ArticleCancer research and treatment2015
Oncologists' Experience with Patients with Second Primary Cancer and the Attitudes toward Second Primary Cancer Screening: 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
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
purposeScreening for second primary cancer (SPC) is one of the key components to survivorship care. We aim to evaluate the oncologists' experience with SPCs and assess the current practice, perceived barriers, and recommendations related to SPC screening. MATERIALS AND
methodsA nationwide survey was conducted with a representative sample of 496 Korean oncologists. A questionnaire based on the findings from our previous qualitative study was administered.
resultsMore than three-fourths of oncologists (76.3%), who participated in the study, had experience with SPC patients. Over half of them (51.9%) stated that it was an embarrassing experience. While the current management practice for SPC varies, most oncologists (80.2%) agreed on the necessity in proactively providing information on SPC screening. A short consultation time (52.3%), lack of guidelines and evidence on SPC screening (47.7%), and patients' lack of knowledge about SPCs (45.1%) or SPC screening (41.4%) were most frequently reported as barriers to providing appropriate care for managing SPC. Oncologists recommended the development of specific screening programs or guidelines in accordance to the type of primary cancer (65.9%), the development of an internal system for SPC screening within the hospital (59.7%) or systematic connection with the national cancer screening program (44.3%), and education of oncologists (41.4%) as well as patients (48.9%) regarding SPC screening.
conclusionMany oncologists reported the occurrence of SPC as an embarrassing experience. Given the variations in current practice and the lack of consensus, further studies are warranted to develop the optimal clinical strategy to provide SPC screening for cancer survivors.
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.