300 (ref.)

    

 300–700

0.169

 

0.734

 

  > 700

0.173

 

0.705

 

acoded as calendaryear-1990

Discussion

Both male and female re-settlers were more likely to be diagnosed at an advanced stage compared to the general population in the Saarland, as seen for all studied cancer sites combined among both sexes and female BC cases. However, they had lower or comparable cancer incidence and mortality rates of all studied cancer sites except SC. In general, cancer incidence and mortality reflected rates in their country of origin [26]. Additionally, there was a weak association of duration of stay in Germany and reduced risk of advanced stage at diagnosis among male re-settlers, while no association was found among female re-settlers.

The main strength of this study was its representativeness with an observation period of 20 years and its inclusion of a large number of re-settlers who are generally hard to identify in population health research [19]. Additionally, the Saarland Cancer Registry provides a high completeness of cover of about 95%, as cancer registration is mandatory by law [27]. In addition, there have not been any studies about the stage at diagnosis of cancers among migrant subpopulations in Germany before [3].

One restriction of this study was its incomplete distinction of re-settlers and non-re-settlers. Since the study cohort covered only 64% of all re-settlers living in the Saarland, incidence data of the general population of the Saarland included a small number of re-settler cases. A complete distinction between re-settlers and the general population would have resulted in clearer results. However, results were biased towards the null, which makes us confident of having avoided overestimation in our results.

Numbers of deaths among the re-settler cohort are based on a Germany-wide follow up, which were compared to the mortality rates of the general population in the Saarland in SMR analysis. For most of the follow-up period, the general population of the Saarland had higher male LC mortality rates than the average rate in Germany [19]. In a previous publication on re-settlers, SIR analysis excluded multiple primary tumor diagnoses and the general German population was used as the reference population in SMR analysis [19, 28], accounting for lower SIR and SMR in the present analysis.

In order to unify data that is based on changing versions of the TNM classification over a period of 20 years, data on lymph node involvement (N) and distant metastasis (M) according to the Union for Cancer Control (UICC) was used to determine a condensed staging system as proposed by the European Network of Cancer Registries [23]. N0 Mx was defined as local stage, since 96.5% of all complete cases with a N0 diagnoses in the dataset were local stage (N0 M0) diagnoses. When defining N0 Mx as missing, we obtained similar ORs as shown in Table 4 for all cancer sites combined (OR for men 1.48, 95% CI 0.98–2.23; OR for women 1.43, 95% CI 1.00–2.04), showing that a misclassification bias is unlikely using this classification.

In the sensitivity analysis, re-settlers had elevated ORs in both the best-case and the worst-case scenario, while not significant on a level of α = 5% in the worst-case scenario. This is attributable to the significantly lower proportion of missing data in the staging variable of re-settlers compared to the general population (p < 0.01). Female re-settlers had less death certificate only (DCO) cases than the general population (p = 0.04), while DCO distribution was comparable among male re-settlers. Additionally, the confidence interval marginally included 1.00 in both sexes in the worst-case scenario.

Significant greater completeness of data among re-settlers suggests differences in the process of diagnoses between re-settlers and non-re-settlers. It is difficult to predict whether the missing data in the staging variable is more likely to be local or advanced. However, we are confident that the results of the sensitivity analysis support our findings of an increased risk of advanced stage diagnoses among re-settlers despite missing data.

Population density of region of residence was used to adjust for assumed rural-urban differences in access to health care. We hypothesized that people living in rural areas might have worse access to health care and thus might present more advanced stages at diagnosis than people living in urban areas [22, 29]. Also, the age and the year of diagnosis were considered possible confounders for the analysis of stage at diagnosis.

Somewhat higher incidence and mortality from LC among male re-settlers can be best explained with tobacco smoking. An analysis of micro census data supports this conclusion by having shown that especially male re-settlers import health-related risks such as a high smoking prevalence from their countries of origin (Kazakhstan, Russia, Kirgizstan), while prevalence converges with increasing length of stay to the prevalence of the country of destination [30]. The finding of a lower LC incidence among female re-settlers is in line with studies having demonstrated a lower smoking prevalence in this population [30]. Current and previous smokers are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced stage LC than never-smokers, which could have contributed to our finding of an insignificantly higher proportion of advanced stages among male re-settlers with LC [31]. Additionally, early symptoms of LC are very unspecific, emphasizing the importance of an early involvement of specialists in the diagnostic process of suspected LC patients [16]. Recent analyses show that re-settlers may be less likely to visit specialists [32, 33], which thus might contribute to a possible delay in LC diagnosis among re-settlers.

Lower BC incidence and mortality of female re-settlers reflect rates in the Russian Federation [26]. This may be due to parallels of reproductive factors in their countries of origin. Early parity is a protective factor for BC [34] and women in the Russian Federation are on average 4–5 years younger at their first birth than women in Germany [26, 35]. Furthermore, advanced stage is associated with patient delay of diagnosis and non-participation in general health screening examinations for BC in the general population of the Saarland, suggesting a need for better inclusion of female re-settlers into the German healthcare system [36]. However, BC screening was introduced only in 2005. With an observation period of our cohort from 1990 to 2009, we assume that the influence of screening on cancer stages in our cohort was probably small. Additionally, a lower mortality despite more advanced stages argues for an efficient follow-up care.

Elevated risks of stomach cancer and reduced risks of colorectal and prostate cancer are in line with previous findings of increased risks of cancers related to infections in early life (e. g. stomach cancer) and reduced risks of cancers related to a western lifestyle (e. g. colorectal cancer, prostate cancer) among re-settlers. The differences of mortality also reflect rates in the Russian Federation [26]. These differences may be due to various risk factors including lifestyle, diet and Helicobacter pylori infection [37].

The comparison of the Gleason score may have been more informative than the comparison of condensed stages in the case of PC [38], however, this data was not available to us. A large proportion of cases with missing data on staging particularly among PC and to a smaller degree also among SC cases makes it difficult to conclude on differences of those entities between re-settlers and the general population. Concerning SC, cases were frequently detected at a final stage also in the general population of the Saarland, which decreased the difference to re-settlers.

CRC screening has been introduced in Germany in 2002, thus, re-settlers have had access to regular colonoscopy examination during the last 8 years of observation. As stage at diagnosis was not more advanced among re-settlers, we could not find strong evidence for major differences in the diagnostic process. However, more research is needed to draw a final conclusion on possible delays in the diagnosis of CRC.

Interestingly, there was a distinct disparity in the distribution of stages between male and female re-settlers with MM. While female re-settlers showed a more balanced distribution of stages and an elevated risk for an advanced stage at diagnosis compared to the autochthonous population, male re-settlers presented no advanced stage diagnoses and 8 local stage diagnoses. Due to this imbalanced distribution, logistic regression could not be carried out for male MM cases. Furthermore, MM screening could not have played a significant role in the diagnostic process as it was introduced only at the end of the observation period. Ultimately, no clear conclusion can be drawn due to the small sample size for MM. Considering our finding of later stages of MM cases among female re-settlers, we propose to explore differences in MM screening behavior between the sexes in the future. Overall, SMR and SIR of re-settlers were comparable and SMR was never significantly elevated except for SC. Those results argue for an efficient treatment, comparable to the autochthonous population. Future survival studies investigating re-settlers should adjust for tumor stage at diagnosis.

Comparable mortality rates despite an overall elevated risk of advanced stage at diagnosis may be attributable to several factors besides the diagnostic process. Different histologic subtypes may play a role, as it has been shown in the case of SC, where re-settlers show a higher proportion of prognostic favorable histologic types compared to the general population of the Saarland [37]. In addition, specific cancer characteristics such as speed of growth could lead to more advanced stages in this group.

Our results finally support previous findings on health care utilization of re-settlers. Findings from the KORA survey in 2000 showed that re-settlers are less likely to participate in cancer prevention programs and that they indicate more often being less informed about the health care system in Germany [32]. Also, they were more likely to seek medical advice from the lay referral system (seeking for medical advice online or from family and friends), rather than visiting a specialist physician [39]. Our finding of more advanced stages of several cancer sites with different etiologies among re-settlers is supporting the conclusion that a delay in the diagnostic process rather than the dominance of faster growing cancer entities is a likely explanation for more advanced stages of re-settlers.

All re-settlers obtained the German citizenship with migration to Germany which gave them direct access to German social security systems including health insurance [8]. In general, the ratio of people without access to health coverage is low in Germany. In the year 2007, 2 years before the introduction of mandatory health insurance in 2009, the number of inhabitants without health insurance peaked with 400,000 (0.5%) [40]. In addition, socio-economic position of re-settlers is moderate, being in-between autochthonous Germans and other migrants in Germany [8]. In conclusion, health care utilization rather than health coverage is a plausible explanation for their more advanced stages.

Last, there was a weak association of duration of stay in Germany with the risk of advanced stage at diagnosis of male re-settlers, but not of female re-settlers. With longer duration of stay, the risk for later cancer diagnosis among male re-settlers seems to decrease slowly. Possible reasons include slightly ameliorating integration into the German healthcare system, a change in risk factor exposure or health care utilization [24, 28, 41].

Conclusion

In conclusion, re-settlers were more likely to be diagnosed at an advanced tumor stage. Findings are most likely due to high proportions of advanced stages of LC cases among males and BC and MM cases among females, while re-settlers presented a comparable proportion of stages at diagnosis of CRC, SC and PC cases. Thus, the tendency to rarely visit specialists and to participate in prevention programs less frequently may lead to a delay in diagnosis. Overall, comparable mortality rates despite an increased risk of advanced stage at diagnosis argue for an efficient follow-up care comparable to the autochthonous population. Future studies should focus on determining specific risk factors for a delay in diagnosis of cancer and attainable preventive methods to promote early diagnosis in a specialist setting for this group of migrants.

Abbreviations

ASIR: 

Age-standardized incidence rate

BC: 

Breast cancer

CI: 

Confidence limits

CRC: 

Colorectal cancer

DCO: 

Death certificate only

ENCR: 

European Network of Cancer Registries

FSU: 

Former Soviet Union

ICD: 

International Classification of Diseases

LC: 

Lung cancer

MM: 

Malignant melanoma of skin

OR: 

Odds ratio

PC: 

Prostate cancer

PY: 

Person-years

SC: 

Stomach cancer

SIR: 

Standardized incidence ratio

SMR: 

Standardized mortality ratio

UICC: 

Union for International Cancer Control

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the financial support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg within the Open Access Publishing Programme.

Funding

Data on Saarland cancer incidence were funded by the German Cancer Aid (grant no. 111232).

Availability of data and materials

Source data is publicly available on the Saarland Cancer Registry website (http://www.krebsregister.saarland.de/datenbank/datenbank.html, German only).

Authors’ contributions

AC and PJ wrote the manuscript, analyzed the data and interpreted the results. BH made significant contributions to data acquisition and writing. HB revised the manuscript draft and added valuable comments. VW significantly contributed to the writing of the manuscript, the conception of the study, and interpretation of the results. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute of Public Health, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
(2)
Saarland Cancer Registry, Saarbrücken, Präsident-Baltz-Straße 5, 66119 Saarbrücken, Germany
(3)
Institut für Med. Biometrie und Epidemiologie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, D-20246 Hamburg, Germany

References

  1. German Federal Statistical Office. Bevölkerung mit Migrationshintergrund - Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus. 2014 https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/Bevoelkerung/MigrationIntegration/Migrationshintergrund/Tabellen/TabellenMigrationshintergrundGeschlecht.html. Accessed 17 Sep 2017.Google Scholar
  2. German Federal Statistical Office. Anzahl der Gestorbenen nach Kapiteln der ICD-10. 2013 https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/Gesundheit/Todesursachen/Tabellen/GestorbeneAnzahl.html. Accessed 17 Sep 2017.Google Scholar
  3. Zeeb H, Spallek J, Razum O. Epidemiological perspectives of migration research: the example of cancer. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2008;58(3–4):130–5. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1067347.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Hemminki K, Försti A, Khyatti M, Anwar WA, Mousavi M. Cancer in immigrants as a pointer to the causes of cancer. Eur J Pub Health. 2014;24(Suppl 1):64–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Pohl OJ. Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge. The deportation and destruction of the German minority in the USSR. 2004 http://www.odessa3.org/journal/pohl.pdf. Accessed 31 Nov 2014.Google Scholar
  6. German Federal Statistical Office. Wanderungen. 2013 https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/Bevoelkerung/Wanderungen/Tabellen/WanderungenDeutsche.html. Accessed 17 Sept 2017.Google Scholar
  7. Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF). Migrationsbericht 2010. 2010 https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Publikationen/Migrationsberichte/migrationsbericht-2010.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. Accessed 17 Sept 2017.Google Scholar
  8. Worbs S, et al. (Spät-)Aussiedler in Deutschland, Eine Analyse aktueller Daten und Forschungsergebnisse. Nürnberg: Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge; 2013.Google Scholar
  9. Center for Cancer Registry Data in the Robert Koch-Institut (Barnes B, Kraywinkel K, Nowossadeck E, Schönfeld I, Starker A, Wienecke A, Wolf U). Bericht zum Krebsgeschehen in Deutschland 2016. Berlin: Robert Koch-Institut; 2016.Google Scholar
  10. Robert-Koch-Institut, editor. Krebs in Deutschland 2011/2012. Berlin: Robert-Koch-Institut (Hrsg) und die Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e.V. (Hrsg); 2015.Google Scholar
  11. Federal Joint Committee. Richtlinie über die Früherkennung von Krebserkrankungen. 2009 https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/62-492-1292/KFE-RL_2016-04-21_iK-2017-01-01_AT-08-07-2016-B2.pdf. Accessed on 17 Sept 2017.Google Scholar
  12. William C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1793–802.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Lehtimäki T, Lundin M, Linder N, Sihto H, Holli K, Turpeenniemi-Hujanen T, Kataja V, Isola J, Joensuu H, Lundin J. Long-term prognosis of breast cancer detected by mammography screening or other methods. Breast Cancer Res. 2011;13:R134. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3080.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Schnoor M, Waldmann A, Eberle A, Holleczek B, Katalinic A. Colorectal cancer incidence in Germany: stage-shift 6 years after implementation of a colonoscopy screening program. Cancer Epidemiol. 2012;36:417–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Federal Joint Committee. Änderung der Richtlinien über die Früherkennung von Krebserkrankungen. 1982 https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/39-261-131/1982-02-26-KFU.pdf. Accessed on 17 Sept 2017.Google Scholar
  16. Walter FM, Rubin G, Bankhead C, Morris HC, Hall N, Mills K, Dobson C, Rintoul RC, Hamilton W, Emery J. Symptoms and other factors associated with time to diagnosis and stage of lung cancer: a prospective cohort study. Br J Cancer. 2015;112(Suppl 1):S6–S13.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Rami-Porta R, Crowley JJ, Goldstraw P. The revised TNM staging system for lung cancer. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;15:4–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Spallek J, Zeeb H, Razum O. Prevention among immigrants: the example of Germany. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:92.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Winkler V, Ott JJ, Holleczek B, Stegmaier C, Becher H. Cancer profile of migrants from the Former Soviet Union in Germany: incidence and mortality. Cancer Causes Control. 2009;20(10):1873–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaucher S, Leier V, Deckert A, Holleczek B, Meisinger C, Winkler V, Becher H. Time trends of cause-specific mortality among resettlers in Germany, 1990 through 2009. Eur J Epidemiol. 2017;32(4):289–98.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. German Federal Statistical Office. Chapter 2: population, families and living arrangements. In: Statistical yearbook 2012. Wiesbaden: Federal Statistical Office of Germany; 2012.Google Scholar
  22. Heitz F, Bender A, Barinoff J, Lorenz-Salehi F, Fisseler-Eckhoff A, Traut A, Hils R, Harter P, Kullmer U, du Bois A. Outcome of early breast cancer treated in an urban and a rural breast cancer unit in Germany. Onkologie. 2013;36(9):477–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR). ENCR recommendations: condensed TNM for coding the extent of disease. 2002 http://www.encr.eu/images/docs/recommendations/extentofdisease.pdf. Accessed 17 Sept 2017.Google Scholar
  24. Talbot D, Duchesne T, Brisson J, Vandal N. Variance estimation and confidence intervals for the standardized mortality ratio with application to the assessment of a cancer screening program. Stat Med. 2011;30:3024–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Sauerbrei W, Royston P. Building multivariable prognostic and diagnostic models: transformation of the predictors by using fractional polynomials. J R Stat Soc Ser A (Statistics in Society). 1999;162(1):71–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JWW, Comber H, Forman D, Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(6):1374–403.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Brenner H, Stegmaier C, Ziegler H. Estimating completeness of cancer registration: an empirical evaluation of the two source capture-recapture approach in Germany. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1995;49(4):426–30.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Winkler V, Holleczek B, Stegmaier C, Becher H. Cancer incidence in ethnic German migrants from the Former Soviet Union in comparison to the host population. Cancer Epidemiol. 2014;38(1):22–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Liff JM, Chow WH, Greenberg RS. Rural-urban differences in stage at diagnosis: possible relationship to cancer screening. Cancer. 1991;67:1454–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Reiss K, Spallek J, Razum O. ‘Imported risk’ or ‘health transition’? Smoking prevalence among ethnic German immigrants from the Former Soviet Union by duration of stay in Germany - analysis of microcensus data. Int J Equity Health. 2010;9:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-9-15.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Kobrinsky NL, Klug MG, Hokanson PJ, Sjolander DE, Burd L. Impact of smoking on cancer stage at diagnosis. J Clin Oncol. 2013;21(5):907–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Aparicio ML, Doring A, Mielck A, Holle R. Differences between Eastern European immigrants of German origin and the rest of the German population in health status, health care use and health behaviour: a comparative study using data from the KORA-Survey 2000. Sozial- und Praventivmedizin. 2005;50:107–18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Ronellenfitsch U, Razum O. Deteriorating health satisfaction among immigrants from Eastern Europe to Germany. Int J Equity Health. 2004;3:4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Ma H, Bernstein L, Pike MC, Ursin G. Reproductive factors and breast cancer risk according to joint estrogen and progesterone receptor status: a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8(4):R43.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World fertility report 2012. New York: United Nations publication; 2013.Google Scholar
  36. Arndt V, Stürmer T, Stegmaier C, Ziegler H, Dhom G, Brenner H. Patient delay and stage of diagnosis among breast cancer patients in Germany—a population based study. Br J Cancer. 2002;86:1034–40.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Jaehn P, Holleczek B, Becher H, Winkler V. Histologic types of gastric cancer among migrants from the former Soviet Union and the general population in Germany: what kind of prevention do we need? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;28(8):863–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Pashayan N, Pharoah P, Neal DE, Hamdy F, Donovan J, Martin RM, Greenberg D, Duffy SW. Stage shift in PSA detected prostate cancers - effect modification by Gleason score: Gleason score interaction with stage shift. J Med Screen. 2009;16(2):98–101.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Wittig U, Merbach M, Siefen RG, Brähler E. Complaints and health care system utilization of ethnic German migrants from the former Soviet Union to Germany and their families. Gesundheitswesen. 2004;66:85–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. German Federal Statistical Office. Mikrozensus 2007. 2008 https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Bevoelkerung/HaushalteMikrozensus/KrankenversicherungMikrozensus2130110079004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. Accessed 17 Sept 2017.Google Scholar
  41. Wienecke A, Barnes B, Lampert T, Kraywinkel K. Changes in cancer incidence attributable to tobacco smoking in Germany, 1999-2008. Int J Cancer. 2014;134(3):682–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement