Trial reportJAMA oncology2025
Shared Local Oncology Care After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03244826 (Shared Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Shared Care: Patient-Centered Management After Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The SPIZ study: rationale and protocol of a randomized controlled trial to optimize interdisciplinary care of patients following cellular therapy through a digitally supported, cross-regional and cross-sectoral care model.Annals of hematology · 2026Article
- "I Missed My Other Oncologist": Established Relationships as Barriers and Facilitators to Accessing CAR-T and Autologous Transplantation.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- The Caregiver Paradigm in Hematopoietic Cell Transplant: Current and Future Directions.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2025Review
- Barriers and facilitators to representative acute leukemia trial participation at National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers.The oncologist · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Although sharing care with local oncologists after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has been proposed for patients living far from HCT centers, it is not known whether a shared strategy is safe or improves patient quality of life (QOL). Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of sharing follow-up care after HCT between the HCT specialty center and local oncologists. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter collaborative randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing HCT at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI)-a high volume HCT center in Boston (Massachusetts)-and 8 local oncology practices. Eligible patients were enrolled from December 2017 to December 2021 and were randomized 1:1 to shared vs usual care after neutrophil engraftment, stratified by local sites in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New York, and Maine. Data analyses were performed in January 2024. Intervention: Shared care involved alternating post-HCT visits at DFCI and local oncology practices through day 100; for usual care, all post-HCT visits occurred only at DFCI. Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes were nonrelapse mortality (NRM) at day 100, and QOL measured by the FACT-BMT (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplantation) instrument and the QLQ-C30 (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Quality of Life Questionnaire) at day 180. Prespecified secondary outcomes included day 100 QOL and 1-year overall survival. Results: A total of 302 participants (median [range] age, 63 [20-79] years; 117 [38.7%] females; 185 [61.3%] males) were included in the analysis; 152 were randomized to shared care and 150 to usual care. Day 100 NRM was noninferior for shared vs usual care (2.6% [95% CI, 0.7% to 6.6%] vs 2.7% [95% CI, 0.7% to 6.7%]; P = .98). There were no differences at day 180 for the FACT-BMT total score (mean difference, 3.8; 95% CI, -2.1 to 9.6; P = .20) or QLQ-C30 global score (1.9; 95% CI, -4.9 to 8.8; P = .58). At day 100, the FACT-BMT total score was better for shared care (mean difference, 6.6; 95% CI, 1.0 to 12.1; P = .02) as was the QLQ-C30 global score (8.8; 95% CI, 1.8 to 15.7; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that shared care resulted in noninferior NRM at day 100 but similar QOL at day 180, with improved QOL at day 100. These data suggest that shared care is safe, improves QOL early on, and has the potential to become a routine model for post-HCT care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03244826.
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.