ReviewPharmacological reports : PR2026
Cancer therapy-related cognitive impairment, part 2: from bench to bedside-and back: why candidate therapies for cancer therapy-related cognitive impairment fail to translate.
Review in Pharmacological reports : PR, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although numerous pharmacological and nonpharmacological strategies have been proposed for the prevention or treatment of cancer therapy-related cognitive impairment (CRCI), only a few have achieved robust clinical translation. This review, the second part of a two-part series, first critically summarizes current candidate pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for CRCI, discussing their biological rationale, mechanisms of action, and the available preclinical and clinical evidence. It then reports why many of these promising approaches fail to translate into effective clinical therapies. We critically analyse the methodological gaps between preclinical models and cancer survivorship, including the use of non-tumour-bearing animals, inadequate modelling of age, sex, and hormonal status, mismatched behavioural and clinical endpoints, poor biomarker alignment, and insufficient assessment of potential interactions between neuroprotective agents and anticancer efficacy. Finally, we propose a translational roadmap for developing mechanism-informed, clinically predictive, and oncologically safe interventions for CRCI and explain why the preclinical efficacy of many candidate therapies has not yet translated into robust clinical benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42726439What 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.