ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2026
Use of low-value cancer care in practices acquired by private equity firms.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Private equity acquisitions and cancer care: nothing to see here? Not so fast.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Private equity acquisition of medical practices has been associated with increased prices and use of lucrative treatments. Using Medicare data from 2015 to 2021, we compared the prevalence of low-value cancer treatments between private equity-owned and non-private equity-owned practices. The 5 low-value treatments were (1) granulocyte colony-stimulating factors for low-risk chemotherapy, (2) denosumab for castration-sensitive prostate cancer, (3) nab-paclitaxel for breast or lung cancer, (4) the addition of bevacizumab for ovarian cancer, and (5) biologic agents with biosimilar alternatives. The primary outcome was receipt of a low-value treatment. Comparing patients diagnosed when their oncologist was vs was not practicing at a private equity-owned address, adjusted prevalence differences of low-value treatments were -2.8 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] = -5.5 to -0.2) for granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, +3.7 percentage points (95% CI = -7.3 to 14.7) for denosumab, -0.7 percentage points (95% CI = -3.9 to 1.5) for nab-paclitaxel, -6.5 percentage points (95% CI = -12.5 to -0.4) for bevacizumab, and -2.9 percentage points (95% CI = -6.0 to 0.2) for biologics. Overall, private equity ownership was not associated with increased prevalence of low-value cancer treatments.
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.