ArticleBMC cancer2026
A comparison of cancer treatment protocols in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
Article in BMC 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNational cancer treatment protocols guide drug selection, dosing, and access to care. While Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom (UK) have similar socialised healthcare systems, the extent to which their treatment protocols align remains unclear. This study compared protocols across these countries, examining drug selection, distribution by cancer type, and dosing.
methodsA cross-sectional analysis was conducted of in-use protocols as of January 2025 from eviQ (Australia), Cancer Care Ontario (Canada), and the Clatterbridge Cancer Centre (UK). Protocols were reviewed to identify and compare chemotherapy drugs, their cancer indications, and recommended doses.
resultsAmong 243 chemotherapy drugs across 2,450 protocols, 51% (123/243) were used in all three countries and 72% (175/243) appeared in at least two. Overlap was greatest for commonly used cytotoxic agents in high-incidence cancers. Dosing practices varied: Canadian protocols often recommended higher median doses, UK protocols used narrower minimum dose ranges, and Australian protocols demonstrated wider minimum-maximum dose ranges across several drugs.
conclusionsDespite comparable access to internationally available therapies, treatment approaches vary across Australia, Canada, and the UK. As countries that frequently participate in multinational clinical trials and operate within similar evidence-based guideline and appraisal systems, these differences highlight opportunities for greater alignment. Cross-country comparisons may support collaborative efforts in protocol development and data sharing to standardise care, particularly for rare and emerging therapies targeting smaller patient populations.
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.