ArticleUrology practice2021
Underutilization of Surgical Standard of Care for Insured Men with Invasive Penile Cancer.
Article in Urology practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Patterns of Treatment and Outcomes in Older Men With Penile Cancer: A SEER Dataset Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposePrior studies of mixed insurance populations have demonstrated poor adherence to surgical standard of care (SOC) for penile cancer. We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry linked to Medicare to calculate SOC adherence to surgical treatment of penile cancer in insured men over the age of 65, focusing on potential social and racial disparities.
methodsThis is an observational analysis of patients with T2-4 penile cancer of any histologic subtype without metastasis in the SEER-Medicare database (2004-2015). SOC was defined as penectomy (partial or radical) with bilateral inguinal lymph node dissection (ILND) based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. We calculated proportions of those receiving SOC and constructed multivariate models to identify factors associated with receiving SOC.
resultsA total of 447 men were included. Of these men, 22.1% (99/447) received SOC while 18.8% (84/447) received no treatment at all. Only 23.3% (104/447) had ILND while 80.9% (362/447) underwent total or partial penectomy. Race and socioeconomic status (SES) were not associated with decreased SOC. Increasing age (OR 0.93, 95%CI:0.89-0.96), Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≥ 2 (OR 0.53, 95%CI:0.29-0.97), and T3-T4 disease (OR 0.34, 95%CI:0.18-0.65) were associated with not receiving SOC on adjusted analysis.
conclusionsRates of SOC are low among insured men 65 years of age or older with invasive penile cancer, regardless of race or SES. This finding is largely driven by low rates of ILND. Strategies are needed to overcome barriers to SOC treatment for men with invasive penile cancer.
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.