ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Escalation, maintenance and abstention in oncology a new study design to identify how individual values of patients impact on the assessment of risks and benefits of novel therapeutic concepts in cases of gynaecological tumors and colorectal cancer: a study protocol.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- From consultation to choice: gynecologic cancer patients' perspectives on shared decision making in clinical practice - findings from a cross-sectional observational qualitative interview study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Observational
- Barriers to continuity of outpatient infusion-port maintenance among patients with cancer: a single-center cross-sectional study in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Being diagnosed with cancer is a life-altering event that profoundly reshapes an indivdual's biography, especially in terms of temporality and physicality. Modern treatment approaches, such as maintenance therapy or therapeutic abstinence, often conflict with patients' desire for a radical fight against the disease. Decision-making about therapeutic goals is shaped by the tension between medical-scientific expertise and personal values and experiences, making it particularly challenging to align diverse preferences and norms. This study aims to analyse values in the context of the challenging human experience of cancer. We hypothesise that conventional quantitative measures, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may be insufficient to fully capture patients' perspective on therapeutic success. To address this, we will conduct semi-structured interviews with individuals diagnosed with gynecological or colorectal cancer. Using a mixed methods approach, we aim to identify patients' values, treatment goals, and expectations. The study's key outcomes include: 1) an ethical analysis of values in the context of cancer experiences 2) a reconstruction of values that shape individual treatment goals and expectations and 3) a comparison between ethical concepts of successful life, patients' situational values, and evidence-based medical preferences. Building on these insights, the study pursues three secondary objectives: 1) developing a strategy for patient-centred adaptation of clinical evaluations of treatment approaches, including escalation, maintenance and abstinence, 2) designing a well-defined clinical framework for therapeutic goal setting, and 3) integrating this framework into medical education, addressing clinical, oncological, ethical and communication competencies.
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.