ArticleCureus2021
Evaluation of Demographics and Management of Rectal Cancer by Age Group: A Retrospective Propensity Matched Cohort Analysis of the National Cancer Database.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Article
- Epidemiology of Rectal Cancer Patients in the Kingdom of Bahrain: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Euroasian journal of hepato-gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Data suggests there are demographic and biological differences in colon cancer between young and typical-onset patients. However, it is unclear if these differences persist in rectal cancer patients, exclusive of colon cancer. This is a retrospective review of a large national database to evaluate age-based differences in demographics, tumor features, and treatment among patients with rectal adenocarcinoma. Methods The National Cancer Database from 2004-2014 was queried for rectal adenocarcinoma. Patients were grouped by age at diagnosis: early-onset, defined as <40 years, mid-onset 40-49, and late-onset ≥50. Propensity matching controlled for demographic variation among cohorts. Pairwise Chi-square with Bonferroni correction was used for analysis. Results Thirty thousand nine hundred seventy-eight patients were included: 1,249 (4%) early-onset, 4,156 (13%) middle-onset, and 25,573 (83%) late-onset. Significant differences existed between all three cohorts in nearly all demographic and pathologic metrics. Control for demographic variation revealed early-onset and middle-onset cohorts differed only with respect to the stage at presentation, while early-onset and late-onset cohorts differed more significantly on the basis of stage, histology, and oncologic management. Conclusion The demographic differences observed demonstrate that patients under 50 should not be considered one cohort. Propensity matching led to a decrease in tumor trait differences among cohorts, suggesting that demographics other than age drive variation in tumor biology. Young patients received more aggressive management, implying the presence of an age bias. Age-based screening is likely insufficient and may exclude the rising proportion of young patients at risk for disease, while age-based management may lead to under- or overtreatment of patients at either end of the age spectrum.
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.