Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30421120›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2019

Facility Variation in Local Staging of Rectal Adenocarcinoma and its Contribution to Underutilization of Neoadjuvant Therapy.

Douglas S Swords, Benjamin S Brooke, David E Skarda, Gregory J Stoddard, H Tae Kim, William T Sause, Courtney L Scaife

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Douglas S SwordsDepartment of Surgery, University of Utah, 30 North 1900 East, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA. douglas.swords@hsc.utah.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5002-6992
Benjamin S BrookeDepartment of Surgery, University of Utah, 30 North 1900 East, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA.
David E SkardaDepartment of Surgery, University of Utah, 30 North 1900 East, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA.
Gregory J StoddardDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
H Tae KimSurgical Services Clinical Program, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
William T SauseOncology Services Clinical Program, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Courtney L ScaifeDepartment of Surgery, University of Utah, 30 North 1900 East, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA.
Intermountain Healthcare · USUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuidelines recommend neoadjuvant therapy (NT) for clinical stage II-III (locally advanced) rectal adenocarcinoma, but utilization remains suboptimal. The causes of NT omission remain poorly understood.

methodsThe main outcomes in this study of patients with resected clinically non-metastatic rectal adenocarcinoma in the 2010-2015 National Cancer Database were local staging utilization in patients with non-metastatic tumors (i.e., undocumented clinical stage/pathologic stage I-III) and NT utilization for locally advanced tumors. Multivariable regression was used to examine predictors of these outcomes. Facility-specific risk- and reliability-adjusted local staging and NT rates were calculated. Positive margins and overall survival (OS) were examined as secondary outcomes.

resultsLocal staging was omitted in 7737/43,819 (17.7%) patients with clinically non-metastatic tumors and NT was omitted in 5199/31,632 (16.4%) patients with locally advanced tumors. NT was utilized in 24,826 (91.1%) locally advanced patients who had local staging vs. 1607 (36.6%) patients who did not; 2785 (53.6%) locally advanced patients with NT omitted also had local staging omitted. Treatment at facilities with lowest quintile local staging rates was associated with NT omission (relative risk 2.41, 95% confidence interval 2.11, 2.75). Adjusted facility local staging rates varied sixfold (16.1-98.0%), facility NT rates varied twofold (43.9-95.9%), and they were correlated (r = 0.58; P < 0.001). Local staging omission and NT omission were independently associated with positive margins and decreased OS.

conclusionsLocal staging omission is a common care process in over half of cases of omitted NT. These data emphasize the need for quality improvement efforts directed at providing facilities feedback about their local staging rates.

Indexed as

Neoplasm StagingAdenocarcinomaAdolescentAdultAgedColectomyFemaleHumansMaleMargins of ExcisionMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyRectal NeoplasmsRectumReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesClinical stagingFacility variationLocally advancedLocal stagingNeoadjuvantRectal adenocarcinomaRectal cancerUnderutilization

Identifiers

PMID30421120
OpenAlexW2901797102

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.