ArticleCancer medicine2019
Optimal frequency of scans for patients on cancer therapies: A population kinetics assessment.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying Features of Scanxiety Among People With Cancer: A Nominal Group Technique Method.Psycho-oncology · 2026Article
- A Population Survival Kinetics Assessment of Extensive Small Cell Lung Cancer and Rationale for Maintenance Therapy.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Population Survival Kinetics Derived from Clinical Trials of Potentially Curable Lung Cancers.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Analysis of real-world data to investigate evolving treatment sequencing patterns in advanced non-small cell lung cancers and their impact on survival.Journal of thoracic disease · 2023Article
- The need for speed in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A population kinetics assessment.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Optimal frequency of scans for patients on cancer therapies: A population kinetics assessment.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimal frequency of follow-up scans for patients receiving systemic therapies is poorly defined. Progression-free survival (PFS) generally follows first-order kinetics. We used exponential decay nonlinear regression analysis to calculate half-lives for 887 published PFS curves.
methodWe used the Excel formula x = EXP(-t
resultsProportion of residual patients predicted to remain progression-free at each subsequent scan varied with scan intervals and regimen PFS half-life. For example, with a 4-month half-life (17.3 weeks) and scans every 6 weeks, 21% of patients would progress by the first scan, 21% of the remaining patients would progress by the second scan at 12 weeks, etc With 2, 6- and 12-month half-lives (for example), the proportion of remaining patients progressing at each subsequent scan if repeated every 3 weeks would be 21%, 8% and 4%, respectively, while with scans every 12 weeks it would be 62%, 27% and 15%, respectively. Furthermore, optimal scan frequency can be calculated for populations comprised of distinct rapidly and slowly progressing subpopulations, as well as with convex curves arising from treatment breaks, where optimal scan frequency may differ during therapy administration vs during more rapid progression after therapy interruption.
conclusionsA population kinetics approach permits a regimen- and tumor-specific determination of optimal scan frequency for patients on systemic therapies.
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.