{"title":"Is Seeing Believing? Imaging Accuracy and the Challenge of Clinical Staging in Mismatch Repair-Deficient Colon Cancer.","authors":"Anwaar Saeed, Thomas J George","doi":"10.1200/OP-25-01221","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-25-01221","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2501221"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2026-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146124872","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}
Purpose: To assess the ongoing citation of the 2009 Nature Genetics article by Ross et al linking TPMT to cisplatin-induced ototoxicity and to evaluate the extent to which its disputed findings persist in the literature.
Methods: A total of 378 Google Scholar citations of the 2009 Nature Genetics publication from 2009 to 2025 were examined, of which 214 PubMed-indexed manuscripts were screened and categorized by citation nuance (positive, negative/mixed) and citation characteristics using the framework proposed by Suelzer et al in a 2019 JAMA Network Opens study. Citation context was independently assessed by two reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by consensus of all three authors.
Results: Most articles cited the 2009 publication in a favorable or uncritical manner, even in publications after 2015 US Food and Drug Administration's cisplatin label revision acknowledging that the 2009 findings were flawed. A minority of citations acknowledged conflicting evidence or questioned the study's validity.
Conclusion: Although the 2009 publication's findings have been widely challenged, many subsequent authors continue to cite the study without acknowledging its limitations. This pattern highlights the need for stronger postpublication oversight, more transparent editorial practices by high-impact journals, and greater critical engagement by authors when citing foundational literature to ensure that clinical and research narratives are shaped by reliable and current evidence.
{"title":"<i>TPMT</i>-Cisplatin: Lessons in Citation Integrity and Scientific Oversight.","authors":"Youngwoo Cho, Thomas Chen, Mark J Ratain","doi":"10.1200/OP-25-00913","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-25-00913","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the ongoing citation of the 2009 <i>Nature Genetics</i> article by Ross et al linking <i>TPMT</i> to cisplatin-induced ototoxicity and to evaluate the extent to which its disputed findings persist in the literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 378 Google Scholar citations of the 2009 <i>Nature Genetics</i> publication from 2009 to 2025 were examined, of which 214 PubMed-indexed manuscripts were screened and categorized by citation nuance (positive, negative/mixed) and citation characteristics using the framework proposed by Suelzer et al in a 2019 <i>JAMA Network Opens</i> study. Citation context was independently assessed by two reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by consensus of all three authors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most articles cited the 2009 publication in a favorable or uncritical manner, even in publications after 2015 US Food and Drug Administration's cisplatin label revision acknowledging that the 2009 findings were flawed. A minority of citations acknowledged conflicting evidence or questioned the study's validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the 2009 publication's findings have been widely challenged, many subsequent authors continue to cite the study without acknowledging its limitations. This pattern highlights the need for stronger postpublication oversight, more transparent editorial practices by high-impact journals, and greater critical engagement by authors when citing foundational literature to ensure that clinical and research narratives are shaped by reliable and current evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2500913"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2026-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146119090","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}
Michael S Leapman, Jessica B Long, Sarah Westvold, Maximilian Rabil, Preston C Sprenkle, Isaac Y Kim, Gabriela Spilberg, Lawrence Saperstein, Jaleh Fallah, Daniel Suzman, Catherine C Lerro, Jianjin Xu, Donna R Rivera, Paul G Kluetz, R Jeffrey Karnes, Michaela Dinan, Aaron P Mitchell, Natalia Kunst, Shi-Yi Wang, Xiaomei Ma, Cary P Gross
Purpose: Despite evidence of diagnostic accuracy but unclear long-term clinical benefit, national utilization patterns of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) are undefined.
Methods: We conducted a serial cross-sectional study to evaluate the use of PET imaging among commercial insurance beneficiaries with prostate cancer using administrative claims from deidentified Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis database. Eligible patients included prevalent and incident prostate cancer cases. We calculated the proportions undergoing PET imaging in semiannual periods from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2024. We examined the association between regional-level contextual sociodemographic and health care characteristics, and regional use of PSMA-PET imaging in 2024.
Results: A total of 514,750 male beneficiaries age 40-89 years with prostate cancer were identified between 2016 and 2024. The proportion of individuals with prostate cancer undergoing PET imaging increased from 4.5 [95% CI, 4.1 to 4.9] per 1,000 in the first half of 2016 to 77.6 (95% CI, 76.2 to 79.1) per 1,000 in the second half of 2024, P < .001. Increases in PET were driven by uptake of PSMA-PET following approval in 2021, which increased from 0.8 (95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9) per 1,000 in the second half of 2021 to 77.0 (95% CI, 75.5 to 78.5) per 1,000 in the second half of 2024, P < .001. PSMA-PET use in 2024 was higher in regions with greater education (99.3 v 114.6 per 1,000 in lowest [Q1] v highest [Q4] educated) and income (95.4 v 112.3 per 1,000 in Q1 v Q4 income) measures, P < .001.
Conclusion: PSMA-PET was rapidly incorporated into clinical practice among commercial insurance beneficiaries with prostate cancer with higher adoption in geographic regions with higher income and education.
目的:尽管有证据表明前列腺特异性膜抗原正电子发射断层扫描(PSMA-PET)的诊断准确性,但长期临床效益尚不清楚,但全国范围内的使用模式尚不明确。方法:我们进行了一项系列横断面研究,评估PET成像在前列腺癌商业保险受益人中的应用,该研究使用的是来自已识别的蓝十字蓝盾轴数据库的行政索赔。符合条件的患者包括前列腺癌的发病率和发病率。我们计算了2016年1月1日至2024年12月31日每半年进行一次PET成像的比例。我们研究了2024年区域水平背景社会人口学和卫生保健特征与PSMA-PET成像的区域使用之间的关系。结果:2016年至2024年间,共有514,750名年龄在40-89岁之间的男性前列腺癌患者被确定。前列腺癌患者接受PET成像的比例从2016年上半年的每千人4.5例[95% CI, 4.1 - 4.9]增加到2024年下半年的每千人77.6例(95% CI, 76.2 - 79.1), P < 0.001。PET的增加是由2021年批准后PSMA-PET的吸收推动的,从2021年下半年的每1000例0.8例(95% CI, 0.6至0.9)增加到2024年下半年的每1000例77.0例(95% CI, 75.5至78.5),P < 0.001。2024年PSMA-PET的使用在受教育程度较高的地区(最低[第一季度]和最高[第四季度]受教育程度为99.3 vs 114.6 / 1000)和收入(第一季度vs第四季度收入为95.4 vs 112.3 / 1000), P < .001。结论:PSMA-PET在前列腺癌商业保险受益人中迅速应用于临床实践,在高收入和高教育程度的地理区域采用率较高。
{"title":"Adoption and Regional Variation of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in the United States.","authors":"Michael S Leapman, Jessica B Long, Sarah Westvold, Maximilian Rabil, Preston C Sprenkle, Isaac Y Kim, Gabriela Spilberg, Lawrence Saperstein, Jaleh Fallah, Daniel Suzman, Catherine C Lerro, Jianjin Xu, Donna R Rivera, Paul G Kluetz, R Jeffrey Karnes, Michaela Dinan, Aaron P Mitchell, Natalia Kunst, Shi-Yi Wang, Xiaomei Ma, Cary P Gross","doi":"10.1200/OP-25-00617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-25-00617","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Despite evidence of diagnostic accuracy but unclear long-term clinical benefit, national utilization patterns of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) are undefined.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a serial cross-sectional study to evaluate the use of PET imaging among commercial insurance beneficiaries with prostate cancer using administrative claims from deidentified Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis database. Eligible patients included prevalent and incident prostate cancer cases. We calculated the proportions undergoing PET imaging in semiannual periods from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2024. We examined the association between regional-level contextual sociodemographic and health care characteristics, and regional use of PSMA-PET imaging in 2024.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 514,750 male beneficiaries age 40-89 years with prostate cancer were identified between 2016 and 2024. The proportion of individuals with prostate cancer undergoing PET imaging increased from 4.5 [95% CI, 4.1 to 4.9] per 1,000 in the first half of 2016 to 77.6 (95% CI, 76.2 to 79.1) per 1,000 in the second half of 2024, <i>P</i> < .001. Increases in PET were driven by uptake of PSMA-PET following approval in 2021, which increased from 0.8 (95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9) per 1,000 in the second half of 2021 to 77.0 (95% CI, 75.5 to 78.5) per 1,000 in the second half of 2024, <i>P</i> < .001. PSMA-PET use in 2024 was higher in regions with greater education (99.3 <i>v</i> 114.6 per 1,000 in lowest [Q1] <i>v</i> highest [Q4] educated) and income (95.4 <i>v</i> 112.3 per 1,000 in Q1 <i>v</i> Q4 income) measures, <i>P</i> < .001.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PSMA-PET was rapidly incorporated into clinical practice among commercial insurance beneficiaries with prostate cancer with higher adoption in geographic regions with higher income and education.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2500617"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2026-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146112948","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}
Pub Date : 2026-02-01Epub Date: 2025-07-14DOI: 10.1200/OP-25-00052
Gogo-Ogute Ibodeng, Chelsee Jensen, Scott A Soefje, Aakash Desai
{"title":"Subcutaneous Immunotherapies in Solid Tumors: Are We Truly Expanding Access and Efficiency?","authors":"Gogo-Ogute Ibodeng, Chelsee Jensen, Scott A Soefje, Aakash Desai","doi":"10.1200/OP-25-00052","DOIUrl":"10.1200/OP-25-00052","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"181-184"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144637064","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}
Pub Date : 2026-02-01Epub Date: 2025-04-16DOI: 10.1200/OP-25-00223
Alison W Loren, Christina Lacchetti, H Irene Su
{"title":"Fertility Preservation in People With Cancer: ASCO Guideline Clinical Insights.","authors":"Alison W Loren, Christina Lacchetti, H Irene Su","doi":"10.1200/OP-25-00223","DOIUrl":"10.1200/OP-25-00223","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"193-197"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143996674","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}
Pub Date : 2026-02-01Epub Date: 2025-05-30DOI: 10.1200/OP-25-00338
Ilona Fridman, Christine Neslund-Dudas, Lauren C J Barrow, Matthew R Dunn, Regina Jones, Alan C Kinlaw, Angela B Smith, Jacob N Stein, Samantha Tam, William A Wood, Jennifer Elston Lafata
{"title":"Erratum: Telephone Survey-Reported Perceptions of Telehealth Visits Among Black and Non-Black Patients Diagnosed With Cancer.","authors":"Ilona Fridman, Christine Neslund-Dudas, Lauren C J Barrow, Matthew R Dunn, Regina Jones, Alan C Kinlaw, Angela B Smith, Jacob N Stein, Samantha Tam, William A Wood, Jennifer Elston Lafata","doi":"10.1200/OP-25-00338","DOIUrl":"10.1200/OP-25-00338","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"342"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144186997","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}
Pub Date : 2026-02-01Epub Date: 2025-06-03DOI: 10.1200/OP-24-00776
Jenny M Ho, Uday Deotare, Aatif Qureshi, Laila Schenkel, Benjamin Chin-Yee, Anahita Mohseni Meybodi, Emilie Lalonde, Lalit Saini, Alan Gob, Selay Lam, Cyrus Hsia, Bekim Sadikovic, Benjamin Hedley, Ian Chin-Yee
Purpose: The classification of AML and therapeutic options are now largely driven by genetically defined subtypes. Personalization of treatment relies on timely completion and reporting of cytogenetic and molecular tests, creating challenges in clinical practice. We initiated a quality improvement study with the aim to optimize the process for ordering of genomic diagnostic tests and to reduce test turnaround times (TATs).
Methods: A multidisciplinary working group consisting of hematologists, laboratory scientists, technologists, and hematopathologists was formed and identified the following tests as necessary for expedited testing in patients with AML younger than 75 years: next-generation sequencing (NGS) myeloid panel, karyotype analysis, FLT3 PCR, NPM1 PCR, CBFB::MYH11 PCR, and RUNX1::RUNX1T1 PCR, and proposed a reflexive flow cytometry-triggered genomic diagnostic testing algorithm for newly diagnosed AML (ND-AML). We used the model of improvement and implemented three Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles: education and guidelines for management of ND-AML, implementation of the reflex laboratory-triggered diagnostic testing algorithm for ND-AML, and automation of NGS workflow. We assessed compliance with test ordering according to prescribed guidelines and TAT.
Results: After PDSA 2, test ordering improved significantly to more than 90% of relevant tests being initiated at AML diagnosis; and TAT was reduced by 27.6% for NGS and by 54.8% for NPM1 PCR. After PDSA 3, TAT for NGS was overall reduced by 63.3% to 11.4 days and within our 14-day target. We were able to also meet our target TAT of 5 days or less for FLT3 and NPM1 PCRs.
Discussion: A multidisciplinary approach with shared decision making between hematologists and laboratory practitioners was essential in the development of an algorithm for reflex testing in AML that resulted in improved test ordering and TAT.
{"title":"Patient-Centered Genomic Diagnostic Testing for AML: A Quality Improvement Project.","authors":"Jenny M Ho, Uday Deotare, Aatif Qureshi, Laila Schenkel, Benjamin Chin-Yee, Anahita Mohseni Meybodi, Emilie Lalonde, Lalit Saini, Alan Gob, Selay Lam, Cyrus Hsia, Bekim Sadikovic, Benjamin Hedley, Ian Chin-Yee","doi":"10.1200/OP-24-00776","DOIUrl":"10.1200/OP-24-00776","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The classification of AML and therapeutic options are now largely driven by genetically defined subtypes. Personalization of treatment relies on timely completion and reporting of cytogenetic and molecular tests, creating challenges in clinical practice. We initiated a quality improvement study with the aim to optimize the process for ordering of genomic diagnostic tests and to reduce test turnaround times (TATs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multidisciplinary working group consisting of hematologists, laboratory scientists, technologists, and hematopathologists was formed and identified the following tests as necessary for expedited testing in patients with AML younger than 75 years: next-generation sequencing (NGS) myeloid panel, karyotype analysis, <i>FLT3</i> PCR, <i>NPM1</i> PCR, <i>CBFB::MYH11</i> PCR, and <i>RUNX1::RUNX1T1</i> PCR, and proposed a reflexive flow cytometry-triggered genomic diagnostic testing algorithm for newly diagnosed AML (ND-AML). We used the model of improvement and implemented three Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles: education and guidelines for management of ND-AML, implementation of the reflex laboratory-triggered diagnostic testing algorithm for ND-AML, and automation of NGS workflow. We assessed compliance with test ordering according to prescribed guidelines and TAT.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After PDSA 2, test ordering improved significantly to more than 90% of relevant tests being initiated at AML diagnosis; and TAT was reduced by 27.6% for NGS and by 54.8% for <i>NPM1</i> PCR. After PDSA 3, TAT for NGS was overall reduced by 63.3% to 11.4 days and within our 14-day target. We were able to also meet our target TAT of 5 days or less for <i>FLT3</i> and <i>NPM1</i> PCRs.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>A multidisciplinary approach with shared decision making between hematologists and laboratory practitioners was essential in the development of an algorithm for reflex testing in AML that resulted in improved test ordering and TAT.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"314-324"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144215816","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}
Pub Date : 2026-02-01Epub Date: 2025-05-21DOI: 10.1200/OP-24-00655
Kelly E McCann, Virginia Kaklamani, Noran Osman, Joan Cannon, Lonnie Brent, Rachel Lucia, Chong Li, Nicole Duran, Sidharth Gupta, Nancy Martin
Purpose: Goserelin is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for ovarian function suppression in the treatment of pre- and perimenopausal patients with breast cancer and for the preservation of ovarian function during chemotherapy. Goserelin is available in doses of 3.6 mg once every 4 weeks or 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks. This study used US real-world evidence to characterize goserelin treatment patterns.
Methods: Electronic health record data of adults with a history of breast cancer and ≥2 goserelin prescriptions between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022, were identified through TriNetX. Patient demographics and treatment patterns were examined.
Results: Overall, 3,620 US patients were identified: 2,870 treated with goserelin 3.6 mg once every 4 weeks, 410 treated with 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks, and 340 switched from 3.6 mg once every 4 weeks to 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks. Peak utilization of 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks (36.6%) and dose switching to 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks (26.5%) occurred in 2020. Patients who switched to 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks had the longest median treatment duration (776 days), compared with the 3.6 mg once every 4 weeks and 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks cohorts (264 and 429 days, respectively). Of patients who switched, 65% were still being treated after 2 years, compared with 30% and 40% treated with 3.6 mg once every 4 weeks only or 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks only, respectively. Patients initially treated with or who switched to 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks were more adherent (64.4%-75.0%), compared with patients treated with 3.6 mg once every 4 weeks (45.4%).
Conclusion: Treatment with goserelin 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks is associated with greater adherence and longer treatment duration, compared with 3.6 mg once every 4 weeks in patients with breast cancer in the United States.
{"title":"Treatment Patterns of Goserelin 3.6 mg Once Every 4 Weeks and 10.8 mg Once Every 12 Weeks in Women With Breast Cancer: A Real-World Analysis of Patients in the United States.","authors":"Kelly E McCann, Virginia Kaklamani, Noran Osman, Joan Cannon, Lonnie Brent, Rachel Lucia, Chong Li, Nicole Duran, Sidharth Gupta, Nancy Martin","doi":"10.1200/OP-24-00655","DOIUrl":"10.1200/OP-24-00655","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Goserelin is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for ovarian function suppression in the treatment of pre- and perimenopausal patients with breast cancer and for the preservation of ovarian function during chemotherapy. Goserelin is available in doses of 3.6 mg once every 4 weeks or 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks. This study used US real-world evidence to characterize goserelin treatment patterns.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic health record data of adults with a history of breast cancer and ≥2 goserelin prescriptions between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022, were identified through TriNetX. Patient demographics and treatment patterns were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 3,620 US patients were identified: 2,870 treated with goserelin 3.6 mg once every 4 weeks, 410 treated with 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks, and 340 switched from 3.6 mg once every 4 weeks to 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks. Peak utilization of 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks (36.6%) and dose switching to 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks (26.5%) occurred in 2020. Patients who switched to 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks had the longest median treatment duration (776 days), compared with the 3.6 mg once every 4 weeks and 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks cohorts (264 and 429 days, respectively). Of patients who switched, 65% were still being treated after 2 years, compared with 30% and 40% treated with 3.6 mg once every 4 weeks only or 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks only, respectively. Patients initially treated with or who switched to 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks were more adherent (64.4%-75.0%), compared with patients treated with 3.6 mg once every 4 weeks (45.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Treatment with goserelin 10.8 mg once every 12 weeks is associated with greater adherence and longer treatment duration, compared with 3.6 mg once every 4 weeks in patients with breast cancer in the United States.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"263-273"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144119771","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}
Pub Date : 2026-02-01Epub Date: 2025-05-16DOI: 10.1200/OP-24-00892
Lisa DiMartino, Vincent Merrill, Celette Sugg Skinner, Timothy P Hogan, Navid Sadeghi, Alva Roche-Green, Winnie Wang, Arthur S Hong
Purpose: Little is known about guideline-concordant, early integration of palliative care (PC) in the outpatient setting among patients with advanced cancer within a safety-net system. This study examined PC delivery patterns for patients seen in a large, urban safety-net system.
Methods: Patients diagnosed with advanced-stage solid tumor and who had ≥1 outpatient oncology visit from January 2018 to July 2023 at Parkland Health were identified via electronic health record. Outcomes assessed included (1) receipt of PC referral ≤8 weeks after diagnosis, (2) receipt of any PC referral, and (3) PC visit completion. Multivariable logit models evaluated associations between key characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, gender, cancer type, preferred language, insurance, diagnosis year) and the outcomes.
Results: Among 1,296 patients (44% female; 76% non-White), 55% received a referral. Of those referred, 46% patients were referred early (≤8 weeks). Two thirds of the referred patients completed a PC visit during the study period. In adjusted regression models, patients who were Black (v White; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82]), Hispanic (aOR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.18 to 0.59]), or had prostate cancer (v breast cancer; aOR, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.10 to 0.69]) had lower odds of receiving early referral. Ages 40-69 (v >80 years; lowest odds for 60 to <70, aOR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.20 to 0.85]) and patients with gynecologic cancer (aOR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.28]) had lower odds of receiving any PC referral. Females had higher odds of completing a PC visit (v males; aOR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.01 to 2.08]).
Conclusion: Many patients did not receive an outpatient referral or received it late. Observed differences by race/ethnicity, cancer type, and age suggest the need for different interventions targeting PC delivery for underserved patients with cancer.
{"title":"Early Integration of Outpatient Palliative Care Among Adults With Advanced Cancer in a Safety-Net Health System: A Patterns of Care Analysis.","authors":"Lisa DiMartino, Vincent Merrill, Celette Sugg Skinner, Timothy P Hogan, Navid Sadeghi, Alva Roche-Green, Winnie Wang, Arthur S Hong","doi":"10.1200/OP-24-00892","DOIUrl":"10.1200/OP-24-00892","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Little is known about guideline-concordant, early integration of palliative care (PC) in the outpatient setting among patients with advanced cancer within a safety-net system. This study examined PC delivery patterns for patients seen in a large, urban safety-net system.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients diagnosed with advanced-stage solid tumor and who had ≥1 outpatient oncology visit from January 2018 to July 2023 at Parkland Health were identified via electronic health record. Outcomes assessed included (1) receipt of PC referral ≤8 weeks after diagnosis, (2) receipt of any PC referral, and (3) PC visit completion. Multivariable logit models evaluated associations between key characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, gender, cancer type, preferred language, insurance, diagnosis year) and the outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1,296 patients (44% female; 76% non-White), 55% received a referral. Of those referred, 46% patients were referred early (≤8 weeks). Two thirds of the referred patients completed a PC visit during the study period. In adjusted regression models, patients who were Black (<i>v</i> White; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82]), Hispanic (aOR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.18 to 0.59]), or had prostate cancer (<i>v</i> breast cancer; aOR, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.10 to 0.69]) had lower odds of receiving early referral. Ages 40-69 (<i>v</i> >80 years; lowest odds for 60 to <70, aOR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.20 to 0.85]) and patients with gynecologic cancer (aOR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.28]) had lower odds of receiving any PC referral. Females had higher odds of completing a PC visit (<i>v</i> males; aOR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.01 to 2.08]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Many patients did not receive an outpatient referral or received it late. Observed differences by race/ethnicity, cancer type, and age suggest the need for different interventions targeting PC delivery for underserved patients with cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"216-224"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12401141/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144078024","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}