Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27829038›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2016

Long-Term Secondary Care Costs of Endometrial Cancer: A Prospective Cohort Study Nested within the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

Mark Pennington, Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj, Chloe Karpinskyj, Alec Miners, Julie Taylor, Ranjit Manchanda, Rema Iyer, Michelle Griffin, Andy Ryan, Ian Jacobs and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

12 authors.

Mark PenningtonKing's Health Economics, David Goldberg Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Aleksandra Gentry-MaharajDepartment of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Chloe KarpinskyjDepartment of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Alec MinersDepartment of Health Services Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Julie TaylorDepartment of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Ranjit ManchandaBarts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Rema IyerDepartment of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Michelle GriffinDepartment of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Andy RyanDepartment of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Ian JacobsDepartment of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Usha MenonDepartment of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rosa LegoodDepartment of Health Services Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16008Medical Research Council G0801228Medical Research Council G9901012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is limited evidence on the costs of Endometrial Cancer (EC) by stage of disease. We estimated the long-term secondary care costs of EC according to stage at diagnosis in an English population-based cohort.

methodsWomen participating in UKCTOCS and diagnosed with EC following enrolment (2001-2005) and prior to 31st Dec 2009 were identified to have EC through multiple sources. Survival was calculated through data linkage to death registry. Costs estimates were derived from hospital records accessed from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) with additional patient level covariates derived from case notes and patient questionnaires. Missing and censored data was imputed using Multiple Imputation. Regression analysis of cost and survival was undertaken.

results491 of 641 women with EC were included. Five year total costs were strongly dependent on stage, ranging from £9,475 (diagnosis at stage IA/IB) to £26,080 (diagnosis at stage III). Stage, grade and BMI were the strongest predictors of costs. The majority of costs for stage I/II EC were incurred in the first six months after diagnosis while for stage III / IV considerable costs accrued after the first six months.

conclusionsIn addition to survival advantages, there are significant cost savings if patients with EC are detected earlier.

Indexed as

Cost of IllnessAgedEarly Detection of CancerEarly DiagnosisEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingProspective StudiesRegression AnalysisSecondary Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesSurvival AnalysisTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID27829038
PMCPMC5102347

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.