Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36506039›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2022

Factors associated with receipt of second-line recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer treatment in the United States: A retrospective administrative claims analysis.

Kalyani Sonawane, Tara Castellano, Christina Washington, Jie Ting, Andy Surinach, Carol Kirshner, Jagpreet Chhatwal, Turgay Ayer, Kathleen Moore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Kalyani SonawaneDepartment of Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Tara CastellanoLouisiana State University, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Christina WashingtonStephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma HSC, Oklahoma, City, OK, USA.
Jie TingSeagen Inc., Bothell, WA, USA.
Andy SurinachGenesis Research, Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Carol KirshnerValue Analytics Labs, Boston, MA, USA.
Jagpreet ChhatwalMassachusetts General Hospital Institute for Technology Assessment, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Turgay AyerGeorgia Institute of Technology, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Kathleen MooreStephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma HSC, Oklahoma, City, OK, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Contemporary, real-world data on eligible patients receiving treatment following progression on first-line (1L) recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer (r/mCC) therapy are needed to inform treatment algorithms and identify potential gaps in the r/mCC care continuum. Methods: This study estimated the prevalence and predictors of second-line (2L) r/mCC therapy among 1L-treated patients using the 2015-2020 IBM MarketScan® commercial claims database. Women ≥ 18 years diagnosed with cervical cancer and treated with first-line systemic therapies were identified and followed for 12 months from their 1L therapy end date. Women with claims for a new therapy after 60 days but no later than 365 days from the end of 1L treatment were identified as those who progressed and received 2L therapy for r/mCC. Descriptive statistics examined baseline cohort characteristics and multivariable logistic regression model examined the factors associated with receiving 2L treatment. Results: We identified 384 1L-treated patients with r/mCC with ≥ 12 months of follow-up post-1L treatment. During follow-up, over half (51.0 %) of the 1L-treated r/mCC patients received 2L treatment. Patients from the South and Midwest had a lower likelihood of receiving 2L treatment compared with those living in the Northeast (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.43; 0.23-0.84) and (aOR = 0.52; 0.28-0.95, respectively). Patients not treated with bevacizumab in 1L were also less likely to receive 2L therapy (aOR = 0.65; 0.43-0.99). Conclusion: Additional research and targeted outreach efforts are needed to understand geography-, population-, or practice-specific barriers impacting access to 2L therapy among patients with r/mCC.

Indexed as

Barriers to careCervical cancerEpidemiologyGeographic variationSecond-line treatmentUnited States

Identifiers

PMID36506039
PMCPMC9731386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.