Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20940384›Full record

ArticleJAMA2010

Cancer screening among patients with advanced cancer.

Camelia S Sima, Katherine S Panageas, Deborah Schrag

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Statin use in cancer patients with brain metastases: a missed communication opportunity at the end of life.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Camelia S SimaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 307 E 63rd St, Second Floor, New York, NY 10065, USA. simac@mskcc.org
Katherine S Panageas
Deborah Schrag

Funding

Cancer Care Delivery in MedicaidR01CA131847 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI SCHRAG, DEBORAH · 2008 to 2012
$1.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA131847PHS HHS R01 1147503
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextCancer screening has been integrated into routine primary care but does not benefit patients with limited life expectancy.

objectiveTo evaluate the extent to which patients with advanced cancer continue to be screened for new cancers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsUtilization of cancer screening procedures (mammography, Papanicolaou test, prostate-specific antigen [PSA], and lower gastrointestinal [GI] endoscopy) was assessed in 87,736 fee-for-service Medicare enrollees aged 65 years or older diagnosed with advanced lung, colorectal, pancreatic, gastroesophageal, or breast cancer between 1998 and 2005, and reported to one of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) tumor registries. Participants were followed up until death or December 31, 2007, whichever came first. A group of 87,307 Medicare enrollees without cancer were individually matched by age, sex, race, and SEER registry to patients with cancer and observed over the same period to evaluate screening rates in context. Demographic and clinical characteristics associated with screening were also investigated.

main outcome measureFor each cancer screening test, utilization rates were defined as the percentage of patients who were screened following the diagnosis of an incurable cancer.

resultsAmong women following advanced cancer diagnosis compared with controls, at least 1 screening mammogram was received by 8.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.6%-9.1%) vs 22.0% (95% CI, 21.7%-22.5%); Papanicolaou test screening was received by 5.8% (95% CI, 5.6%-6.1%) vs 12.5% (95% CI, 12.2%-12.8%). Among men following advanced cancer diagnosis compared with controls, PSA test was received by 15.0% (95% CI, 14.7%-15.3%) vs 27.2% (95% CI, 26.8%-27.6%). For all patients following advanced diagnosis compared with controls, lower GI endoscopy was received by 1.7% (95% CI, 1.6%-1.8%) vs 4.7% (95% CI, 4.6%-4.9%). Screening was more frequent among patients with a recent history of screening (16.2% [95% CI, 15.4%-16.9%] of these patients had mammography, 14.7% [95% CI, 13.7%-15.6%] had a Papanicolaou test, 23.3% [95% CI, 22.6%-24.0%] had a PSA test, and 6.1% [95% CI, 5.2%-7.0%] had lower GI endoscopy).

conclusionA sizeable proportion of patients with advanced cancer continue to undergo cancer screening tests that do not have a meaningful likelihood of providing benefit.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCase-Control StudiesCost-Benefit AnalysisEndoscopy, GastrointestinalFemaleHumansMaleMammographyMass ScreeningMedicareNeoplasmsNeoplasms, Second PrimaryPapanicolaou TestPrognosisProstate-Specific AntigenProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID20940384
PMCPMC3728828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.