ArticleThe oncologist2026
Building HOPE: operationalizing hybrid decentralized oncology clinical trials with community providers beyond traditional healthcare system networks.
Article in The oncologist, 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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCancer clinical trials are essential to high-quality oncology care, yet regulatory and logistical barriers have concentrated trial activity at academic medical centers, limiting access for rural and underserved populations. In 2022, 75% of U.S. counties had no active cancer treatment trials. North Carolina (NC) exemplifies these disparities, where limited local trial options, long travel distances, and socioeconomic barriers hinder participation. MATERIALS AND
methodsTo develop operational methodologies for hybrid decentralized clinical trials (hDCTs), the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center (LCCC) conducted an engagement initiative across nine community hospitals in NC without formal contractual research network agreements. 120 stakeholders-healthcare providers (HCPs), nurses, pharmacists, administrators, and advocates-shared insights that informed the co-development of adaptable workflows, including communication protocols, adverse event management strategies, and literacy-sensitive patient materials. Procedures were designed to align with local clinical practices and reduce burden on HCPs without requiring engagement from a regulatory standpoint.
resultsVisits revealed critical local resources, such as patient transportation, culturally tailored educational materials, and advocacy, that could facilitate hDCT participation. Key facilitators included motivated local champions, supportive leadership, and infrastructure for remote visits. Within 3 months, seven of nine locations initiated hDCT planning, five began patient referrals, and two enrolled patients. Early data show promising uptake and strong institutional commitment.
conclusionshDCTs are feasible in community settings beyond traditional healthcare networks and can expand trial access by reducing logistical and financial burdens. The LCCC model offers a scalable framework to promote equity in cancer research.
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.