ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2024
Impact of Commission on Cancer Accreditation on Cancer Survival: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database Analysis.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does access to quality accreditation improve health? - Patient-level evidence from German cancer care.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Socioeconomic Influences on Melanoma Incidence Patterns by Stage in the US.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Quality-assured treatment in certified cancer center networks in upper Franconia, Germany: a population-centered retrospective cohort analysis based on data of the Bavarian cancer registry.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Evaluating Quality of Cancer Care in Delaware using Commission on Cancer (CoC) Quality Measures, 2018-2019.Delaware journal of public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo analyze the cancer burden in the United States, researchers are relying on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Our objective was to analyze differences in cancer outcome between Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited and non-accredited facilities.
methodsThe SEER database was queried for diagnosis years 2018 and 2019. Only analytic cases were included. Observed survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method for all cancer sites, stratified by accreditation status. Univariate analyses were performed to quantify differences in survival between cancer cases in CoC-accredited and non-CoC-accredited facilities. Cancers of interest were chosen based on statistical significance (p < 0.01) and clinical significance (> 25% difference in end survival). Multivariate analyses were conducted on cancers of interest.
resultsOverall, there were 602,185 cases from CoC-accredited facilities and 198,492 from non-CoC-accredited facilities. 5 of 59 solid organ cancers showed statistically and clinically significant reductions in survival in non-accredited facilities (lung and bronchus: 27.9%; liver: 41.1%; esophagus: 30.4%; pancreas: 32.7%; intrahepatic bile duct: 39.4%). Multivariate analysis on these 5 cancers was performed. CoC accreditation was a statistically significant variable decreasing the hazard in all 5 cancers (hazard ratio 0.86-0.91; all p-values <0.005). All these cancers demand resource-intensive treatment.
conclusionAccreditation has a significant impact on survival in 5/59 solid organ cancers. Although accredited facilities may be better apt to handle these cancer cases, the survival in most cancers is not significantly affected by accreditation. However, examining longer-term endpoints elucidate further nuances. Herein, CoC accreditation was found to be an independent variable impacting 2-year survival for a minority of cancers.
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.