ArticleThe oncologist2025
A pilot survey into the landscape of neuro-oncology care in the community.
Article in The oncologist, 2025. 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.
- Equity in Neurotoxicity Care in the Era of Cancer Immunotherapy.Seminars in neurology · 2026Article
- Navigating the Central Nervous System (CNS): A Pharmacokinetic Approach to the Treatment of CNS Tumors, Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM), in Particular.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
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
backgroundThe complexities of the field of neuro-oncology require multidisciplinary collaboration in order to deliver contemporary comprehensive care. There is increasing awareness that much of neuro-oncology care occurs in the community setting. In 2022, the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) created the Community Neuro-Oncology Committee (CNO) in an inaugural attempt to formally acknowledge community neuro-oncology practitioners.
methodsA 19 question survey was developed by SNO-CNO to gather initial data on the current landscape of neuro-oncology care in the community. The survey was distributed via the SNO newsletter and email blasts as well as through partnerships with multiple advocacy groups. Results were analyzed and tabulated through R2.
resultsThere were 112 responses from providers in the United States and Canada. Most providers were physicians and represented multiple disciplines including neurology, neuro-oncology, medical oncology, neurosurgery, and radiation oncology. Sixty-four (57%) described themselves as neuro-oncology-focused. Eighty-eight (79%) reported access to neuro-oncology tumor boards. Sixty-eight (73%) stated they had access to molecular tumor boards. Most respondents felt that they were adequately supported to manage neuro-oncology patients. When dividing responses based on a neuro-oncology-focused practice compared to a less neuro-oncology-focused practice, there were significant differences between access to molecular tumors boards (85% vs 63%, P = .023) and access to clinical trials (98% vs 82%, P = .022).
conclusionThis qualitative and quantitative hypothesis-generating data is the start of understanding the challenges faced by community neuro-oncology providers. These results will guide future studies and recommendations aimed toward better supporting them and their 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.