Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34939327›Full record

ReviewMolecular oncology2022

Cancer outcome research - a European challenge Part II: Opportunities and priorities.

Mette Kalager, Hans-Olov Adami, Paul W Dickman, Pernilla Lagergren, Karen Steindorf

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Potential for Cure by Stage across the Cancer Spectrum in the United States.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mette KalagerClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-2504-108X
Hans-Olov AdamiClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Norway.
Paul W DickmanDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Pernilla LagergrenSurgical Care Science, Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karen SteindorfDivision of Physical Activity, Prevention and Cancer, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Part I of our review of cancer outcome research, we analysed pros and cons of various measures relevant to quantifying the burden of cancer. Based on our recommendations in Part I, we now discuss in Part II opportunities and priorities in four areas of outcome research: primary prevention; early detection screening; treatment; and quality-of-life assessment. We recommend the establishment of an infrastructure that facilitates high-quality research in these areas: (a) progress in primary prevention can be assessed most directly by monitoring cancer incidence although the interpretation of temporal trends is notoriously confounded by numerous factors that complicate causal inference. (b) preventive screening, with the aim to prevent advanced disease, appears to work well in in some tumours but not in others. It will require randomized control trials (RCTs) to quantify benefits and harms although conclusive studies are increasingly difficult to undertake. We therefore propose learning screening programmes (randomization at the time of rolling out population-based programmes) as the most feasible approach. (c) New therapeutic interventions tailored to the individual patient often require assessment in RCTs with rather complex and dynamic structure, making their design and analyses increasingly challenging but also more suited to be executed as academic, PI-initiated trials. (d) We next discuss assessment of quality-of-life aspects. Quality of life is a neglected component in outcome research with an urgent need for development, validation and standardization. We finally recommend four initiatives that would pave the way for a valid and informative assessment of the goals for improved cancer control in Europe as defined by the European Academy of Cancer Sciences.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsAcademies and InstitutesEuropeHumansQuality of Lifecancerpreventionquality of lifescreeningtreatment

Identifiers

PMID34939327
PMCPMC9208079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.