Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29971344›Full record

ArticleJAMA surgery2018

Association of Attending Surgeon With Variation in the Receipt of Genetic Testing After Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.

Steven J Katz, Irina Bondarenko, Kevin C Ward, Ann S Hamilton, Monica Morrow, Allison W Kurian, Timothy P Hofer

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Multiple imputation with missing data indicators.Statistical methods in medical research · 2021
    Article
  8. Information Sources Used by Oncologists to Understand Multi-marker Tumor Panel Tests for Cancer Patients.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. The Time for Mainstreaming Germline Testing for Patients With Breast Cancer Is Now.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2019
    Article
  15. Genetic Testing and Results in a Population-Based Cohort of Breast Cancer Patients and Ovarian Cancer Patients.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Steven J KatzDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
Irina BondarenkoDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor.
Kevin C WardRollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Ann S HamiltonKeck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Monica MorrowMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Allison W KurianDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Timothy P HoferDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USEmory University · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USStanford University · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
XenograftP30CA046592 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI THEODORE S LAWRENCE · 1988 to 2026
$178.2M
The Challenge of Individualizing Treatments for Patients with Breast CancerP01CA163233 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI HOFER, TIMOTHY P. · 2012 to 2016
$13.4M
NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000034CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000035CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000140CNCI NIH HHS P01 CA163233NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS P30 CA046592
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Genetic testing after diagnosis of breast cancer is common, but little is known about the influence of the surgeon on the variation in testing. Objectives: To quantify and explain the association of attending surgeon with rates of genetic testing after diagnosis of breast cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based study identified 7810 women with stages 0 to II breast cancer treated between July 1, 2013, and August 31, 2015, through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries for the state of Georgia, as well as Los Angeles County, California. Surveys were sent approximately 2 months after surgery. Also surveyed were 488 attending surgeons identified by the patients. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study examined the association of surgeon with variation in the receipt of genetic testing using information from patient and surgeon surveys merged to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and genetic testing data obtained from 4 laboratories. Results: In total, 5080 women (69.6%) of 7303 who were eligible (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [0.8] years) and 377 surgeons (77.3%) of 488 (mean [SD] age, 53.8 [10.7] years) responded to the survey. Approximately one-third (34.5% [1350 of 3910] of patients had an elevated risk of mutation carriage, and 27.0% (1056 of 3910) overall had genetic testing. Surgeons had practiced a mean (SE) of 20.9 (0.6) years, and 28.9% (107 of 370) treated more than 50 cases of new breast cancer per year. The odds of a patient receiving genetic testing increased more than 2-fold (odds ratio, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.85-3.31) if she saw a surgeon with an approach 1 SD above that of a surgeon with the mean test rate. Approximately one-third (34.1%) of the surgeon variation was explained by patient volume and surgeon attitudes about genetic testing and counseling. If a patient with higher pretest risk saw a surgeon at the 5th percentile of the surgeon distribution, she would have a 26.3% (95% CI, 21.9%-31.2%) probability of testing compared with 72.3% (95% CI, 66.7%-77.2%) if she saw a surgeon at the 95th percentile. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the attending surgeon was associated with the receipt of genetic testing after a breast cancer diagnosis. Variation in surgeon attitudes about genetic testing and counseling may explain a substantial amount of this association.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelBreast NeoplasmsDelivery of Health CareFemaleGenetic TestingGeorgiaHumansLos AngelesMiddle AgedMutationProcedures and Techniques UtilizationSEER ProgramSurgeonsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29971344
PMCPMC6233787
OpenAlexW2809887678

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.