Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36005180›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2022

The Screening and COnsensus Based on Practices and Evidence (SCOPE) Program Results of a Survey on Daily Practice Patterns for Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer-A Swiss Perspective in the Context of an International Viewpoint.

Alexander R Siebenhüner, Giorgia Lo Presti, Daniel Helbling, Petr Szturz, Christoforos Astaras, Yannick Buccella, Sara De Dosso

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 85% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Alexander R SiebenhünerDepartment of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Cantonal Hospital Schaffhausen, 8208 Schaffhausen, Switzerland.
Giorgia Lo PrestiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, 6600 Locarno, Switzerland.
Daniel HelblingGastrointestinales Tumorzentrum Zürich, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland.
Petr SzturzDepartment of Oncology, University of Lausanne (UNIL) and Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9705-4168
Christoforos AstarasHUGE, Geneva University Hospitals, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland.
Yannick BuccellaStadtspital Zürich Triemli, 8063 Zurich, Switzerland.
Sara De DossoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale, 6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6424-6307
Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale · CHSpitäler Schaffhausen · CHTriemli Hospital · CHUniversity Hospital of Geneva · CHUniversity of Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Switzerland, physicians do not have national guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patient care and utilize international versions for management recommendations. Moreover, information about adherence to these guidelines and real-world practice patterns in Switzerland or other countries is lacking. The Screening and COnsensus based on Practices and Evidence (SCOPE) program were designed by an international expert panel of gastrointestinal oncologists to gather real-world insights in the current clinical setting to manage patients with mCRC who have received prior treatment. We sought to understand general practice patterns, the influence of molecular diagnostics (e.g., testing for KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, and MSI), tumor sidedness, and patient-centric factors on treatment selection utilizing in-person surveys and three hypothetical patient case scenarios. Here, we describe and evaluate the Swiss data from the SCOPE program within the context of an international viewpoint and discuss the findings of our analysis. In general, we find that the real-world clinical decisions of Swiss physicians (SWI) closely follow international (INT) recommendations and guidelines, largely paralleling their regional and international counterparts in using the two approved treatments in the third- and fourth-line settings, namely trifluridine-tipiracil and regorafenib. Finally, our data suggest a tendency toward the use of trifluridine-tipiracil (SWI: 79%; INT: 66%) over regorafenib (SWI: 18%; INT: 18%) as the preferred third-line treatment choice in mCRC patients regardless of KRAS status.

Indexed as

Colonic NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsRectal NeoplasmsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsConsensusEarly Detection of CancerHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)SwitzerlandTrifluridineProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)TrifluridineKRAS mutated mCRCKRAS wildtype mCRCmetastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)practice patternsregorafenibsequential treatmentSwitzerlandtrifluridine-tipiracil

Identifiers

PMID36005180
PMCPMC9406863
OpenAlexW4290467002

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.