Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36373590›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2023

Cancer treatments touch a wide range of values that count for patients and other stakeholders: What are the implications for decision-making?

Cilla E J Vrinzen, Haiko J Bloemendal, Esra Stuart, Amr Makady, Michel van Agthoven, Mariska Koster, Matthias A W Merkx, Rosella P M G Hermens, Patrick P T Jeurissen

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The value of FOLFIRINOX in advanced pancreatic cancer: balancing efficacy, toxicity, and quality of life.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors.

Cilla E J VrinzenScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ Healthcare), Radboud Institute of Health Sciences (RIHS), Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0317-4458
Haiko J BloemendalDepartment of Oncology, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences (RIHS), Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Esra StuartScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ Healthcare), Radboud Institute of Health Sciences (RIHS), Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Amr MakadyJanssen-Cilag B.V., Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Breda, The Netherlands.
Michel van AgthovenJanssen-Cilag B.V., Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Breda, The Netherlands.
Mariska KosterJanssen-Cilag B.V., Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Breda, The Netherlands.
Matthias A W MerkxScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ Healthcare), Radboud Institute of Health Sciences (RIHS), Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Rosella P M G HermensScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ Healthcare), Radboud Institute of Health Sciences (RIHS), Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Patrick P T JeurissenScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ Healthcare), Radboud Institute of Health Sciences (RIHS), Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer rates and expenditures are increasing, resulting in debates on the exact value of this care. Perspectives on what exactly constitutes worthwhile values differ. This study aims to explore all values-elements regarding new oncological treatments for patients with cancer and all stakeholders involved and to assess their implications in different decision-making procedures.

methodThirty-one individual in-depth interviews were conducted with different stakeholders to identify values within oncology. A focus group with seven experts was performed to explore its possible implications in decision-making procedures.

resultsThe overarching themes of values identified were impact on daily life and future, costs for patients and loved ones, quality of life, impact on loved ones, societal impact and quality of treatments. The expert panel revealed that the extended exploration of values that matter to patients is deemed useful in patient-level decision-making, information provision, patient empowerment and support during and after treatment. For national reimbursement decisions, implications for the broad range of values seems less clear.

conclusionClinical values are not the only ones that matter to oncological patients and the stakeholders in the field. We found a much broader range of values. Proper recognition of values that count might add to patient-level decision-making, but implications for reimbursement decisions are less clear. The results could be useful to guide clinicians and policymakers when it comes to decision-making in oncology. Making more explicit which values counts for whom guarantees a more systematic approach to decision-making on all levels.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsTouchDecision MakingHumansMedical OncologyQuality of Lifeclinical decision-makingdecision-makingneoplasmspatient preferencequality improvementquality of lifeshared

Identifiers

PMID36373590
PMCPMC10028089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read4
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.