ArticleESMO gastrointestinal oncology2026
Preference versus protocol: oncology clinicians' perspectives on central venous access for administration of chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer.
Article in ESMO gastrointestinal oncology, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pancreatic cancer treatment significantly impacts patients' quality of life, making both safety and patient preference key considerations. Central venous access devices (CVADs) are indispensable for chemotherapy administration in pancreatic cancer, yet device selection varies widely. This study explored which CVADs oncology specialists use in pancreatic cancer care, focusing on the basis for their recommendations. Materials and methods: A nationwide expert survey was distributed among Dutch medical oncologists and nurse specialists involved in pancreatic cancer care via the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group, the Dutch Association for Medical Oncology, the Dutch association for nurses, and the study committee's network. Results: Ninety-one clinicians responded. Most (88%) had access to both port-a-caths (PORTs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), while 12% could only offer one device. Decision-making autonomy varied: 53% reported full autonomy, while others followed hospital-wide preferences (39%) or guidelines (9%). Even within these subgroups, preferred CVAD varied greatly. Although 60% listed patient preference among the top five influential factors, only 28% incorporated patients in that decision. Logistical constraints were key barriers influencing device choice. Conclusion: Substantial variability exists in CVAD selection, availability, and clinician autonomy in pancreatic cancer care. While evidence supports PORTs as the safer option, PICCs remain widely used in daily practice. This discrepancy appears driven by disease-specific and logistical factors, including poor prognosis and uncertainty regarding treatment tolerance. Addressing real-world barriers through improved access to PORTs, clearer guideline recommendations, and enhanced patient counseling may help align clinical practice with evidence and ensure high-quality care for patients receiving chemotherapy.
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.