Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28826932›Full record

ArticleClinical genitourinary cancer2017

Increased Utilization of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (PET/CT) Imaging and Its Economic Impact for Patients Diagnosed With Bladder Cancer.

Jinhai Huo, Yiyi Chu, Karim Chamie, Marc C Smaldone, Stephen A Boorjian, Jacques G Baillargeon, Yong-Fang Kuo, Preston Kerr, Padraic O'Malley, Eduardo Orihuela and 6 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical genitourinary cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. The Role of Imaging in Bladder Cancer Diagnosis and Staging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  4. Utility of Routine PreoperativeThe Journal of urology · 2020
    Article
  5. Delayed post-diureticJournal of Cancer · 2020
    Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

16 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Jinhai HuoDepartment of Health Services Research, Management and Policy, The University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Yiyi ChuDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Karim ChamieDepartment of Urology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Marc C SmaldoneDepartment of Urology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
Stephen A BoorjianDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Jacques G BaillargeonDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Sealy Center on Aging, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX.
Yong-Fang KuoDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Medicine, Sealy Center on Aging, Sealy Center on Aging, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX.
Preston KerrDivision of Urology, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX.
Padraic O'MalleyDepartment of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Eduardo OrihuelaDivision of Urology, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX.
Douglas S TylerDepartment of Surgery, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX.
Stephen J FreedlandDepartment of Urology, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
Sharon H GiordanoDepartment of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Raghu VikramDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Ashish M KamatDepartment of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Stephen B WilliamsDivision of Urology, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX. Electronic address: stbwilli@utmb.edu.
The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USCedars-Sinai Medical Center · USDalhousie University · CAFox Chase Cancer Center · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

Targeting Ral GTPases in Bladder CancerP50CA091846 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI DINNEY, COLIN P.N., MCCONKEY, DAVID J. · 2001 to 2018
$37.4M
UTMB Clinical and Translational Science AwardKL2TR001441 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MED BR GALVESTON · PI AMEREDES, BILL T · 2015 to 2024
$4.0M
Established Investigator Award in Cancer Prevention & ControlK05CA134923 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MED BR GALVESTON · PI GOODWIN, MD, JAMES S. · 2008 to 2019
$1.0M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001441NCI NIH HHS K05 CA134923NCI NIH HHS P50 CA091846
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this study was to examine temporal nationwide utilization patterns and predictors for use of positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in comparison with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) among patients diagnosed with bladder cancer. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 36,855 patients aged 66 years or older diagnosed with clinical stage TI-IV, N0M0 bladder cancer from 2004 to 2011 were analyzed. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to discern factors associated with receipt of imaging within 12 months from diagnosis. The Cochran-Armitage test for trend was used to determine changes in the proportion of patients receiving imaging after cancer diagnosis.

resultsIndependent of clinical stage, there was marked increase in use of PET/CT throughout the study period (2011 vs. 2004: odds ratio, 17.55; 95% confidence interval, 10.14-30.38; P < .001). Although use of CT imaging remained stable during the study period, there was significantly decreased utilization of MRI (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.75; P < .001) in 2011 versus 2004. The mean incremental cost of PET/CT versus CT and MRI was $1040 and $612 (in 2016 dollars), respectively. Extrapolating these findings to the patients with bladder cancer in the United States results in excess spending of $11.6 million for PET/CT imaging.

conclusionWe identified rapid adoption of PET/CT imaging independent of clinical stage, resulting in excess national spending of $11.6 million for this imaging modality alone. Further value-based research discerning the clinical versus economic benefits of advanced imaging among patients with bladder cancer are needed.

Indexed as

Bladder cancerImagingPET/CTPositron emission tomography–computed tomography

Identifiers

PMID28826932
PMCPMC5878135
OpenAlexW2737755444

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.