Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24221994›Full record

ArticleJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine2013

Intended versus inferred care after PET performed for initial staging in the National Oncologic PET Registry.

Bruce E Hillner, Anna N Tosteson, Tor D Tosteson, Qianfei Wang, Yunjie Song, Lucy G Hanna, Barry A Siegel

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00868582 (The National Oncologic PET Registry), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT00868582 unknown statusnot on this map

The National Oncologic PET Registry

TypeobservationalSponsorAmerican College of Radiology Imaging NetworkRan2006 to 2021Enrolled333,000ConditionsCancerArmsPET scanning in cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Intended Versus Inferred Treatment AfterJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2018
    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

7 authors.

Bruce E HillnerDepartment of Internal Medicine and the Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.
Anna N Tosteson
Tor D Tosteson
Qianfei Wang
Yunjie Song
Lucy G Hanna
Barry A Siegel

Funding

Comparative Effectiveness of Advanced Imaging in CancerRC2CA148259 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI BLACK, WILLIAM C, HILLNER, BRUCE ELLIS · 2009 to 2009
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS RC2 CA148259NCI NIH HHS RC2CA148259
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledThe National Oncologic PET Registry (NOPR) collected data on intended management before and after PET in cancer patients. We have previously reported that PET was associated with a change in intended management of about one third of patients and was consistent across cancer types. It is uncertain if intended management plans reflect the actual care these patients received. One approach to assess actual care received is using administrative claims to categorize the type and timing of clinical services.

methodsNOPR data from 2006 to 2008 were linked to Medicare claims for consenting patients aged 65 y or older undergoing initial-staging PET scanning for bladder, ovarian, pancreatic, small cell lung, or stomach cancers. We determined the 60-d agreement between claims-inferred care and NOPR treatment plans.

resultsPatients (n = 4,661) were assessed, and 30%-52% had metastatic disease. Planned treatments were about two-thirds monotherapy, of which 46% was systemic therapy only, and one-third combinations. Claims paid by 60 d confirmed the NOPR plan of any systemic therapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in 79.3%, 64.7%, and 63.6%, respectively. Single-mode plans were much more often confirmed: systemic therapy in more than 85% of patients with ovarian, pancreatic, and small cell lung cancers and surgery in more than 73% of those with bladder, pancreatic, and stomach cancers. Intended combination treatments had claims for both in only 28% of patients receiving surgery-based combinations and in 55% receiving chemoradiotherapy. About 90% of patients with NOPR-planned systemic therapy had evaluation or management claims from a medical oncologist. An age of less than 75 y was associated more often with confirmation of chemotherapy, less often for radiotherapy but not with confirmation of surgery. Performance status or comorbidity did not explain confirmation rates within action categories, but confirmation rates were higher if the referrer specialized in the planned treatment.

conclusionClaims confirmations of NOPR intent for initial staging were widely variable but were higher than previously reported for restaging PET, suggesting that measuring change in intended management is a reasonable method for assessing the impact diagnostic tests have on actual care.

Indexed as

Positron-Emission TomographyRegistriesAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHumansMedicareNeoplasmsNeoplasm StagingSpecializationTime FactorsUnited Statescohort studieshealth services researchmedical record linkageMedicareneoplasm stagingpositron emission tomography

Identifiers

PMID24221994
PMCPMC3851922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.