ArticleThe oncologist2025
Examining inpatient chemotherapy utilization among patients with cancer and impact on outcomes.
Article in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundWith the adoption of safer outpatient cancer care practices, much of cancer care has transitioned to outpatient settings, decreasing the need for inpatient systemic therapy (IST), which is associated with poorer end-of-life outcomes. We evaluated reasons for IST use, palliative care (PC) utilization, and outcomes among IST recipients to inform guidelines on appropriate IST use. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of all IST admissions at an academic center from January 2016 to December 2017. Patients were stratified by solid tumor (ST) vs hematological malignancies (HM). We recorded IST urgency, response, mortality, and other variables. Descriptive statistics and odds ratios were estimated from logistic regression models with mixed effects to account for multiple admissions per patient.
resultsWe analyzed 893 admissions (19% ST) among 620 patients. HM patients required frequent elective IST admissions than ST (P < .0001). ST patients more often received IST for non-urgent indications (P = .0032) during non-cancer-related admissions. ST patients had fewer responses to IST compared to HM (36% vs 70%; P < .0001). PC services were more likely utilized for ST vs HM patients (48% vs 14%; P < .0001) and were associated with increased rates of health care proxy assignment, code status change, and hospice discharge. Early 60-day mortality was higher for ST vs HM patients (17.3% vs 5.8%; P < .001), and most patients (55%) died inpatient during the index admission.
conclusionIST was overutilized in ST patients with poor response rates and significant early mortality. PC service utilization rates remain low but improved end-of-life transition planning.
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.