ArticleHead & neck2021
The influence of facility volume on patient treatments and survival outcomes in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
Article in Head & neck, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pituitary adenoma management and outcomes according to hospital case volume and facility type.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2025Article
- Precision Medicine for Nasopharyngeal Cancer-A Review of Current Prognostic Strategies.Cancers · 2024Review
- The impact of facility type and volume on treatment and overall survival in craniopharyngioma.Pituitary · 2023Article
- Nasopharyngeal carcinoma. A "different" head and neck tumour. Part B: treatment, prognostic factors, and outcomes.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2023Review
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluates the influence of facility case-volume on nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) treatments and overall survival (OS).
methodsThe 2004-2015 National Cancer Database was queried for patients with NPC receiving definitive treatment.
resultsA total of 8260 patients (5-year OS: 63.4%) were included. The 1114 unique facilities were categorized into 854 low-volume (treating 1-8 patients), 200 intermediate-volume (treating 9-23 patients), and 60 high-volume (treating 24-187 patients) facilities. Kaplan-Meier log-rank analysis demonstrated significantly improved OS with high-volume facilities (p < 0.001). On cox proportional-hazard multivariate regression after adjusting for age, sex, income, insurance, comorbidity index, histology, AJCC clinical stage, and treatment type, high-volume facilities were associated with lower mortality risk than low-volume (HR = 0.865, p = 0.019) and intermediate-volume facilities (HR = 0.916, p = 0.004). Propensity score matching analysis confirmed this association (p < 0.001).
conclusionHigher facility volume was an independent predictor of improved OS in NPC, suggesting a possible survival benefit of referrals to high-volume medical centers.
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.