ArticleJournal of cancer policy2025
Comparing the time spent in clinic by patients receiving, subcutaneous and intravenous formulations of cancer drugs: A pilot study.
Article in Journal of cancer policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Time toxicity in cancer care: a systematic review of definitions and measurement methods.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Optimizing Infusion Center Efficiency in Multiple Sclerosis: A Nursing Multicenter Survey on Organizational Impact of Ublituximab.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
backgroundSubcutaneous (SC) formulations of cancer-directed and supportive care drugs are associated with time savings relative to their intravenous (IV) formulations in clinical trials, but it is unclear if these time savings apply in routine practice.
methodsWe performed a retrospective study of adults with breast cancer treated at a single U.S. academic clinic site in 2024. We matched patients who received (1) SC trastuzumab/pertuzumab, or (2) SC denosumab, 1:1 to patients who received comparator IV formulations (IV trastuzumab/pertuzumab, or IV zoledronic acid, respectively) and had the same number and type of appointment(s) that day. We used Real-time location system (RTLS) badge data to calculate total time spent in the clinic and in the infusion area, and compared these between groups.
resultsAmong 14 patient-days with SC trastuzumab/pertuzumab and 15 patient-days with SC denosumab matched 1:1 with their IV comparators, most days included other ambulatory services performed (10/14 for SC trastuzumab/pertuzumab, 14/15 for SC denosumab). For trastuzumab/ pertuzumab, the median infusion area time was 65 min for SC vs. 110 min for IV (median difference, 48 min, p < 0.003). The median total clinic time was 166 min for SC vs. 198 min for IV (median difference, 44 min, p = 0.206). For SC denosumab vs IV zoledronic acid, the median total clinic time was 99 min for SC vs. 110 min for IV (median difference, 19 min, p = 0.049).
conclusionDespite impressive time savings in clinical trials, SC trastuzumab/pertuzumab and SC denosumab offered only modest time savings compared with their IV counterparts when delivered in clinic.
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.