Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34926010›Full record

ArticleCureus2021

Evaluation of Demographics and Management of Rectal Cancer by Age Group: A Retrospective Propensity Matched Cohort Analysis of the National Cancer Database.

Jonathan Bliggenstorfer, Katherine Bingmer, Asya Ofshteyn, Anuja L Sarode, Meridith Ginesi, Sharon L Stein, Emily Steinhagen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Jonathan BliggenstorferDepartment of Surgery, University Hospitals Research in Surgical Outcomes and Effectiveness (UH RISES), Cleveland, USA.
Katherine BingmerDepartment of Surgery, University Hospitals Research in Surgical Outcomes and Effectiveness (UH RISES), Cleveland, USA.
Asya OfshteynDepartment of Surgery, University Hospitals Research in Surgical Outcomes and Effectiveness (UH RISES), Cleveland, USA.
Anuja L SarodeDepartment of Surgery, University Hospitals Research in Surgical Outcomes and Effectiveness (UH RISES), Cleveland, USA.
Meridith GinesiDepartment of Surgery, University Hospitals Research in Surgical Outcomes and Effectiveness (UH RISES), Cleveland, USA.
Sharon L SteinDepartment of Surgery, University Hospitals Research in Surgical Outcomes and Effectiveness (UH RISES), Cleveland, USA.
Emily SteinhagenDepartment of Surgery, University Hospitals Research in Surgical Outcomes and Effectiveness (UH RISES), Cleveland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

disparitiesearly age of onsetnational cancer databaseoncologyrectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID34926010
PMCPMC8654076

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.