Observational studyWorld journal of surgery2025
Association of commission on cancer accreditation with receipt of guideline-concordant care and survival among patients with colon cancer.
Observational study in World journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring disparities in adherence to colorectal cancer clinical practice guidelines and associated survival outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Pooled it
- The patient journey and guideline-concordant care in colorectal cancer-is current practice enough?Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundGuideline-concordant care (GCC) is associated with improved survival for patients with cancer; however, variations in receipt of GCC remain a concern. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association of Commission on Cancer (CoC) hospital accreditation status with receipt of GCC and survival among patients with colon cancer.
methodsThis retrospective observational study identified patients diagnosed with stage I-IV colon cancer from 2018 to 2020 from the National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Database. Guideline concordance was defined as receipt of stage-appropriate lymphadenectomy or chemotherapy. Multivariable logistic regression models investigated associations with receipt of GCC. Cox proportional hazards regression models assessed 3-year cancer-specific mortality risk.
resultsOf 222,583 patients with colon cancer, 146,629 (91.2%) of eligible patients received guideline-concordant lymphadenectomy and 70,586 (81.9%) of the eligible patients received guideline-concordant chemotherapy. Treatment at CoC-accredited hospitals was the strongest modifiable predictor for receipt of guideline-concordant lymphadenectomy (odds ratio [OR] 1.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.75-1.88) and chemotherapy (OR 2.14; 95% CI 2.06-2.23). Among patients treated at CoC-accredited hospitals, risk adjusted mortality was decreased for patients with stage I-II disease (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94; 95% CI 0.80-0.99), stage III disease (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.88-0.98), and stage IV disease (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.84-0.92).
conclusionsFor patients with colon cancer, treatment at CoC-accredited hospitals was associated with increased receipt of GCC and decreased mortality risk. Benchmarking data may serve as a valuable accountability tool for quality assessment to improve cancer treatment and outcomes.
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.