Observational studyCancer medicine2026
Timing and Reasons for Supportive Care Referral in Head and Neck Cancer: A Prospective Study From India.
Observational study in Cancer medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with head and neck cancer (HNC) receiving curative-intent radiotherapy (RT) or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) experience high symptom burden and acute treatment-related toxicities. Supportive Care (SC) can mitigate these effects; however, the timing and documented triggers for referral are insufficiently characterized in routine practice.
methodsWe conducted a prospective, observational longitudinal cohort study (April 2023-March 2024) at a tertiary cancer center in India. Consecutive eligible adults with HNC receiving curative-intent RT/CCRT were enrolled (n = 96). Referral timing (days from RT initiation) and documented reasons were extracted from the electronic medical record (EMR). Symptom burden (ESAS-r [Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale-Revised]), quality of life (FACT-HN), and toxicities (NCI CTCAE v5 [National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5]) were assessed at the first SC visit and at five follow-up visits over 8 weeks. Missing follow-up outcomes were imputed using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method. Changes across visits were assessed using the Friedman test, with Kendall's W reported as an effect size.
resultsThe mean age was 56.35 years (SD 12.83); 70 (72.9%) were men. Half of the cohort lacked a documented referral reason in the EMR. Referrals occurred predominantly during the second and third treatment weeks (mean 19.2 days from RT initiation; SD 12.66; range 0-71 days). The timing of referral correlated strongly with the RT fractions received (Spearman's ρ = 0.942, p < 0.001). Pain improved from a median of 5 to 2 (χ
conclusionsSC referrals for HNC patients are commonly reactive during peak acute toxicity periods rather than proactive. Structured referral triggers and improved EMR documentation may enhance timely symptom control and quality of life during curative treatment.
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.