ArticleEcancermedicalscience2026
Oncology with common sense: beyond biologistic and pharmacological models.
Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid advances in oncology have led to unprecedented pharmacological and technological complexity, yet these developments have not always translated into meaningful benefits for patients. Inspired by the Common Sense Oncology movement, this article reflects on the need to recalibrate cancer care beyond biologistic and industry-driven models. We argue for a broader, patient-centred vision of oncology that integrates social determinants of health, prevention, supportive and palliative care, shared decision-making and independent research alongside pharmacological innovation. Drawing on evidence from health economics, clinical research trends and public health, we highlight the paradox between rising oncology expenditures and limited gains in overall survival, quality of life and equity. We also discuss the growing influence of industry-sponsored research, the increasing reliance on surrogate endpoints, and the underfunding of non-pharmacological and psychosocial interventions. Finally, we propose concrete priorities for policymakers, clinicians and research institutions to ensure that oncology progress remains aligned with outcomes that truly matter to patients.
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.