Variations in cancer centers’ use of cytology for the diagnosis of unresectable pancreatic cancer in the National Cancer Data Base

2Citations
Citations of this article
27Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cytology is an accurate, safe, cost-effective, and guideline-recommended method for pancreatic cancer diagnosis, particularly for unresectable disease. However, to the authors’ knowledge, the frequency and determinants of its use have not been described to date. The current study examined patterns of cytological diagnosis among patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer by treatment facility type and by patient characteristics. METHODS: The prevalence of definitive cytological diagnosis (cytology only, without confirmatory histology) versus histological diagnosis (with or without accompanying cytology) was examined in National Cancer Data Base records of 13,657 patients diagnosed with unresectable (American Joint Committee on Cancer stages III and IV) pancreatic cancer in 2011 and 2012 who did not undergo surgical treatment (mode of diagnosis could not be ascertained for surgical patients). Associations between definitive cytological diagnosis and patient and facility characteristics were assessed using multivariable marginal logistic regression models and expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: Overall, 26.8% of unresectable pancreatic cancer cases were definitively diagnosed with cytology. The prevalence of cytological diagnosis ranged from 16.5% in community cancer programs and 22.6% in comprehensive community cancer programs to 31.3% in academic/teaching/research cancer programs and 43.2% in National Cancer Institute-designated cancer programs (P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Gansler, T., Fedewa, S. A., Lin, C. C., Jemal, A., & Ward, E. M. (2016). Variations in cancer centers’ use of cytology for the diagnosis of unresectable pancreatic cancer in the National Cancer Data Base. Cancer Cytopathology, 124(11), 791–800. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.21757

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free