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.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.