ArticleBMJ open2017
Differences in experiences of care between patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer of known and unknown primaries: mixed-method findings from the 2013 cancer patient experience survey in England.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- New techniques to identify the tissue of origin for cancer of unknown primary in the era of precision medicine: progress and challenges.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Pooled it
- Development and application of patient-reported experience measures for cancer patients: a scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Review
- Understanding experiences of optimal survivorship care: findings from a population-based study of cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- The Elusive Primary: Metastatic Adenocarcinoma of the Breast Presenting Solely as a Hard Sternal Mass.The American journal of case reports · 2023Article
- Six-year experience of Australia's first dedicated cancer of unknown primary clinic.British journal of cancer · 2023Article
- Deciphering the origin and therapeutic targets of cancer of unknown primary: a case report that illustrates the power of integrative whole-exome and transcriptome sequencing analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Psychological distress, understanding of cancer and illness uncertainty in patients with Cancer of Unknown Primary.Psycho-oncology · 2022Article
- Uncertainty and the unmet informational needs of patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP): a cross-sectional multi-site study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Nationwide survey on family caregiver-perceived experiences of patients with cancer of unknown primary site.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- Factors influencing cancer patients' experiences of care in the USA, United Kingdom, and Canada: A systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 2022Review
- COVID-19: experiences of lockdown and support needs in children and young adults with kidney conditions.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2021Article
- COVID-19: Impact, experiences, and support needs of children and young adults with cystic fibrosis and parents.Pediatric pulmonology · 2021Article
- Development and Validation of a Novel Nomogram for Individualized Prediction of Survival in Cancer of Unknown Primary.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2021Article
- Axillary Nodal Metastases from Carcinoma of Unknown Primary (CUPAx): Role of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) in Detecting Occult Breast Cancer.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- COVID-19 and children with cancer: Parents' experiences, anxieties and support needs.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2021Article
- Computer-assisted textual analysis of free-text comments in the Swiss Cancer Patient Experiences (SCAPE) survey.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore differences in experiences of care reported in the Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) between patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) and those with metastatic disease of known primary (non-CUP); to determine insights pertaining to the experiences of care for CUP respondents from free-text comments.
designTwo separate, but related, studies, involving secondary analysis of existing data. Using frequency matching of CUP and non-CUP patients, statistical comparisons of responses to CPES questions were conducted. Free-text comments from CUP respondents were analysed thematically. SETTING AND
participantsThe CPES questionnaire comprises 63 closed questions measuring 8 areas that relate to experience of care and 3 free-text questions. Questionnaires were mailed to all adult patients (aged ≥16 years) in England with cancer admitted to hospital between 1 September 2013 and 30 November 2013.
resultsMatched analysis of closed response items from 2992 patients found significant differences between CUP (n=1496) and non-CUP patients (n=1496): CUP patients were more likely to want more written information about their type of cancer and tests received, to receive their diagnosis from a general practitioner (GP) and have seen allied health professionals, but less likely to have understood explanations of their condition or had surgery. Freetext responses (n=3055) were coded into 17 categories and provided deeper insight regarding patient information and interactions with GPs. CPES data may include a preponderance of patients with favourable CUP subtypes and patients initially identified as CUP but whose primary was subsequently identified.
conclusionsThese are the first large-scale studies to explore the experiences of care of CUP patients. The significant differences identified between the experiences of CUP and non-CUP patients suggest CUP patients require more psychosocial support and specific interventions to manage diagnostic uncertainty and the multiple investigations many CUP patients face. Substantial limitations were identified with the CPES data, emphasising the need for prospective studies.
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.