ArticleThe oncologist2026
Polypharmacy among people diagnosed with colorectal cancer in Australia: a population-based cohort study.
Article in The oncologist, 2026. 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.
- Green synthesized selenium nanoparticles mitigate cyclophosphamide-induced reproductive toxicity in male Wistar rats.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of socazolimab plus chemotherapy vs. standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a U.S. and China perspective.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPolypharmacy is associated with increased risks of adverse outcomes in people with cancer and medicine use evolves over the course of the disease trajectory. We estimated the prevalence of polypharmacy in people with colorectal cancer (CRC), stratified by extent of disease spread at diagnosis, during each year from 1 year prior to 5 years following diagnosis and determined factors associated with polypharmacy at diagnosis and 2- and 5-year postdiagnosis. PATIENTS AND
methodsOur retrospective cohort study used linked administrative health records from New South Wales (NSW), Australia to examine medicine use in all NSW residents ≥18 years diagnosed with CRC between 2013 and 2017. We defined polypharmacy as concomitant exposure to ≥5 medicines, excluding antineoplastics, during at least one 90-day quarter in each year from diagnosis. We used logistic regression to examine associations between polypharmacy and relevant factors.
resultsOf 19 056 people diagnosed with CRC, 6797 (35%), 8482 (45%), and 3777 (20%) were diagnosed with localized, regional, and metastatic disease, respectively. Within these groups, 74%-79% experienced polypharmacy at any time during the study period; with nearly 50% experiencing polypharmacy 2 through 5 years from diagnosis. Age (≥70 years), female sex, comorbidities, colon cancer diagnosis, and socioeconomic disadvantage were associated with increased likelihood of polypharmacy at all landmarks.
conclusionPolypharmacy is highly prevalent among Australians with CRC. For those treated with curative intent, higher polypharmacy rates are concerning, indicating excess morbidity and impaired quality of life among survivors cured of cancer but who may continue to experience poorer health than the general population.
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.