ArticleBMC cancer2025
Therapeutic innovation in oncology: What do you mean? Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent, L. Wittgenstein.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe word “innovation” is widely used in healthcare, especially in oncology. Innovation has been reported to impact the drug evaluation process, but there is no consensus regarding the evaluation of innovation. This study aimed to examine perceptions and attitudes (perceived benefits and concerns) towards innovation in clinical practice and in evaluation of innovation. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe performed a cross-sectional, online, anonymous, voluntary survey among members of French associations of oncologists, haematologists, pharmacologists and therapists as well as members of the drug evaluation service of the French Health Technology Assessment body. The online questionnaire assessed respondent characteristics as well as their level of agreement with several statements regarding the definition, extent, and evaluation of innovations (Supplementary materials). Most of the items were scored on an 11-point Likert scale. To provide a broader understanding of the respondent profiles, principal component analysis and cluster analysis were performed.
resultsA total of 114 participants completed the survey between April and June 2024, including 88 respondents in the oncology group and 26 respondents in the health authority group. There were differences between groups in terms of age, sex, and profession. Three distinctive clusters of respondents were identified: one cluster of respondents looked for simplified evaluation of innovated drugs (all of whom in the oncology group), contrasted to one cluster stated that drug evaluation requires standard processes (almost 80% of whom were in the health authority group); and one cluster of respondents indifferent to the evaluation process (this group has equal distributions across the groups).
conclusionInnovation is perceived as being associated with the concepts of novelty, advance, and improvement. However, there were differences between groups regarding the level of evidence required to evaluate innovations. Efforts should be done to merge, rather than to oppose, and quantify all different types of evidence, for the patient interest.
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.