ArticleBritish journal of cancer2024
Hit it hard: qualitative patient perspectives on the optimisation of immune checkpoint inhibition.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: addressing gaps, capturing patient experience, and advancing the field.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Review
- Quality of life under treatment with the immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and nivolumab in melanoma patients. Real-world data from a prospective observational study at the Skin Cancer Center Kiel.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors have transformed the treatment landscape of many cancers, including melanoma and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Randomised trials are evaluating outcomes from reduced ICI treatment schedules with the aim of improving quality of life, tolerability, and cost-effectiveness. This study aims to provide insight into patient and carer's perspectives of these trials.
methodsSeven focus groups were conducted with 31 people with stage IV melanoma, RCC, or caregivers for people receiving ICI. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsThree themes were generated: 1) "Treatment and clinic visits provide reassurance": reducing hospital visits may not improve quality of life. 2) "Assessment of personal risk versus benefit": the decision to participate in an ICI optimisation trial is influenced by treatment response, experience of toxicity and perceived logistical benefits based on the individual's circumstances. 3) "Pre-existing experience and beliefs about how treatment and trials work", including the belief that more treatment is better, influence views around ICI optimisation trials.
conclusionThis study provides insight into recruitment challenges and recommends strategies to enhance recruitment for ongoing ICI optimisation trials. These findings will influence the design of future ICI optimisation trials ensuring they are acceptable to patients.
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.