ArticleBMC cancer2025
Reviewing the lines of therapy-concept in cancer treatment: a survey study among physicians.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile the line of therapy (LOT) concept is crucial for clinical decision-making in oncology, the concept lacks a consensual understanding bearing the risk of miscommunication. This study examines physicians' understanding of LOT, its perceived relevance, and the events and actions that determine a change of LOT within German oncological networks.
methodsEmploying a snowball sampling approach, an anonymous online-administered survey was conducted among German physicians with oncological experience. Descriptive statistics and consensus metrics (Gini Mean Difference [GMD] and normalized entropy) were used to summarize the survey results and the relative agreement among the respondents, respectively.
resultsSixty physicians completed the survey. The majority were permanent members of an oncological tumor board (N = 46; 76.7%) and worked as a chief or senior physician (N = 37; 61.7%). Most respondents (N = 57, 95.0%) agreed that the LOT concept describes a planned therapeutic approach with a specified goal. Progression (N = 58; 96.7%), recurrence (N = 52; 86.7%), metastasis occurrence (N = 55; 91.7%), or severe side-effects (N = 46; 76.7%) were considered indicators prompting a change of LOT. Consideration of local therapeutic interventions (e.g., surgery (N = 20; 37.0%; GMD = 0.55, 95%-CI = [0.43; 0.64]) as independent LOT was widely disputed.
conclusionsThis study reveals both commonalities and inconsistencies in physicians' understanding of LOT in cancer treatment in Germany. Findings support the need for a greater standardization or refinement of the LOT concept which could help to minimize clinical misunderstandings and may enhance patient treatment strategies.
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.