ArticleCancer medicine2024
Cross-sectional study of therapy-related expectations/concerns of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and physicians in Japan.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of prior primary tumor resection on long-term prognosis in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab: a multicenter analysis.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Clinical evaluation of medical and surgical complete responses in metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Anxiety about recurrence or metastasis after nephrectomy and perspectives on and preferences for adjuvant therapy among patients with renal cell carcinoma in Japan: a cross-sectional web-based survey.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Cross-sectional study of therapy-related expectations/concerns of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and physicians in Japan.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo achieve patient-centricity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment, it is essential to clarify the differences in perspectives between patients and physicians. This cross-sectional analysis of a web survey aimed to clarify the differences in expectations and concerns between mRCC patients and physicians regarding systemic mRCC therapy in Japan.
methodsSurveys from 83 patients and 165 physicians were analyzed.
resultsThe top three most significant differences in expectations of systemic therapy between patients and physicians (patient-based physician value) were "Chance of achieving treatment-free status" (-30.1%, p < 0.001), "Longer survival" (+25.8%, p < 0.001), and "Chance of eliminating all evidence of disease" (-25.6%, p < 0.001). The top three most significant differences in concerns for systemic therapy between patients and physicians (patient-based physician value) were "Lack of efficacy" (+36.1%, p < 0.001), "Lack of knowledge of treatment" (-28.2%, p < 0.001), and "Daily activities affected by side effects" (+22.3%, p < 0.001). Diarrhea, fatigue/malaise, and nausea/vomiting were patients' most distressing adverse events; 50.6% of patients had difficulty telling their physicians about adverse events such as fatigue, anxiety, and depression.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated a gap between patients with mRCC and physicians in their expectations and concerns for systemic therapy. Japanese patients with mRCC suffer from a number of adverse events, some of which are not shared with physicians. This study highlights the importance of communicating well with patients in clinical practice to achieve patient-centricity in systemic treatment for mRCC.
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.