ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2020
Adherence to quality measures improves survival in esophageal cancer in a retrospective cohort study of the national cancer database from 2004 to 2016.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality Performance Indicators for the Surgical Management of Oesophageal Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.World journal of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Measuring the quality of skin cancer management in primary care: A scoping review.The Australasian journal of dermatology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe assessed adherence to four novel quality measures in patients with stage III esophageal cancer, a leading cause of death among GI malignancies.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of 22,871 stage III esophageal cancer patients identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) between 2004 and 2016. Four quality measures were defined from published guidelines: administration of induction therapy, >15 lymph nodes sampled, surgery within 60 days of neoadjuvant treatment, and R0 resection. The association of patient demographic and treatment variables with measure adherence was assessed using multiple logistic regression. Risk of all-cause mortality was assessed comparing adherent and non-adherent cases using Cox modeling. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates of groups that adhered to zero to four out of four quality measures were performed.
resultsAdherence was high for neoadjuvant treatment (93.7%), timing of surgery (85.7%) and completeness of resection (92.0%), but low for nodal evaluation (45.9%). Medicaid insurance status was associated with decreased odds of adherence for neoadjuvant treatment [odds ratio (OR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.54-0.99], nodal evaluation (OR 0.81, 95% CI: 0.68-0.96), and completeness of resection (OR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.92). From 2010 to 2016, when compared to cases from 2004 to 2005, there was a progressive increase in the odds of adequate induction therapy, nodal staging, and completeness of resection, but a progressive decrease in odds of well-timed surgery. Adherence was associated with decreased all-cause mortality for induction therapy, nodal staging, and R0 resection, but not for timing of surgery. Survival improved as the number of quality measures an individual patient adhered to increased.
conclusionsAdherence to quality measures is associated with improved survival in patients with stage III esophageal cancer. Understanding variability in measure adherence may identify targets for quality improvement initiatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.