Pub Date : 2025-12-18DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5376
Hans Wildiers,Virginie Adam,Seamus O'Reilly,Josephine Van Cauwenberge,Amal Arahmani,Carlos L Arteaga,Philippe L Bedard,Judith Bliss,Panayota Boussis,Etienne Brain,Marc Buyse,Carmela Caballero,David Cameron,Fatima Cardoso,Eva Carrasco,Ana Casas,Boon Chua,Giuseppe Curigliano,Angela DeMichele,Laura Esserman,Giuseppe Floris,Matthew P Goetz,Theodora Goulioti,Benjamin Haibe-Kains,Christine Hodgdon,Michail Ignatiadis,Marleen Kok,Denis Lacombe,Barbro Linderholm,Sherene Loi,Christopher J Lord,Mairead MacKenzie,Julia Maues,Lydie Meheus,Judy Needham,Patrick Neven,Heather Parsons,Martine Piccart,Lajos Pusztai,Evangelia Razis,Shigehira Saji,Eva Schumacher-Wulf,Gabe S Sonke,Tania Spanic,Ian F Tannock,Andrew Tutt,Ander Urruticoechea,Laura van 't Veer,Ines Vaz-Luis,Gustavo Werutsky,Douglas Yee,Khalil Zaman,Christine Desmedt
ImportanceMolecular analyses of biospecimens collected from study participants are essential for identifying biomarkers that can tailor treatments to specific subsets of patients who are most likely to benefit. Sharing of data and biospecimens from clinical trials enables personalized, patient-centric use of cancer therapies and accelerates the development of new treatments.ObjectiveTo describe obstacles to sharing data and biospecimens and to propose strategies to enhance access and collaboration.Evidence ReviewThis is a Special Communication authored by 53 academic investigators and patient representatives from the breast cancer community with extensive experience in conducting clinical and translational research. The article also evaluates the impact of biomarker research on specifying responsive subpopulations in the 29 registrational clinical trials that have led to approval of a new drug for treatment of breast cancer between 2017 and 2024.FindingsClinical trial participants are increasingly asked to provide tissue and/or body fluid biospecimens for biomarker research that is typically controlled by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company, but published biomarker studies are rare. Among 29 breast cancer registrational studies reported in the past 8 years, none resulted in biomarker research that restricted a drug's approved indication. Herein, strategies to maximize the value of clinical data and biospecimens contributed by participants are proposed, thereby supporting the shared goals of the pharmaceutical industry and academia to improve patient care. These strategies include (1) establishing coleadership structures involving academia and patients in clinical trial design and conduct, (2) ensuring that informed consent forms state that data and biospecimens will be shared with academia for future research, (3) requiring the sharing of clinical data as a condition for regulatory approval, and (4) enabling access to biospecimens and translational research data for independent studies on biomarkers that may indicate drug efficacy and toxicity.Conclusions and RelevanceData and biospecimen sharing from registrational trials has been suboptimal. Improving clinical data, biospecimens, and biospecimens' related data sharing requires concrete actions and a multidimensional stakeholder approach to accelerate the impact of clinical cancer research on the quality of patient care.
{"title":"Enhancing Clinical Cancer Research Through Sharing of Data and Biospecimens.","authors":"Hans Wildiers,Virginie Adam,Seamus O'Reilly,Josephine Van Cauwenberge,Amal Arahmani,Carlos L Arteaga,Philippe L Bedard,Judith Bliss,Panayota Boussis,Etienne Brain,Marc Buyse,Carmela Caballero,David Cameron,Fatima Cardoso,Eva Carrasco,Ana Casas,Boon Chua,Giuseppe Curigliano,Angela DeMichele,Laura Esserman,Giuseppe Floris,Matthew P Goetz,Theodora Goulioti,Benjamin Haibe-Kains,Christine Hodgdon,Michail Ignatiadis,Marleen Kok,Denis Lacombe,Barbro Linderholm,Sherene Loi,Christopher J Lord,Mairead MacKenzie,Julia Maues,Lydie Meheus,Judy Needham,Patrick Neven,Heather Parsons,Martine Piccart,Lajos Pusztai,Evangelia Razis,Shigehira Saji,Eva Schumacher-Wulf,Gabe S Sonke,Tania Spanic,Ian F Tannock,Andrew Tutt,Ander Urruticoechea,Laura van 't Veer,Ines Vaz-Luis,Gustavo Werutsky,Douglas Yee,Khalil Zaman,Christine Desmedt","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5376","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5376","url":null,"abstract":"ImportanceMolecular analyses of biospecimens collected from study participants are essential for identifying biomarkers that can tailor treatments to specific subsets of patients who are most likely to benefit. Sharing of data and biospecimens from clinical trials enables personalized, patient-centric use of cancer therapies and accelerates the development of new treatments.ObjectiveTo describe obstacles to sharing data and biospecimens and to propose strategies to enhance access and collaboration.Evidence ReviewThis is a Special Communication authored by 53 academic investigators and patient representatives from the breast cancer community with extensive experience in conducting clinical and translational research. The article also evaluates the impact of biomarker research on specifying responsive subpopulations in the 29 registrational clinical trials that have led to approval of a new drug for treatment of breast cancer between 2017 and 2024.FindingsClinical trial participants are increasingly asked to provide tissue and/or body fluid biospecimens for biomarker research that is typically controlled by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company, but published biomarker studies are rare. Among 29 breast cancer registrational studies reported in the past 8 years, none resulted in biomarker research that restricted a drug's approved indication. Herein, strategies to maximize the value of clinical data and biospecimens contributed by participants are proposed, thereby supporting the shared goals of the pharmaceutical industry and academia to improve patient care. These strategies include (1) establishing coleadership structures involving academia and patients in clinical trial design and conduct, (2) ensuring that informed consent forms state that data and biospecimens will be shared with academia for future research, (3) requiring the sharing of clinical data as a condition for regulatory approval, and (4) enabling access to biospecimens and translational research data for independent studies on biomarkers that may indicate drug efficacy and toxicity.Conclusions and RelevanceData and biospecimen sharing from registrational trials has been suboptimal. Improving clinical data, biospecimens, and biospecimens' related data sharing requires concrete actions and a multidimensional stakeholder approach to accelerate the impact of clinical cancer research on the quality of patient care.","PeriodicalId":14850,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Oncology","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":28.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145771578","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-18DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5247
Annabelle D Robinson,Anthony M Joshua,Wendy Lipworth
{"title":"Managing Nonfinancial Conflicts of Interest in Oncology Research-A Guide for Practice.","authors":"Annabelle D Robinson,Anthony M Joshua,Wendy Lipworth","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5247","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5247","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":14850,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Oncology","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":28.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145771604","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-18DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5511
Yunyang Deng,Shiqiang Wu,Lina Schollin Ask,Tiia Lepp,Mark Clements,Hanna Milerad,Christina Carlander,Jiayao Lei
ImportanceHuman papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination has been associated with reduced risk of high-grade cervical lesions. However, evidence on its association with high-grade vulvovaginal lesions remains scarce.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between quadrivalent HPV vaccination and high-grade vulvovaginal lesions and assess the population-level incidence reduction among birth cohorts eligible for various vaccination programs.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis population-based cohort study included women who were born between 1985 and 1998 and resided in Sweden between 2006 and 2022. Eligible participants had not previously received an HPV vaccination and did not have high-grade vulvovaginal lesions. Data were analyzed from February to October 2025.ExposureHPV vaccination status was treated as a time-varying exposure, and birth cohorts corresponded to different vaccination programs: 1985 to 1988 (opportunistic vaccination program), 1989 to 1992 (subsidized vaccination), and 1993 to 1998 (catch-up vaccination).Main Outcome and MeasuresThe main outcome was incidence of high-grade vulvovaginal lesions, including cancers. Poisson regression models were used to estimate incidence rate ratios with 95% CIs.ResultsAmong 778 943 women, a total of 256 353 (32.9%) received at least 1 dose of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 17.0 (17.0-17.0) years for unvaccinated women, 12.2 (10.6-13.4) years for those vaccinated between ages 10 and 16 years, and 10.8 (9.3-13.5) years for those vaccinated at 17 years or older. During follow-up, 98 cases of high-grade vulvovaginal lesions were found in vaccinated women, and 547 cases were found in unvaccinated women. Compared with unvaccinated women, the fully adjusted incidence rate ratio of high-grade vulvovaginal lesions was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.50-0.81) in vaccinated women. Stratified by age at vaccination, the incidence rate ratios for those vaccinated at 10 to 16 years and 17 years or older were 0.45 (95% CI, 0.32-0.65) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.61-1.06), respectively. Compared with women born between 1985 and 1988, the incidence rate ratios for those born in 1989 to 1992 and 1993 to 1998 were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.67-0.97) and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.49-0.80), respectively.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, vaccinated women had a lower incidence of high-grade vulvovaginal lesions compared with unvaccinated women, with a greater incidence reduction for those vaccinated at younger ages (before 17 years of age). Population-level incidence reduction was observed in cohorts vaccinated through subsidized or catch-up programs. These findings support that scaling up coverage of HPV vaccination at younger ages may help prevent high-grade vulvovaginal lesions.
{"title":"Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine and High-Grade Vulvovaginal Lesions.","authors":"Yunyang Deng,Shiqiang Wu,Lina Schollin Ask,Tiia Lepp,Mark Clements,Hanna Milerad,Christina Carlander,Jiayao Lei","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5511","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5511","url":null,"abstract":"ImportanceHuman papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination has been associated with reduced risk of high-grade cervical lesions. However, evidence on its association with high-grade vulvovaginal lesions remains scarce.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between quadrivalent HPV vaccination and high-grade vulvovaginal lesions and assess the population-level incidence reduction among birth cohorts eligible for various vaccination programs.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis population-based cohort study included women who were born between 1985 and 1998 and resided in Sweden between 2006 and 2022. Eligible participants had not previously received an HPV vaccination and did not have high-grade vulvovaginal lesions. Data were analyzed from February to October 2025.ExposureHPV vaccination status was treated as a time-varying exposure, and birth cohorts corresponded to different vaccination programs: 1985 to 1988 (opportunistic vaccination program), 1989 to 1992 (subsidized vaccination), and 1993 to 1998 (catch-up vaccination).Main Outcome and MeasuresThe main outcome was incidence of high-grade vulvovaginal lesions, including cancers. Poisson regression models were used to estimate incidence rate ratios with 95% CIs.ResultsAmong 778 943 women, a total of 256 353 (32.9%) received at least 1 dose of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 17.0 (17.0-17.0) years for unvaccinated women, 12.2 (10.6-13.4) years for those vaccinated between ages 10 and 16 years, and 10.8 (9.3-13.5) years for those vaccinated at 17 years or older. During follow-up, 98 cases of high-grade vulvovaginal lesions were found in vaccinated women, and 547 cases were found in unvaccinated women. Compared with unvaccinated women, the fully adjusted incidence rate ratio of high-grade vulvovaginal lesions was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.50-0.81) in vaccinated women. Stratified by age at vaccination, the incidence rate ratios for those vaccinated at 10 to 16 years and 17 years or older were 0.45 (95% CI, 0.32-0.65) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.61-1.06), respectively. Compared with women born between 1985 and 1988, the incidence rate ratios for those born in 1989 to 1992 and 1993 to 1998 were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.67-0.97) and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.49-0.80), respectively.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, vaccinated women had a lower incidence of high-grade vulvovaginal lesions compared with unvaccinated women, with a greater incidence reduction for those vaccinated at younger ages (before 17 years of age). Population-level incidence reduction was observed in cohorts vaccinated through subsidized or catch-up programs. These findings support that scaling up coverage of HPV vaccination at younger ages may help prevent high-grade vulvovaginal lesions.","PeriodicalId":14850,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Oncology","volume":"111 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":28.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145771586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-11DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5220
Irene M. Kang, Jamie K. Forschmiedt, Michelle M. Loch, Danika L. Lew, William E. Barlow, Julie R. Gralow, Funda Meric-Bernstam, Kathy S. Albain, Daniel F. Hayes, Nancy U. Lin, Edith A. Perez, Lori J. Goldstein, Priya Rastogi, Anne F. Schott, Rick Baehner, Priyanka Sharma, Debasish Tripathy, Lajos Pusztai, Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, Kevin Kalinsky, N. Lynn Henry
Importance Breast cancer treatment is associated with cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI). However, the association of endocrine therapy (ET) vs chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy (CET) with CRCI is poorly understood. Objective To compare patient-reported CRCI between women with breast cancer treated with ET vs CET and to consider whether menopausal status may be associated. Design, Settings, and Participants This was a prespecified secondary analysis of RxPONDER (SWOG S1007), a multinational phase 3 randomized clinical trial of more than 5000 women with hormone receptor−positive <jats:italic>ERBB2</jats:italic> -negative (formerly <jats:italic>HER2</jats:italic> -negative) breast cancer with 1 to 3 involved lymph nodes and Oncotype DX (21-gene recurrence score) of 25 or less. Participants were enrolled from February 2011 to September 2017, with results first reported in December 2020. Participants were randomly assigned to CET or ET, with ongoing follow-up. This secondary analysis assessed cognitive function using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Perceived Cognitive Function Concerns (PCF) questionnaire at baseline, 6, 12, and 36 months. Data were analyzed from July 2022 to August 2025. Intervention Random assignment to CET or ET. Main Outcomes and Measures Mean PCF standardized (T) scores by menopausal status over time using generalized estimating equations analysis for continuous outcomes. Results Of the 568 patients who completed the baseline questionnaire and were included in the analysis, 139 (24%) were premenopausal (median [range] age, 47.8 [28.0-56.3] years) and 429 (76%) were postmenopausal (median [range] age, 62.3 [37.3-87.6] years). Among the 274 (48%) who received CET and the 294 (52%) who received ET alone, CET was determined to have a greater negative association with patient-reported CRCI in both the pre- and postmenopausal participants during the 36-month follow-up. In the ET alone group, PCF scores for premenopausal participants decreased from baseline to 6 and 12 months (53.53, 51.51, and 51.72, respectively) but recovered to baseline (54.36) at 36 months. For postmenopausal participants, mean PCF scores were essentially stable (51.72, 51.13, 51.11, and 51.70, respectively); however, in the CET group, PCF scores for both pre- and postmenopausal participants decreased from baseline to 6 and 12 months (premenopausal, 52.84, 49.27, 48.04; postmenopausal, 50.65, 48.39, 47.13, respectively) and did not return to baseline at 36 months (premenopausal, 49.25; postmenopausal, 48.44). The difference in longitudinal mean PCF scores over time between CET and ET groups was −3.02 (95% CI, −5.33 to −0.72; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .01) for premenopausal and −2.37 (95% CI, −3.92 to −0.82; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .003) for postmenopausal participants. Conclusions and Relevance This secondary analysis of the RxPONDER found that CET had a greater negative association with patient-reported CRCI comp
{"title":"Cognitive Impairment and Chemoendocrine vs Endocrine Therapy in Pre- and Postmenopausal Women","authors":"Irene M. Kang, Jamie K. Forschmiedt, Michelle M. Loch, Danika L. Lew, William E. Barlow, Julie R. Gralow, Funda Meric-Bernstam, Kathy S. Albain, Daniel F. Hayes, Nancy U. Lin, Edith A. Perez, Lori J. Goldstein, Priya Rastogi, Anne F. Schott, Rick Baehner, Priyanka Sharma, Debasish Tripathy, Lajos Pusztai, Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, Kevin Kalinsky, N. Lynn Henry","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5220","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5220","url":null,"abstract":"Importance Breast cancer treatment is associated with cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI). However, the association of endocrine therapy (ET) vs chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy (CET) with CRCI is poorly understood. Objective To compare patient-reported CRCI between women with breast cancer treated with ET vs CET and to consider whether menopausal status may be associated. Design, Settings, and Participants This was a prespecified secondary analysis of RxPONDER (SWOG S1007), a multinational phase 3 randomized clinical trial of more than 5000 women with hormone receptor−positive <jats:italic>ERBB2</jats:italic> -negative (formerly <jats:italic>HER2</jats:italic> -negative) breast cancer with 1 to 3 involved lymph nodes and Oncotype DX (21-gene recurrence score) of 25 or less. Participants were enrolled from February 2011 to September 2017, with results first reported in December 2020. Participants were randomly assigned to CET or ET, with ongoing follow-up. This secondary analysis assessed cognitive function using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Perceived Cognitive Function Concerns (PCF) questionnaire at baseline, 6, 12, and 36 months. Data were analyzed from July 2022 to August 2025. Intervention Random assignment to CET or ET. Main Outcomes and Measures Mean PCF standardized (T) scores by menopausal status over time using generalized estimating equations analysis for continuous outcomes. Results Of the 568 patients who completed the baseline questionnaire and were included in the analysis, 139 (24%) were premenopausal (median [range] age, 47.8 [28.0-56.3] years) and 429 (76%) were postmenopausal (median [range] age, 62.3 [37.3-87.6] years). Among the 274 (48%) who received CET and the 294 (52%) who received ET alone, CET was determined to have a greater negative association with patient-reported CRCI in both the pre- and postmenopausal participants during the 36-month follow-up. In the ET alone group, PCF scores for premenopausal participants decreased from baseline to 6 and 12 months (53.53, 51.51, and 51.72, respectively) but recovered to baseline (54.36) at 36 months. For postmenopausal participants, mean PCF scores were essentially stable (51.72, 51.13, 51.11, and 51.70, respectively); however, in the CET group, PCF scores for both pre- and postmenopausal participants decreased from baseline to 6 and 12 months (premenopausal, 52.84, 49.27, 48.04; postmenopausal, 50.65, 48.39, 47.13, respectively) and did not return to baseline at 36 months (premenopausal, 49.25; postmenopausal, 48.44). The difference in longitudinal mean PCF scores over time between CET and ET groups was −3.02 (95% CI, −5.33 to −0.72; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .01) for premenopausal and −2.37 (95% CI, −3.92 to −0.82; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .003) for postmenopausal participants. Conclusions and Relevance This secondary analysis of the RxPONDER found that CET had a greater negative association with patient-reported CRCI comp","PeriodicalId":14850,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Oncology","volume":"94 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":28.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145717268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-11DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5629
{"title":"Error in Denominator in Results Text.","authors":"","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5629","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5629","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":14850,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Oncology","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":28.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145717876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Stroke in Patients With Cancer-Time Is Brain.","authors":"Ronda Lun,Jeffrey Q Cao,Andrew Demchuk,Umberto Pensato","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5234","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5234","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":14850,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Oncology","volume":"145 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":28.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145717874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-12-11DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5088
Michelle C Janelsins,Allison Magnuson
{"title":"Unraveling the Complexity of Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairment in Breast Cancer-Effect of Differing Treatments and Menopausal Status.","authors":"Michelle C Janelsins,Allison Magnuson","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5088","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":14850,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Oncology","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":28.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145717877","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：