Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27022115›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2016

National Trends in Nonoperative Management of Rectal Adenocarcinoma.

Clayton Tyler Ellis, Cleo A Samuel, Karyn B Stitzenberg

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03923309 (Oncologic Risk of Rectal Preservation Against Medical Advice After Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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.

NCT03923309 completednot on this map

Oncologic Risk of Rectal Preservation Against Medical Advice After Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: a Multicenter Comparative Study With Rectal Preservation as Supported by Surgeon

TypeobservationalSponsorSeoul National University HospitalRan2016 to 2017Enrolled142ConditionsRectal Cancer, Chemoradiation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2018
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Gastrointestinal Cancers: Timing Is Everything.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2017
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Clayton Tyler EllisAll authors: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. clayton.ellis@unchealth.unc.edu.
Cleo A SamuelAll authors: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Karyn B StitzenbergAll authors: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

Funding

UNC-CH TRAINING PROGRAM IN HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCHT32HS000032 · AHRQ · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HOLMES, GEORGE M · 1989 to 2024
$8.2M
AHRQ HHS T32 HS000032
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNeoadjuvant chemoradiation for stage II/III rectal cancer results in up to 49% of patients with a clinical complete response. As a result, many have questioned whether surgery can be omitted for this group of patients. Currently, there is insufficient evidence for chemoradiation only, or nonoperative management (NOM), to support its adoption. Despite this, anecdotal evidence suggests there is a trend toward increased use of NOM. Our objective was to examine the use of NOM for rectal cancer over time, as well as the patient- and facility-level factors associated with its use.

methodsWe included all incident cases of invasive, nonmetastatic rectal adenocarcinoma reported to the National Cancer Database from 1998 to 2010. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to assess for NOM use over time, as well as associated patient- and facility-level factors.

resultsA total of 146,135 patients met the inclusion criteria: 5,741 had NOM and 140,394 had surgery with or without additional therapy. From 1998 to 2010, NOM doubled, from 2.4% to 5% of all cases annually. Patients who were black (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.57 to 1.86), uninsured (AOR, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.08 to 2.65) or enrolled in Medicaid (AOR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.90 to 2.33), or treated at low-volume facilities (AOR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.42 to 1.64) were more likely to receive NOM than were patients who were white, privately insured, and treated at a high-volume facility, respectively.

conclusionNOM demonstrates promise for the treatment of rectal cancer; currently, however, the most appropriate strategy is to pursue this approach with well-informed patients in the context of a clinical trial. We observed evidence of increasing NOM use, with this increase occurring more frequently in black and uninsured/Medicaid patients, raising concern that increased NOM use may actually represent increasing disparities in rectal cancer care rather than innovation. Further studies are needed to assess survival differences by treatment strategy.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChemoradiotherapyCohort StudiesDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm StagingUnited States

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.