Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27012428›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology2016

Disparities in the management and outcome of cervical cancer in the United States according to health insurance status.

Thomas Churilla, Brian Egleston, Yanqun Dong, Talha Shaikh, Colin Murphy, Gina Mantia-Smaldone, Christina Chu, Stephen Rubin, Penny Anderson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Thomas ChurillaDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, United States. Electronic address: Thomas.Churilla@fccc.edu.
Brian EglestonBiostatistics and Bioinformatics Facility, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, United States.
Yanqun DongDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, United States.
Talha ShaikhDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, United States.
Colin MurphyDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, United States.
Gina Mantia-SmaldoneSurgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, United States.
Christina ChuSurgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, United States.
Stephen RubinSurgical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, United States.
Penny AndersonDepartments of Radiation Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, United States.

Funding

WORD PROCESSING CENTER--COREP30CA006927 · NCI · RESEARCH INST OF FOX CHASE CAN CTR · PI Margaret von Mehren · 1985 to 2026
$138.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006927
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOur study sought to characterize the presentation, local management and outcomes of invasive cervical cancer with regard to patient insurance status.

methodsWe queried the NCI-SEER database for invasive cervical cancer cases in patients aged 18-64 from 2007 to 2011. We analyzed clinical and socioeconomic data with regard insurance status (insured, Medicaid, or uninsured). We tested for associations between patient insurance status and treatment with definitive surgery for FIGO IA2-IB1 patients, and treatment with suboptimal radiation therapy (RT) for FIGO IB2-IVA patients (other than combination external beam and brachytherapy). We evaluated overall and cause specific survival according to insurance status.

results11,714 cases were analyzed: 60% insured, 31% Medicaid, and 9% uninsured. FIGO III/IV stage at presentation was more frequent with Medicaid (40%) and uninsured (42%) compared to insured patients (28%) (p<0.001). For FIGO IA2-IB1 patients, receipt of definitive surgery was inversely associated with uninsured status (OR [95%CI]=0.65 [0.47-0.90], p<0.001) in univariable analysis; however the relationship lost significance after multivariable adjustment. For FIGO IB2-IVA patients, the use of suboptimal RT was associated with uninsured status (OR [95%CI]=1.33 [1.07-1.65], p=0.011) in adjusted analyses. Among all patients, overall mortality was increased with Medicaid (HR [95%CI]=1.16 [1.05-1.28], p=0.003) and uninsured status (HR [95%CI]=1.17 [1.01-1.34], p=0.031) in multivariable analysis. Cancer specific mortality survival trended towards significance in multivariable analyses for both Medicaid (HR [95%CI]=1.11 [1.00-1.24] and uninsured status (HR [95%CI]=1.14 [0.98-1.33]).

conclusionsDisparities in cervical cancer treatment with regard to insurance status are apparent in a recent cohort of American patients. Later stage at presentation and differences in management partially account for the inferior prognostic outcomes associated with Medicaid and uninsured status.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHumansInsurance, HealthMedicaidMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingSEER ProgramTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27012428
PMCPMC4877265

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.