Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35662810›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Patient-Reported Outcomes After Chemoradiation in Patients With Anal Cancer: A Qualitative Analysis.

Kelsey L Corrigan, Brian De, Michael K Rooney, Ethan B Ludmir, Prajnan Das, Grace L Smith, Cullen M Taniguchi, Bruce D Minsky, Eugene J Koay, Albert C Koong and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Improving our understanding of the quality of life of patients with metastatic or recurrent/persistent anal cancer: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Patients' perspective in anal cancer.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kelsey L CorriganDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Brian DeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Michael K RooneyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Ethan B LudmirDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Prajnan DasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Grace L SmithDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Cullen M TaniguchiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Bruce D MinskyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Eugene J KoayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Albert C KoongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Emma B HollidayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Pelvic chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is the curative therapy for non-metastatic anal cancer, resulting in excellent survival rates. However, anal cancer survivors may experience diminished quality of life (QOL) due to late toxicities from pelvic CRT. Few studies use patient-reported QOL, and few include thematic analyses of the patient experience in their own words. We conducted a survey study with qualitative analysis of free-text responses to explore themes of patient perceptions of their QOL during and after pelvic CRT to inform future interventions, reform patient education, and improve outcomes. Methods and Materials: We surveyed 248 patients with anal cancer treated with definitive intensity modulated radiation and concurrent chemotherapy from 2010 to 2018 who were alive and without recurrence. The survey included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General 7 item version, questions about satisfaction with preparation and patient education, and an optional free-text response question. Survey free response data were analyzed using the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Representative themes were generated. Results: One-hundred and twelve patients (45%) completed surveys. Of these respondents, 84 (75%) answered the free-text question. The median (interquartile range) Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General 7 item version score for survey responders (N = 112) was 21 (range, 15-24). Three themes most mentioned by respondents were persistent toxicity effecting QOL (82%), insufficient upfront information about CRT (56%), and gratitude toward care received (35%). Conclusions: Patients described late toxicities that affect QOL after pelvic CRT for anal cancer. This may be partially due to insufficient preparative information and post-treatment support. This study contributes to the literature supporting improved patient education and side effect management to augment long-term QOL for survivors of anal cancer.

Identifiers

PMID35662810
PMCPMC9157211
OpenAlexW4225127202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.