Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31918179›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology2020

Breast and colorectal cancer recurrence and progression captured by five U.S. population-based registries: Findings from National Program of Cancer Registries patient-centered outcome research.

Trevor D Thompson, Lori A Pollack, Christopher J Johnson, Xiao-Cheng Wu, Judy R Rees, Mei-Chin Hsieh, Randi Rycroft, MaryBeth Culp, Reda Wilson, Manxia Wu and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Contrast-Enhanced Chest Computed Tomography forDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Prediction of Risk of Metastatic Recurrence for Female Breast Cancer Patients in the Presence of Competing Causes of Death.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Trevor D ThompsonDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States.
Lori A PollackDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States. Electronic address: lop5@cdc.gov.
Christopher J JohnsonCancer Data Registry of Idaho, Idaho Hospital Association, Boise, ID, United States.
Xiao-Cheng WuLouisiana Tumor Registry, EpidemiologyProgram, School of Public Health, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, United States.
Judy R ReesNew Hampshire State Cancer Registry, Department of Epidemiology, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, United States.
Mei-Chin HsiehLouisiana Tumor Registry, EpidemiologyProgram, School of Public Health, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, United States.
Randi RycroftCancer Data Registry of Idaho, Idaho Hospital Association, Boise, ID, United States; Colorado Central Cancer Registry, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO, United States.
MaryBeth CulpAmerican Cancer Society, United States.
Reda WilsonDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States.
Manxia WuDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States.
Kevin ZhangICF International, United States.
Vicki BenardDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States.
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion · USLouisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans · USAmerican Cancer Society · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USColorado Department of Public Health and Environment · USICF International (United States) · USNew Hampshire Hospital · US

Funding

PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE NAT'L COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CONTROL PROG, NAT'L PROG FOR CU58DP000792 · DP · ALASKA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HLTH-SOC SVCS · PI ALLELY, KATHY · 2007 to 2011
$15.8M
Intramural CDC HHS CC999999NCCDPHP CDC HHS U58 DP000792
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCancer recurrence is a meaningful patient outcome that is not captured in population-based cancer surveillance. This project supported National Program of Cancer Registries central cancer registries in five U.S. states to determine the disease course of all breast and colorectal cancer cases. The aims were to assess the feasibility of capturing disease-free (DF) status and subsequent cancer outcomes and to explore analytic approaches for future studies.

methodsData were obtained on 11,769 breast and 6033 colorectal cancer cancers diagnosed in 2011. Registry-trained abstractors reviewed medical records from multiple sources for up to 60 months to determine documented DF status, recurrence, progression and residual disease. We described the occurrence of these patient-centered outcomes along with analytic considerations when determining time-to-event outcomes and recurrence-free survival.

resultsDisease-free status was determined on all but 3.8 % of cancer cases. Among 14,458 cases that became DF, 6.1 % of breast and 13.0 % of colorectal cancer cases had a documented recurrence. Recurrence-free survival varied by stage; for stage II-III cancers at 48 months, 83.2 % of female breast and 69.2 % of colorectal cancer patients were alive without recurrence. The ability to distinguish between progression and residual disease among never disease-free patients limited our ability to examine progression as an outcome.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated that population-based registries given intense support and resources can capture recurrence and offer a generalizable picture of cancer outcomes. Further work on refining definitions, sampling strategies, and novel approaches to capture recurrence could advance the ability of a national cancer surveillance system to contribute to patient-centered outcomes research.

Indexed as

AgedColonic NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsData ManagementDisease-Free SurvivalDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMaleMedical RecordsMiddle AgedNational Program of Cancer RegistriesNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPatient-Centered CarePopulation SurveillanceBreast cancerColon cancerNational Program of Cancer RegistriesRecurrence

Identifiers

PMID31918179
PMCPMC7924011
OpenAlexW3000739271

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.