ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2026
Oncologist perspectives on the time toxicity of palliative systemic treatments for advanced cancer.
Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople with advanced cancer often invest substantial amounts of time to receive palliative treatments. This has been labeled the "time toxicity" of cancer treatment. However, stakeholder views on time toxicity are still being established. This study used mixed methods to explore Australian oncologists' perspectives on the time burdens of palliative systemic cancer treatments.
methodsSemistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of gastrointestinal oncologists recruited from 1 metropolitan and 1 regional center, supplemented by online advertising through the Australian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group. Themes emerging from initial interviews (n = 8) informed the development of an online survey disseminated to Australian oncologists via professional groups. Qualitative data were analyzed using an inductive approach. Survey data were summarized descriptively.
resultsFifteen oncologists were interviewed, 60% of whom were primarily based in major metropolitan areas. One overarching theme-the value of time-unified 4 subthemes: (1) contributors to time toxicity, (2) benefits and uncertainties, (3) time as a decision-modifier, and (4) proposed solutions. Surveyed oncologists (n = 108) expressed broad agreement with the thematic framework in interviews, affirming the importance of time for patients with advanced cancer and supporting strategies to reduce time burdens. However, responses acknowledged the subjectivity of time toxicity to individual patients.
conclusionsThis mixed-methods study establishes Australian oncologists' perspectives on the time toxicity of palliative systemic cancer treatments, identifying potential barriers and opportunities for including discussions of health-care time into shared decision making, and system-level strategies for addressing unwanted health-care contact time.
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.