ArticleCancer research and treatment2015
Oncologist Perspectives on Rare Cancer Care: A Nationwide Survey.
Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Choreographed expansion of services results in decreased patient burden without compromise of outcomes: An assessment of the Ontario experience.Neuro-oncology practice · 2024Article
- Primary Small Cell Carcinoma of the Kidney: Disease Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Cancer Patients' Utilization of Tertiary Hospitals in Seoul Before and After the Benefit Expansion Policy.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn response to the challenges and difficulties imposed by rare cancers, multi-stakeholder initiatives dedicated to improving rare cancer care was launched, and several recommendations were made by professional societies. However, these primarily reflect the view of the advocates and supporters, and may not represent the views of the "average" clinician or researcher. In this study, we sought to investigate perceived difficulties with regard to rare cancer care and potential solutions endorsed by oncologists. MATERIALS AND
methodsA representative sample of 420 oncologists recruited in 13 cancer centers participated in a nationwide survey.
resultsOncologists faced various difficulties in treatment of patients with rare cancers, including the lack of clinical practice guidelines (65.7%) and personal experience (65.2%), lack of approved treatment options (39.8%), and reimbursement issues (44.5%). They were generally supportive of recent recommendations by multi-stakeholder initiatives as well as professional societies for development of clear clinical practice guidelines (66.0%), flexible reimbursement guidelines (52.9%), and a national rare cancer registry (47.4%). However, there was only moderate endorsement for referrals to high-volume centers (35.5%) and encouragement of off-label treatments (21.0%).
conclusionInsights into the general attitudes of oncologists gained through our nationwide survey of representative samples would be helpful in development of clinical practices and public health policies in rare cancer treatment and research.
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.