Clinical oncology最新文献

英文中文

Prostate Cancer: Artificial Intelligence Advancements in Diagnosis and Early Detection 前列腺癌：人工智能在诊断和早期检测方面的进展。

IF 3 3区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Clinical oncology

Pub Date : 2025-11-24 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2025.103984

A. Shahzad, M. Waqar, T. Imran, M. Faisal

引用次数: 0

Chemoradiotherapy for Oesophageal Adenocarcinoma: The Debate is Not Over 食管腺癌的放化疗：争论尚未结束

IF 3 3区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Clinical oncology

Pub Date : 2025-11-20 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2025.103982

M. Guardascione , L. Foltran , F. Puglisi

引用次数: 0

RCR Meetings 软的会议

IF 3 3区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Clinical oncology

Pub Date : 2025-11-19 DOI: 10.1016/S0936-6555(25)00229-8

引用次数: 0

Advancing Real-Time Digital Quality Assurance in Multimodality Oesophagogastric Cancer Trials 推进多模态食管胃癌试验的实时数字质量保证。

IF 3 3区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Clinical oncology

Pub Date : 2025-11-19 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2025.103983

M.W. Siddique , M.A. Cheema

引用次数: 0

Avoiding Adjuvant Prophylactic Neck Irradiation in Lateralized Oral Cavity Cancer (APRON) 避免侧化口腔癌（围裙）的辅助预防性颈部照射。

IF 3 3区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Clinical oncology

Pub Date : 2025-11-18 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2025.103980

S. Sinha , S. Ghosh Laskar , S. Dhingra , A. Kumar , S. Mohanty , A. Budrukkar , M. Swain , P.N. Bishnu , I. Joy , R. Ali , S. Kannan , N. Mummudi

Oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) is the second most common cancer in India with an age standardised ratio of 10.3 per 100,000 (both sexes combined) (1). Most patients (60%-80%) present in advanced stages with a high risk of nodal involvement. The current standard of care involves surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (RT), often including elective nodal irradiation (ENI) even in pathologically node-negative patients. However, recent evidence suggests that well-selected patients with adequate surgical clearance may be adequately treated with limited volumes of ENI, potentially sparing them unnecessary toxicity.

The APRON study is a single-arm, phase II trial evaluating whether limiting ENI is non-inferior to standard adjuvant RT in carefully selected patients with lateralized oral cavity cancers. Eligible patients are adults with biopsy-proven squamous cell carcinoma of the bucco-alveolar region or oral tongue who have undergone margin-negative resection and adequate elective nodal dissection (≥18 nodes). Only well-lateralized tumours (≥1 cm from midline for tongue cancers) are included. The primary endpoint is regional control at 2 years, defined as any nodal recurrence (ipsilateral or contralateral). Secondary endpoints include swallowing function (MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory; modified barium swallow), local and regional recurrence-free survival, disease-free and overall survival, acute/chronic toxicity, quality of life, salvage rates for recurrence, and dosimetry comparisons. The study also assesses the safety and efficacy of moderate hypofractionation (50 Gy/20 fractions) in the adjuvant setting.

A sample size of 106 patients is planned, with early stopping rules for safety. Statistical analysis will use the Clopper–Pearson method for nodal failure rates and propensity score matching with historical controls for non-inferiority testing. By limiting ENI in well-selected patients, APRON aims to reduce treatment-related morbidity while maintaining oncologic efficacy, potentially improving functional outcomes and preserving regional immune function. The study is expected to provide valuable evidence for de-escalated adjuvant strategies in OCSCC management.

CTRI Number

CTRI/2025/03/082341.

口腔鳞状细胞癌（OCSCC）是印度第二大常见癌症，年龄标准化比率为10.3% / 10万（男女合并）(1)。大多数患者（60%-80%）表现为晚期，淋巴结受累的风险很高。目前的治疗标准包括手术后辅助放疗（RT），通常包括选择性淋巴结照射（ENI），即使在病理上淋巴结阴性的患者中也是如此。然而，最近的证据表明，经过精心挑选的手术清除足够的患者可以用有限体积的ENI进行充分治疗，从而可能避免不必要的毒性。APRON研究是一项单臂II期试验，评估在精心挑选的偏侧口腔癌患者中，限制ENI是否优于标准辅助放疗。符合条件的患者是活检证实的成年颊-牙槽区或口舌鳞状细胞癌，并进行了边缘阴性切除和适当的选择性淋巴结清扫（≥18个淋巴结）。仅包括侧化良好的肿瘤（舌癌距中线≥1cm）。主要终点是2年的局部控制，定义为任何淋巴结复发（同侧或对侧）。次要终点包括吞咽功能（MD Anderson吞咽困难量表；改良的钡吞咽），局部和区域无复发生存，无病和总生存，急性/慢性毒性，生活质量，复发挽回率和剂量比较。该研究还评估了在辅助治疗环境下中度低分割（50 Gy/20分割）的安全性和有效性。计划的样本量为106名患者，并制定了安全的早期停药规则。统计分析将使用Clopper-Pearson方法对节点故障率和倾向评分与非劣效性测试的历史对照进行匹配。通过在精心挑选的患者中限制ENI， APRON旨在降低治疗相关的发病率，同时保持肿瘤疗效，潜在地改善功能结局并保留区域免疫功能。该研究有望为OCSCC治疗中的降糖辅助策略提供有价值的证据。Ctri编号：Ctri /2025/03/082341。

{"title":"Avoiding Adjuvant Prophylactic Neck Irradiation in Lateralized Oral Cavity Cancer (APRON)","authors":"S. Sinha , S. Ghosh Laskar , S. Dhingra , A. Kumar , S. Mohanty , A. Budrukkar , M. Swain , P.N. Bishnu , I. Joy , R. Ali , S. Kannan , N. Mummudi","doi":"10.1016/j.clon.2025.103980","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.clon.2025.103980","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) is the second most common cancer in India with an age standardised ratio of 10.3 per 100,000 (both sexes combined) (1). Most patients (60%-80%) present in advanced stages with a high risk of nodal involvement. The current standard of care involves surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (RT), often including elective nodal irradiation (ENI) even in pathologically node-negative patients. However, recent evidence suggests that well-selected patients with adequate surgical clearance may be adequately treated with limited volumes of ENI, potentially sparing them unnecessary toxicity.</div><div>The APRON study is a single-arm, phase II trial evaluating whether limiting ENI is non-inferior to standard adjuvant RT in carefully selected patients with lateralized oral cavity cancers. Eligible patients are adults with biopsy-proven squamous cell carcinoma of the bucco-alveolar region or oral tongue who have undergone margin-negative resection and adequate elective nodal dissection (≥18 nodes). Only well-lateralized tumours (≥1 cm from midline for tongue cancers) are included. The primary endpoint is regional control at 2 years, defined as any nodal recurrence (ipsilateral or contralateral). Secondary endpoints include swallowing function (MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory; modified barium swallow), local and regional recurrence-free survival, disease-free and overall survival, acute/chronic toxicity, quality of life, salvage rates for recurrence, and dosimetry comparisons. The study also assesses the safety and efficacy of moderate hypofractionation (50 Gy/20 fractions) in the adjuvant setting.</div><div>A sample size of 106 patients is planned, with early stopping rules for safety. Statistical analysis will use the Clopper–Pearson method for nodal failure rates and propensity score matching with historical controls for non-inferiority testing. By limiting ENI in well-selected patients, APRON aims to reduce treatment-related morbidity while maintaining oncologic efficacy, potentially improving functional outcomes and preserving regional immune function. The study is expected to provide valuable evidence for de-escalated adjuvant strategies in OCSCC management.</div></div><div><h3>CTRI Number</h3><div>CTRI/2025/03/082341.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10403,"journal":{"name":"Clinical oncology","volume":"49 ","pages":"Article 103980"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145721382","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Liquid Biopsy: A Gentler Window Into Paediatric Brain Tumours 液体活检：儿科脑肿瘤的温和窗口。

IF 3 3区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Clinical oncology

Pub Date : 2025-11-17 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2025.103979

H. Raza, M. Mehfooz, A. Javed, Y. Ejaz

引用次数: 0

Geriatric Oncology in Italy. Where we are. A CIPOMO (Italian College of Primary Hospital Medical Oncologists)-Gioger (Italian Group of Geriatric Oncology) Survey 意大利的老年肿瘤学。我们在哪里。CIPOMO（意大利初级医院内科肿瘤学家学院）-Gioger（意大利老年肿瘤组）调查。

IF 3 3区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Clinical oncology

Pub Date : 2025-11-14 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2025.103965

S. Barni , A. Luciani , P. Tralongo , L. Cavanna , G. Aprile , S. Leo , C. Aschele , M. Giordano , R.R. Silva , C. Ortega , M.G. Sarobba , F. Artioli , A. Scanni , L. Fioretto

Aims

By the year 2040, the population of adult individuals aged 65 years and older is expected to reach 44%. Understanding the impending global demographic change is important for all stakeholders along the oncology pathway.

Materials and methods

CIPOMO (Italian College of Primary Hospital Medical Oncologists) with Gioger (Italian Group of Geriatric Oncology) conducted a survey by sending a questionnaire to the directors of oncology departments to get a picture of the situation and to be able to devise plans to improve care, fill gaps in research, education, and implementation, in essence to undertake major health care management changes. The questionnaire included eight questions: the presence and type of figures dedicated to geriatric oncology, the presence of a geriatrics department, the use of a geriatric assessment, which one is used and when it is performed, when a patient is geriatric, and whether there are clinical trials reserved for the elderly population.

Results

A total of 159 questionnaires were sent and 144 responses were obtained, with a response rate of 90.5%. The analysis shows that in less than 38.97% of hospitals there are figures dedicated to geriatric oncology; when these figures are present in 80.65% are oncologist, 62.9% geriatrician, and 22.58% nurses. Regarding the minimum age to consider an elderly patient, 44.85% set the limit at 70 years and 47.06% at 75 years. Eighty percent state that a geriatric assessment is performed in their wards, the G8 questionnaire is used by 65.77%, the multidimensional geriatric assessment by 29.73%, and 1.8% use the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR-13) or other instruments. Regarding when the geriatric assessment is done, in 40.44% it is done at the first access to oncology, in 16.91% ‘on demand’, in 15.44% in cases of deciding on medical treatment, and in 13.24% at first access and periodically afterwards. The presence in hospital of a geriatrics department is 44.85% and 25.74% the availability of a geriatrician; in 30%, no specific figure is available. When asked about the availability of clinical trials specific to the elderly population, in 87.5% the answer is negative.

Conclusion

The results show the shortage of professionals trained or assigned to geriatric oncology (including oncologists, geriatricians, nurses, or other dedicated staff), a growing but still insufficient specific cultural preparation, and as is known, very few clinical trials dedicated to elderly oncology patients.

目标：到2040年，65岁及以上的成年人口预计将达到44%。了解即将到来的全球人口变化对肿瘤学路径上的所有利益相关者都很重要。材料和方法：CIPOMO（意大利初级医院内科肿瘤学家学院）与Gioger（意大利老年肿瘤学小组）通过向肿瘤科主任发送问卷的方式进行了一项调查，以了解情况，并能够制定改善护理的计划，填补研究，教育和实施方面的空白，本质上是进行重大的卫生保健管理变革。问卷包括八个问题：老年肿瘤学专用数据的存在和类型，老年科的存在，老年评估的使用，使用哪种评估以及何时进行评估，当患者是老年患者时，以及是否有为老年人保留的临床试验。结果：共发放问卷159份，回收问卷144份，回收率为90.5%。分析表明，只有不到38.97%的医院有专门的老年肿瘤学数据；当这些数字出现时，80.65%是肿瘤科医生，62.9%是老年科医生，22.58%是护士。对于考虑老年患者的最低年龄，有44.85%的人认为70岁，47.06%的人认为75岁。80%的人表示在他们的病房进行了老年评估，65.77%的人使用G8问卷，29.73%的人使用多维老年评估，1.8%的人使用红细胞沉降率（ESR-13）或其他仪器。关于何时进行老年评估，40.44%是在第一次接受肿瘤治疗时进行的，16.91%是在“需要时”进行的，15.44%是在决定治疗时进行的，13.24%是在第一次接受治疗时进行的，之后定期进行。老年科的住院率为44.85%，老年科医生的可获得率为25.74%；30%没有具体的数字。当被问及是否有针对老年人群的临床试验时，87.5%的人回答是否定的。结论：结果表明，老年肿瘤学专业人员（包括肿瘤学家、老年病学家、护士或其他专职人员）培训或分配短缺，特定的文化准备不断增加，但仍然不足，并且众所周知，针对老年肿瘤患者的临床试验很少。

{"title":"Geriatric Oncology in Italy. Where we are. A CIPOMO (Italian College of Primary Hospital Medical Oncologists)-Gioger (Italian Group of Geriatric Oncology) Survey","authors":"S. Barni , A. Luciani , P. Tralongo , L. Cavanna , G. Aprile , S. Leo , C. Aschele , M. Giordano , R.R. Silva , C. Ortega , M.G. Sarobba , F. Artioli , A. Scanni , L. Fioretto","doi":"10.1016/j.clon.2025.103965","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.clon.2025.103965","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3><em>Aims</em></h3><div>By the year 2040, the population of adult individuals aged 65 years and older is expected to reach 44%. Understanding the impending global demographic change is important for all stakeholders along the oncology pathway.</div></div><div><h3><em>Materials and</em> <em>methods</em></h3><div>CIPOMO (Italian College of Primary Hospital Medical Oncologists) with Gioger (Italian Group of Geriatric Oncology) conducted a survey by sending a questionnaire to the directors of oncology departments to get a picture of the situation and to be able to devise plans to improve care, fill gaps in research, education, and implementation, in essence to undertake major health care management changes. The questionnaire included eight questions: the presence and type of figures dedicated to geriatric oncology, the presence of a geriatrics department, the use of a geriatric assessment, which one is used and when it is performed, when a patient is geriatric, and whether there are clinical trials reserved for the elderly population.</div></div><div><h3><em>Results</em></h3><div>A total of 159 questionnaires were sent and 144 responses were obtained, with a response rate of 90.5%. The analysis shows that in less than 38.97% of hospitals there are figures dedicated to geriatric oncology; when these figures are present in 80.65% are oncologist, 62.9% geriatrician, and 22.58% nurses. Regarding the minimum age to consider an elderly patient, 44.85% set the limit at 70 years and 47.06% at 75 years. Eighty percent state that a geriatric assessment is performed in their wards, the G8 questionnaire is used by 65.77%, the multidimensional geriatric assessment by 29.73%, and 1.8% use the <strong>erythrocyte sedimentation rate (</strong>ESR-13) or other instruments. Regarding when the geriatric assessment is done, in 40.44% it is done at the first access to oncology, in 16.91% ‘on demand’, in 15.44% in cases of deciding on medical treatment, and in 13.24% at first access and periodically afterwards. The presence in hospital of a geriatrics department is 44.85% and 25.74% the availability of a geriatrician; in 30%, no specific figure is available. When asked about the availability of clinical trials specific to the elderly population, in 87.5% the answer is negative.</div></div><div><h3><em>Conclusion</em></h3><div>The results show the shortage of professionals trained or assigned to geriatric oncology (including oncologists, geriatricians, nurses, or other dedicated staff), a growing but still insufficient specific cultural preparation, and as is known, very few clinical trials dedicated to elderly oncology patients.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10403,"journal":{"name":"Clinical oncology","volume":"49 ","pages":"Article 103965"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145660216","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Radiotherapy for Oesophageal Cancer in the United Kingdom: Patterns of Practice and Quality Indicators 英国食管癌放疗：实践模式和质量指标。

IF 3 3区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Clinical oncology

Pub Date : 2025-11-14 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2025.103978

C.W. Bleaney , K. Aitken , T.D.L. Crosby , G. Radhakrishna , R. Roy , K. Spencer , C.M. Jones

Aims

There is limited guidance relating to the provision of radiotherapy for patients with oesophageal cancer. Given this, we sought to assess variation in patterns of care in the UK and to devise quality improvement metrics to support future treatment standardisation.

Materials and Methods

We undertook a cross-sectional survey using a bespoke online survey to explore geographical variation in radiotherapy use for oesophageal cancer across the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS). These data were combined with an observational registry analysis using the National Disease Registration Service Radiotherapy Dataset to explore temporal variation in radiotherapy utilization from January 2020 – June 2024.

Results

Survey responses were received from 75% (n = 45/60) of UK centres. These demonstrate considerable variation in the interpretation of radiotherapy indications, particularly in the non-curative setting, as well as in radiotherapy technique; with, for instance, one third (n = 15/45) of centres reporting that they do not use motion management strategies for lower third or junctional tumours. Induction chemotherapy use differs between centres and by concurrent regimen, with 93–96% (n = 42–43/45) of centres using induction treatment prior to concurrent platinum/fluoropyrimidine and 56–62% (n = 25–28/45) using it prior to concurrent platinum/taxane. Post-treatment surveillance and follow-up measures also differed with little evidence for more intensive surveillance in patients fit for salvage resection. Most centres reported the use of intensity modulated or volumetric arc therapy (IMRT/VMAT) for radical plans, which was supported by NDRS data demonstrating that the median proportion of patients in each centre treated using IMRT/VMAT increased from 60% (range 14.3–100%) in January-June 2020 to 91.7% (range 16.7–100%) in January-June 2024.

Conclusions

There is substantial variation in the radiotherapy-based care of patients with oesophageal cancer in the UK. Formal national guidance is required to build on the quality metrics outlined here.

目的：有关食管癌患者放疗的指导是有限的。鉴于此，我们试图评估英国护理模式的变化，并设计质量改进指标，以支持未来的治疗标准化。材料和方法：我们采用一项定制的在线调查进行了一项横断面调查，以探索英国国民健康服务体系（NHS）食管癌放疗使用的地理差异。这些数据与使用国家疾病登记服务放射治疗数据集的观察性登记分析相结合，以探索2020年1月至2024年6月放射治疗利用的时间变化。结果：75% （n = 45/60）的英国中心收到了调查回复。这表明对放疗适应症的解释存在相当大的差异，特别是在非治疗性环境中，以及在放疗技术方面；例如，三分之一（n = 15/45）的中心报告说，他们不使用运动管理策略治疗下三分之一或结膜肿瘤。诱导化疗的使用在不同的中心和不同的并行方案之间有所不同，93-96% （n = 42-43/45）的中心在铂/氟嘧啶并行治疗之前使用诱导治疗，56-62% （n = 25-28/45）的中心在铂/紫杉烷并行治疗之前使用诱导治疗。治疗后监测和随访措施也存在差异，几乎没有证据表明适合进行补救性切除的患者需要更强化的监测。大多数中心报告使用强度调节或体积弧治疗（IMRT/VMAT）进行根治性计划，NDRS数据支持这一点，表明每个中心使用IMRT/VMAT治疗的患者中位数比例从2020年1月至6月的60%（范围14.3-100%）增加到2024年1月至6月的91.7%（范围16.7-100%）。结论：在英国，食管癌患者的放疗护理存在很大差异。需要正式的国家指导，以这里概述的质量指标为基础。

{"title":"Radiotherapy for Oesophageal Cancer in the United Kingdom: Patterns of Practice and Quality Indicators","authors":"C.W. Bleaney , K. Aitken , T.D.L. Crosby , G. Radhakrishna , R. Roy , K. Spencer , C.M. Jones","doi":"10.1016/j.clon.2025.103978","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.clon.2025.103978","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aims</h3><div>There is limited guidance relating to the provision of radiotherapy for patients with oesophageal cancer. Given this, we sought to assess variation in patterns of care in the UK and to devise quality improvement metrics to support future treatment standardisation.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>We undertook a cross-sectional survey using a bespoke online survey to explore geographical variation in radiotherapy use for oesophageal cancer across the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS). These data were combined with an observational registry analysis using the National Disease Registration Service Radiotherapy Dataset to explore temporal variation in radiotherapy utilization from January 2020 – June 2024.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Survey responses were received from 75% (n = 45/60) of UK centres. These demonstrate considerable variation in the interpretation of radiotherapy indications, particularly in the non-curative setting, as well as in radiotherapy technique; with, for instance, one third (n = 15/45) of centres reporting that they do not use motion management strategies for lower third or junctional tumours. Induction chemotherapy use differs between centres and by concurrent regimen, with 93–96% (n = 42–43/45) of centres using induction treatment prior to concurrent platinum/fluoropyrimidine and 56–62% (n = 25–28/45) using it prior to concurrent platinum/taxane. Post-treatment surveillance and follow-up measures also differed with little evidence for more intensive surveillance in patients fit for salvage resection. Most centres reported the use of intensity modulated or volumetric arc therapy (IMRT/VMAT) for radical plans, which was supported by NDRS data demonstrating that the median proportion of patients in each centre treated using IMRT/VMAT increased from 60% (range 14.3–100%) in January-June 2020 to 91.7% (range 16.7–100%) in January-June 2024.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>There is substantial variation in the radiotherapy-based care of patients with oesophageal cancer in the UK. Formal national guidance is required to build on the quality metrics outlined here.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10403,"journal":{"name":"Clinical oncology","volume":"49 ","pages":"Article 103978"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145667199","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention and its Role in Oncology Randomised Controlled Trials 五重奏招募干预及其在肿瘤学随机对照试验中的作用。

IF 3 3区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Clinical oncology

Pub Date : 2025-11-13 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2025.103976

L. Wallis , J. Wade , N. Farrar , L. Rooshenas , C. Conefrey , N. Mills , V. Shepherd , L.S. Nixon , M. Carucci , A. White , C.A. Harwood , A. Rembielak

引用次数: 0

Age or Fitness? Distinguishing Undertreatment From Appropriate De-escalation in Elderly Patients With Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer 年龄还是健康？老年非小细胞肺癌患者治疗不足与适当降压治疗的区别。

IF 3 3区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Clinical oncology

Pub Date : 2025-11-13 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2025.103977

M.M. Haroon

引用次数: 0

首页上一页

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Clinical oncology

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀