ArticleOncology and therapy2025
Real-World Quantitative Insights into the Treatment Experience of Patients with Cancer in the USA with Subcutaneous Versus Intravenous Drug Delivery.
Article in Oncology and therapy, 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.
- A New Era in Cancer Care: How a Five-Minute Jab is Revolutionizing Treatment.Nepal journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Travel barriers to amyloid-targeting infusion access among older adults.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhile oncology treatments have traditionally been delivered through the intravenous (IV) route of administration (ROA), subcutaneous (SC) alternatives have become increasingly available. Research comparing real-world patient experiences with these ROAs in the USA has been limited. This study aimed to quantify and compare preferences, satisfaction, and daily life impact between SC and IV delivery for patients with cancer in the USA experienced with both ROAs in a real-world setting.
methodsPatients with cancer in the USA experienced with both SC and IV delivery were eligible to complete a 45-question web-based survey if they were at least 18 years of age, had a confirmed self-reported cancer diagnosis, and received both SC and IV treatment for the same condition within the past 24 months. The survey assessed treatment preferences, treatment site information, daily life impact, and feelings about potentially receiving at-home SC treatment. A free-response question was included to capture patient preferences in their own words.
resultsOf 201 patients completing this survey, 89.6% of patients indicated a preference towards SC delivery and 5.5% towards IV. Patients were typically more satisfied-to-very satisfied with SC delivery (78.6%, 33.3% IV), often owing to a reduced treatment burden and improved independence, convenience, and ability to cope with their illness. Satisfaction with SC treatment was also greater across the variables of appointment travel time (53.7%, 30.3% IV) and total time at a treatment facility (67.7%, 30.3% IV). When asked about hypothetically receiving at-home SC injections, over 80% of patients perceived a potential benefit.
conclusionsTo our knowledge, this study was the first in the USA to survey real-world treatment preferences of patients with cancer experienced with both SC- and IV-delivered care. Findings demonstrated a strong overall preference towards SC delivery, providing valuable insights and highlighting the need to broaden treatment considerations to include patient perspectives.
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.