ArticleJournal of oncology practice2014
Documentation of oral versus intravenous chemotherapy plans in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.
Article in Journal of oncology practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Adherence to Oral Antineoplastic Therapies.The oncologist · 2016Pooled it
- Insights from GoFundMe posts: Analyzing GoFundMe financial aid requests from brain tumor patients in Ontario, Canada.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Article
- Fostering Oral Chemotherapy Understanding and Safety (FOCUS) Project: Interventions for Improving Knowledge and Compliance With National Safety Standards.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2024Article
- Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Can Guide and Improve Oncology Providers' Training in Brazil.Journal of global oncology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeUsing the ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) guidelines for assessing quality cancer care, we examined differences in clinician documentation of patient consent and treatment plans for oral versus intravenous chemotherapy among patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective review of the electronic health records of 175 patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC whose initial systemic treatment consisted of either oral or intravenous chemotherapy. Specifically, we collected data on whether oncology clinicians documented discussions of the intent of chemotherapy (eg, palliative v curative), the number of cycles or anticipated duration of the chemotherapy, and patient consent for the chemotherapy in the practitioner note.
resultsOf the 175 patients in the sample (54.3% female; mean age = 61.96 years, standard deviation = 10.81 years), 119 (68%) received intravenous chemotherapy, and 56 (32%) were prescribed oral agents for first-line chemotherapy. Compared with those who received intravenous chemotherapy, patients prescribed oral chemotherapy had lower rates of documented treatment plans, including intent (23.3% v 45.4%, P = .005) and anticipated duration of therapy (8.9% v 32.8%, P = .001). The rate of documentation of discussions regarding patient consent for chemotherapy did not differ significantly between groups (57.1% v 69.7, P = .13).
conclusionDocumentation of discussions regarding the goals and course of chemotherapy administration for patients with metastatic NSCLC does not meet ASCO QOPI quality standards, especially for individuals prescribed oral agents. Considering the increasing numbers of targeted oral therapies used in oncology practice, further work is needed to ensure appropriate discussion and documentation of chemotherapy plans.
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.