Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38173436›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2023

Cohort study to assess geographical variation in cholangiocarcinoma treatment in England.

Sophie Jose, Amy Zalin-Miller, Craig Knott, Lizz Paley, Daniela Tataru, Helen Morement, Mireille B Toledano, Shahid A Khan

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sophie JoseHealth Data Analysis, Health Data Insight CIC, Cambridge CB21 5XE, United Kingdom.
Amy Zalin-MillerHealth Data Analysis, Health Data Insight CIC, Cambridge CB21 5XE, United Kingdom.
Craig KnottHealth Data Analysis, Health Data Insight CIC, Cambridge CB21 5XE, United Kingdom.
Lizz PaleyNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London SE1 8UG, United Kingdom.
Daniela TataruNational Disease Registration Service, National Health Service England, London SE1 8UG, United Kingdom.
Helen MorementDepartment of Executive, AMMF-The Cholangiocarcinoma Charity, Essex CM24 1QW, United Kingdom.
Mireille B ToledanoMRC Centre for Environment and Health, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BX, United Kingdom.
Shahid A KhanLiver Unit, Division of Digestive Diseases, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BX, United Kingdom.
National Health Service · GBImperial College London · GBAmity University · AE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOutcomes for cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) are extremely poor owing to the complexities in diagnosing and managing a rare disease with heterogenous sub-types. Beyond curative surgery, which is only an option for a minority of patients diagnosed at an early stage, few systemic therapy options are currently recommended to relieve symptoms and prolong life. Stent insertion to manage disease complications requires highly specialised expertise. Evidence is lacking as to how CCA patients are managed in a real-world setting and whether there is any variation in treatments received by CCA patients.

aimTo assess geographic variation in treatments received amongst CCA patients in England.

methodsData used in this cohort study were drawn from the National Cancer Registration Dataset (NCRD), Hospital Episode Statistics and the Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy Dataset. A cohort of 8853 CCA patients diagnosed between 2014-2017 in the National Health Service in England was identified from the NCRD. Potentially curative surgery for all patients and systemic therapy and stent insertion for 7751 individuals who did not receive surgery were identified as three end-points of interest. Linear probability models assessed variation in each of the three treatment modalities according to Cancer Alliance of residence at diagnosis, and for socio-demographic and clinical characteristics at diagnosis.

resultsOf 8853 CCA patients, 1102 (12.4%) received potentially curative surgery. The mean [95% confidence interval (CI)] percentage-point difference from the population average ranged from -3.96 (-6.34 to -1.59)% to 3.77 (0.54 to 6.99)% across Cancer Alliances in England after adjustment for patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, showing statistically significant variation. Amongst 7751 who did not receive surgery, 1542 (19.9%) received systemic therapy, with mean [95%CI] percentage-point difference from the population average between -3.84 (-8.04 to 0.35)% to 9.28 (1.76 to 16.80)% across Cancer Alliances after adjustment, again showing the presence of statistically significant variation for some regions. Stent insertion was received by 2156 (27.8%), with mean [95%CI] percentage-point difference from the population average between -10.54 (-12.88 to -8.20)% to 13.64 (9.22 to 18.06)% across Cancer Alliances after adjustment, showing wide and statistically significant variation from the population average. Half of 8853 patients (

conclusionSubstantial regional variation in treatments received by CCA patients was observed in England. Such variation could be due to differences in case-mix, clinical practice or access to specialist expertise.

Indexed as

Biliary tract cancerChemotherapyCholangiocarcinomaEnglandLiver cancerStentSurgerySystemic therapyTreatment

Identifiers

PMID38173436
PMCPMC10758644
OpenAlexW4389694825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.