Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41333179›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2025

Rural cancer financial toxicity screening.

Yash Deshmukh, Melanie L Rose, Renata W Yen, Sybil T Jones, Nirav S Kapadia

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Yash DeshmukhGeisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Melanie L RoseDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Applied Sciences, Dartmouth Health, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Renata W YenGeisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Sybil T JonesDept of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY.
Nirav S KapadiaGeisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Cancer treatment expenses can lead to financial toxicity (FT), which reduces treatment compliance and impairs outcomes. Little is known regarding the FT among rural cancer populations, where added barriers impair accrual of survey data. To increase our understanding of FT experienced by these patients, we piloted a validated survey instrument and reported on the feasibility of administration. Methods and Materials: Institutional approval was obtained to prospectively survey rural oncology patients undergoing radiation treatment. Baseline surveys were provided at simulation appointments; weekly surveys were captured during on-treatment visits. Respondents reported on demographics (including self-reported gender, race, education, income, insurance, employment) at baseline and on expenses, the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (range, 0-44, modified such that higher score indicates worse toxicity), perception of providers' financial empathy, and the minimum financially impactful amount of money at weekly visits. Completion rates and associations between demographic characteristics and FT were assessed with Mann-Whitney Results: Twenty-six participants were enrolled. Patients were elderly (mean 68.3 years old, SD 10.7), male (25 of 26), White (25 of 26). Forty-two percent were low-income (annual income < $48,000) and 50% had high school or less education. Most (n = 19, 73%) were insured through Medicare. Eighty-five percent of surveys were fully complete. The mean COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity score at baseline was 14.0 (SD, 11.5; range, 0-38). The mean amount of money that would make a meaningful difference was $211 at baseline (interquartile range, $87.50-$350) and rose to $329 toward the end of the survey period (week 7). Conclusions: FT screening of rural radiation oncology populations with a range of education is feasible with high fidelity of data collection. Future steps will identify patterns and predictors of severe FT and develop targeted interventions based on this feasibility study.

Identifiers

PMID41333179
PMCPMC12666702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.