Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34623406›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Adoption of New Risk Stratification Technologies Within US Hospital Referral Regions and Association With Prostate Cancer Management.

Michael S Leapman, Rong Wang, Henry S Park, James B Yu, Preston C Sprenkle, Michaela A Dinan, Xiaomei Ma, Cary P Gross

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Sociodemographic disparities in prostate cancer imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Cancer statistics, 2025.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians
    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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael S LeapmanDepartment of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Rong WangYale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research Center, New Haven, Connecticut.
Henry S ParkYale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research Center, New Haven, Connecticut.
James B YuYale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research Center, New Haven, Connecticut.
Preston C SprenkleDepartment of Urology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Michaela A DinanYale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research Center, New Haven, Connecticut.
Xiaomei MaYale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research Center, New Haven, Connecticut.
Cary P GrossYale Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research Center, New Haven, Connecticut.
Yale University · USYale Cancer Center · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Understanding the Adoption and Impact of New Risk Assessment Technologies in Prostate Cancer CareK08CA237872 · NCI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI LEAPMAN, MICHAEL STUART · 2019 to 2023
$1.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NCI NIH HHS K08 CA237872
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The clinical decisions that arise from prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and genomic testing in patients with prostate cancer are not well understood. Objective: To evaluate the association between regional uptake of prostate MRI and genomic testing and observation vs treatment for prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study of commercial insurance claims for prostate MRI and genomic testing included 65 530 patients 40 to 89 years of age newly diagnosed with prostate cancer from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2019. Exposures: Patient- and regional-level use of prostate MRI and genomic testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Observation vs definitive treatment for prostate cancer. Patient-level analyses examined the association between receipt of testing or residing in a hospital referral region (HRR) that adopted testing and observation. In regional-level analyses, the dependent variable was the change in the proportion of patients observed for prostate cancer at the HRR level between 2 periods: July 1, 2012, to June 30, 2014, and July 1, 2017, to June 20, 2019. The independent study variables included HRR-level changes in the proportion of men undergoing prostate MRI and genomic testing between these periods, and the models were adjusted for contextual factors associated with prostate cancer care and socioeconomic status. Results: This study identified 65 530 patients, including 27 679 in the early period (mean [SD] age, 58.0 [5.9] years) and 37 851 in the late period (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.7] years). Use of prostate MRI increased significantly from 7.2% (95% CI, 6.9%-7.5%) to 16.7% (95% CI, 16.3%-17.1%) from the early to late period. Use of genomic testing increased significantly from 1.3% (95% CI, 1.1%-1.4%) to 12.7% (95% CI, 12.3%-13.0%) from the early to late period. Compared with the lowest, the highest HRR quartiles of prostate MRI and genomic testing uptake were associated with an adjusted 4.1% (SE, 1.1%; P < .001) and 2.5% (SE, 1.1%; P = .03) absolute increase in the proportion of patients receiving observation, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, uptake of prostate MRI and genomic testing was associated with increased use of initial observation vs treatment for prostate cancer. Marked geographic variation supports the need for further patient-level research to optimize the dissemination and outcome of testing.

Indexed as

AgedCohort StudiesGenetic TestingHospitalsHumansLogistic ModelsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedProstatic NeoplasmsReferral and ConsultationRetrospective StudiesRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID34623406
PMCPMC8501394
OpenAlexW3202288054

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.