ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Conducting a randomized controlled clinical trial on palliative care in patients with glioblastoma - what are the challenges?
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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
33 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatients with glioblastoma represent a highly vulnerable cohort as they often experience rapid health deterioration with severe symptom burden including neurological, (neuro)psychological, and psychiatric symptoms. The aim of this sub-analysis of the "Early Palliative Care for Patients with Glioblastoma" (EPCOG) trial was to investigate the specific challenges of conducting a multicenter, randomized, controlled, clinical trial in glioblastoma patients testing a specialized palliative care (PC) intervention.
methodsWe analyzed screening protocols and protocol deviations with respect to number and reasons for non-participation, skipped/delayed visits and attrition using descriptive statistics and content analysis of free-text comments.
resultsIn total, 41.5% of 556 screened patients were enrolled. Main reasons for non-participation were lack of interest (25.7%) and low functional status (11.5%). Attrition due to death (57.6%) was higher than due to illness (5.2%) or other reasons (21.2%). Main reasons for visit deviations were structural issues (in > 50% of neurosurgical visits), health status, and patient request. Protocol deviations showed that specialized PC intervention visits were least frequently skipped (4.5%) compared to study-specific outcome assessment (10.1%) and neurosurgical (43.3%) visits. Further, only 11.0% of the specialized PC intervention visits were delayed compared to 22.3% of the outcome assessment and 56.4% of the neurosurgical visits.
conclusionIn this clinical trial involving glioblastoma patients, a high level of motivation among the study participants could be reached, as reflected by low protocol deviations during the specialized PC intervention and study-specific outcome assessment visits. Reasons for this might be a close guidance as well as a patient and caregiver-oriented communication, e.g., by a personal contact of the PC team in the intervention group, personal outcome assessment visits at patients' whereabouts, or the inclusion of a study nurse at each site. Considering the high vulnerability of glioblastoma patients is crucial when designing and conducting clinical trials.
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.