Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27284472›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2016

Positron emission tomography for initial staging of esophageal cancer among medicare beneficiaries.

Vlad V Simianu, Thomas K Varghese, Meghan R Flanagan, David R Flum, Veena Shankaran, Brant K Oelschlager, Michael S Mulligan, Douglas E Wood, Carlos A Pellegrini, Farhood Farjah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Vlad V Simianu1 Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Center (SORCE), 3 Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, 4 Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Thomas K Varghese1 Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Center (SORCE), 3 Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, 4 Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Meghan R Flanagan1 Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Center (SORCE), 3 Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, 4 Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
David R Flum1 Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Center (SORCE), 3 Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, 4 Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Veena Shankaran1 Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Center (SORCE), 3 Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, 4 Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Brant K Oelschlager1 Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Center (SORCE), 3 Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, 4 Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Michael S Mulligan1 Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Center (SORCE), 3 Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, 4 Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Douglas E Wood1 Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Center (SORCE), 3 Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, 4 Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Carlos A Pellegrini1 Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Center (SORCE), 3 Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, 4 Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Farhood Farjah1 Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, 2 Surgical Outcomes Research Center (SORCE), 3 Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, 4 Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

CRN4: Cancer Research Resources & Collaboration in Integrated Health Care SystemsU24CA171524 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI KUSHI, LAWRENCE H · 2012 to 2016
$16.0M
Developing Data-Driven Cancer ResearchersT32CA009168 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI STEPHEN M SCHWARTZ, MICHAEL Chiao-An WU · 1985 to 2026
$10.1M
Renewal: Gastrointestinal Surgery Outcomes Research FellowshipT32DK070555 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI FLUM, DAVID R · 2010 to 2024
$3.6M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009168NCI NIH HHS U24 CA171524NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK070555
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of positron emission tomography (PET) in the initial staging of esophageal cancer is to detect occult metastases, but its ability to do so has not been evaluated at the population-level. In 2001, Medicare approved reimbursement of PET for esophageal cancer staging. We hypothesized rapid adoption of PET after 2001 and a coincident increase in the prevalence of stage IV disease.

methodsA retrospective cohort study [1997-2009] was conducted of 12,870 Medicare beneficiaries with esophageal cancer using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results (SEER)-Medicare database.

resultsPET use increased from <3% before 2001 to 44% in 2009 (post-PET era) (P trend <0.001). Over the same period, the prevalence of stage IV disease also increased (20% in 1997 and 28% in 2009, P trend <0.001). After adjusting for changing patient characteristics over time, the rate of increase in stage IV disease in the post-PET era [relative risk (RR) =1.06; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00-1.13] was no different than the rate of increase in the pre-PET era (RR =1.02; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04). Over the entire study period, the prevalence of unrecorded stage decreased by more than half (43% to 18%, adjusted P trend <0.001) with coincident increases in stage 0-III (37% to 53%, adjusted P trend <0.001) as well as stage IV disease.

conclusionsThe increasing frequency of PET use and stage IV disease over time is more likely explained by improved documentation rather than PET's ability to detect occult metastases. The absence of compelling population-level impact compliments previous studies, revealing an opportunity to increase value through selective use of PET.

Indexed as

esophageal cancerMedicarePositron emission tomography (PET)stagingSurveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results (SEER)

Identifiers

PMID27284472
PMCPMC4880761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.