Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28933979›Full record

ArticleJournal of adolescent and young adult oncology2018

Geographic Access to Cancer Care and Mortality Among Adolescents.

Eric Tai, Elaine Hallisey, Lucy A Peipins, Barry Flanagan, Natasha Buchanan Lunsford, Grete Wilt, Shannon Graham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of adolescent and young adult oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Disparities in Rural-Urban Cancer Care Outcomes among Pediatric, Adolescent, and Young Adult Populations: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Eric Tai1 Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Atlanta, Georgia .
Elaine Hallisey2 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Geospatial Research , Analysis, and Services Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia .
Lucy A Peipins1 Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Atlanta, Georgia .
Barry Flanagan2 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Geospatial Research , Analysis, and Services Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia .
Natasha Buchanan Lunsford1 Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Atlanta, Georgia .
Grete Wilt2 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Geospatial Research , Analysis, and Services Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia .
Shannon Graham2 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Geospatial Research , Analysis, and Services Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia .

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAdolescents with cancer have had less improvement in survival than other populations in the United States. This may be due, in part, to adolescents not receiving treatment at Children's Oncology Group (COG) institutions, which have been shown to increase survival for some cancers. The objective of this ecologic study was to examine geographic distance to COG institutions and adolescent cancer mortality.

methodsWe calculated cancer mortality among adolescents and sociodemographic and healthcare access factors in four geographic zones at selected distances surrounding COG facilities: Zone A (area within 10 miles of any COG institution), Zones B and C (concentric rings with distances from a COG institution of >10-25 miles and >25-50 miles, respectively), and Zone D (area outside of 50 miles).

resultsThe adolescent cancer death rate was highest in Zone A at 3.21 deaths/100,000, followed by Zone B at 3.05 deaths/100,000, Zone C at 2.94 deaths/100,000, and Zone D at 2.88 deaths/100,000. The United States-wide death rate for whites without Hispanic ethnicity, blacks without Hispanic ethnicity, and persons with Hispanic ethnicity was 2.96 deaths/100,000, 3.10 deaths/100,000, and 3.26 deaths/100,000, respectively. Zone A had high levels of poverty (15%), no health insurance coverage (16%), and no vehicle access (16%).

conclusionsGeographic access to COG institutions, as measured by distance alone, played no evident role in death rate differences across zones. Among adolescents, socioeconomic factors, such as poverty and health insurance coverage, may have a greater impact on cancer mortality than geographic distance to COG institution.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleNeoplasmsSurvival RateYoung AdultChildren's Oncology Centerdistancemortality

Identifiers

PMID28933979
PMCPMC6125785

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.