ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2026
e-Delphi study on European expert views about "cancer survivor" and related terminologies.
Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- PRiSM project: e-Delphi study on the role of specialist palliative care services in the care of people with stable locally advanced or metastatic cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Do young people who have been treated for cancer identify as 'survivors'? Adolescents and young adults' preferences for cancer-related identities in survivorship.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life in individuals living with, through, and beyond cancer in Sweden: a cross-sectional study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDefinitions of "cancer survivors" vary from individuals from diagnosis throughout their life, to individuals post-curative intent treatment. Attempts to categorise groups of people who have or had cancer also differ. This study aims to generate European expert consensus opinion about cancer survivor terminology and categorisation relevant to developing a model of care.
methodsThis was an electronic Delphi study where specialist palliative care (SPC) and oncology (ONC) European experts, including patient advocates, were purposively sampled to form two separate groups. Participants selected agreement with 105 questions/statements developed from literature reviews in round 1, and in subsequent rounds statements were modified/added according to feedback. The study was terminated when consensus (pre-defined as ≥ 75% within each group) and stability (determined by Spearman's Rank Order Correlation) were reached for most statements. The Chi square test for goodness of fit compared agreement between groups.
resultsEighty-six SPC experts from 19 countries/regions, and 54 ONC experts from 17 countries/regions began the process, with three rounds completed by 80 and 49 respectively. Eight statements about "cancer survivor" application reached consensus in both groups, demonstrating agreement that "cancer survivor" should be applied to people post-treatment with no evidence of disease. Two other statements reached consensus in only one group (with a significant difference). Two categorisations reached consensus in both groups.
conclusionsThese experts suggest that application of "cancer survivor" to people with active cancer should be reconsidered. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Pragmatic categorisation of people who have/had cancer could help provide tailored care for different groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41619142What 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.