ReviewBritish journal of cancer2025
Optimal timing of cancer treatments: a call for emerging evidence from clinical trials and real-world studies.
Review in British journal of cancer, 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.
- SAGES colorectal and metabolic bariatric surgery committee joint task force call to action for synchronized severe obesity and colorectal cancer management.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Editorial: Clinical pharmacist service promotes the improvement of medical quality, volume II.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer treatment has entered the era of personalised or precision medicine. Biomarker-driven therapies provide improved treatment efficacy and manageable toxicity profiles compared to systemic standard-of-care therapies. They also drive the development of combining non-surgical treatments, extending indications to early-stage tumours and further refining treatment lines with more precise options. The current treatment landscape, however, has introduced a complexity of approaches to cancer treatment, including the optimal timing of when to initiate and discontinue these treatments. Of note, treatment timing usually lacks evaluation in clinical trials and can be variable in real-world settings due to the impacts of medical, healthcare, and social factors. Given that more patients can benefit from multi-modality strategies, a better understanding of the prognostic impact of treatment-to-treatment intervals (TTIs) - the intervals between combined treatments and between treatment lines - is needed. Studies for this purpose can rely on existing trial and real-world data and be context-specific for treatment options, therapeutic settings, cancer types and biomarkers, healthcare settings or systems. This perspective article calls for emerging evidence of the optimal timing of cancer treatments. We anticipate that new studies on the optimal timing will bring new insights into how to better use cancer treatments, further improving treatment efficacy.
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.