Journal of Cancer Policy最新文献

{"title":"Cross sectional analysis of long-term overall survival among patients taking immune checkpoint inhibitor drugs","authors":"Alyson Haslam ,&nbsp;Timothée Olivier ,&nbsp;Vinay Prasad","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100669","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100669","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the landscape of tumor therapy. Yet, little is known about the collective long-term survival from these therapies. We sought to characterize long-term survival.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In a cross-sectional analysis of US FDA oncology ICI drug approvals (2011–2023), we retrieved data from supporting registration trials. We examined the percentage of study participants surviving at 12-, 24-, 36-, and 60-months follow-up; the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Value Framework Tail of the Curve calculation; and the correlation between the longest time with 10 % of patients still at-risk and the difference in the percentage of patients in each treatment group alive.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Out of 88 included approvals, 20 (22.7 %) qualified for ASCO’s tail of the curve bonus. Twenty-seven studies (30.7 %) did not report OS at 12 months; 44 (50.0 %) did not report OS at 24 months; 60 (68.2 %) did not report OS at 36 months; and 78 (88.6 %) did not report OS at 60 months. We found no correlation between the last time that at least 10 % of patients were still at-risk and the difference in the percentage of patients in each group still alive at that time-point (R²=0.1; p = 0.30). Among 81 studies that reported an OS curve, the longest time with at least 10 % of participants at-risk was a median of 30 months. The median difference in survival was 8 %.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Few registration trials testing ICI oncology therapies report long-term overall survival data. The gathering and reporting of this information should be incentivized so that the value of these drugs for patients can be more readily assessed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"47 ","pages":"Article 100669"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145575073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Geographic distribution of CAR T-cell therapy clinical trials for childhood cancer: Scientific coherence and persistent needs","authors":"Fabriccio J. Visconti-Lopez ,&nbsp;Johana Galvan-Barrios ,&nbsp;Oscar Andrés Alzate Mejía ,&nbsp;Foday Tejan Mansaray","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100668","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100668","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study aimed to evaluate the geographic distribution of Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy clinical trials for childhood cancer and assess their alignment with global health needs. Using a quantitative approach, we analyzed data on 317 clinical trials from the WHO’s Global Observatory on Health Research and Development (2007–2022) alongside global health metrics, stratified by WHO region. Our results show a profound geographic imbalance: 56.7 % of trials occurred in the Western Pacific and 27.7 % in the Americas, while regions like Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean, and South-East Asia hosted almost none. Academic institutions were the primary sponsors (69.2 %). Correlational analysis revealed no statistically significant link between trial frequency and childhood cancer mortality rates. The only significant correlation found was between the number of trials and alcohol-related deaths in children aged 5–14 (r² = 0.67; p = 0.04). These findings indicate a stark misalignment between scientific research and the regions with the greatest pediatric oncology burden, highlighting significant scientific inequity. We conclude that structural barriers and misaligned funding prevent vulnerable populations from accessing these transformative therapies, necessitating a strategic shift in global policy to ensure equitable research distribution.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100668"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145558085","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Nurse-enabled survivorship in early-stage breast cancer (1970–2024): A critical bibliometric review of models, outcomes, and PRO-driven workflows","authors":"Alex S. Borromeo ,&nbsp;Russell John Catalig ,&nbsp;Abigail Ramos ,&nbsp;Catherine Atud ,&nbsp;Josefina Reyes ,&nbsp;Walton Wider","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100664","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100664","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Survivorship has become a central component of early-stage breast cancer care, yet implementation of evidence-based models remains inconsistent across settings. Nurses now serve as the backbone of follow-up, psychosocial support, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) monitoring, linking hospital and community-based care.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To map nursing’s scholarly contributions to survivorship, identify dominant research clusters and intellectual anchors, and explain why proven nurse-enabled and PRO-driven models remain underutilized in clinical practice.</div></div><div><h3>Interventions/Methods</h3><div>A critical bibliometric review was conducted using the Web of Science Core Collection (1970–2024). Descriptive metrics and VOSviewer co-citation and co-word analyses were used to examine publication trends, thematic clusters, and intellectual linkages.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 196 peer-reviewed articles (5,361 citations; H-index = 39) were identified. Four key clusters emerged: (1) risk-stratified nurse-led follow-up, (2) psychosocial well-being and rehabilitation, (3) shared decision-making and communication, and (4) PRO and quality-of-life infrastructure. Evidence supports streamlined, nurse-enabled care as safe and effective, with PRO-integrated triage reducing emergency visits and improving outcomes. Persistent gaps relate to limited reimbursement, workforce constraints, and PRO collection without actionable triage protocols.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Nursing constitutes the operational core of survivorship. Embedding PROs as clinical triggers, integrating psychosocial and rehabilitation services, and aligning funding with nurse-led, equity-focused pathways can transform survivorship delivery.</div></div><div><h3>Implications for Oncology Nursing Practice</h3><div>Oncology nurses should lead risk-stratified follow-up, normalize distress and exercise screening, and operationalize PRO triage with defined response times. Institutions should reimburse nurse-led encounters, report survivorship quality indicators, and scale culturally responsive models to achieve equitable survivorship care.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100664"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145534949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"US pharmaceutical tariffs and European oncology: Policy risks, openings, and clinical implications","authors":"Javier-David Benitez-Fuentes","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100665","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100665","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100665"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145507476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Overall survival as a safety guardrail in cancer drug trials","authors":"Rashidul Alam Mahumud","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100666","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100666","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Surrogate endpoints have accelerated access to oncology drugs but often leave uncertainty about net patient benefit. We propose a pragmatic framework that recentres overall survival (OS) as both the definitive patient-centred efficacy endpoint and a safety guardrail capable of detecting net harm that intermediate measures may miss. The framework comprises four pillars. First, designing for harm exclusion: protocols should prespecify a clinically meaningful OS harm margin, power event-driven follow-up to exclude or detect that margin with precision, and mandate independent data monitoring committee oversight. Analyses should match explicit estimands and pair hazard ratios with restricted mean survival time to accommodate non-proportional hazards. Second, handling crossover and post-progression therapy: when crossover is ethical or unavoidable, trials should adopt treatment-policy estimands for the primary question and prespecified causal sensitivity analyses. Protocols must map access to guideline-concordant post-progression care, record uptake and timing, and distinguish biological dilution from health-system scarcity. Third, using surrogates with discipline: when OS cannot feasibly be primary, sponsors should submit a disease-specific surrogate dossier summarising trial- and patient-level validation and quantifying expected translation to OS, while continuing to collect OS and assess it against the prespecified harm boundary. Fourth, preventing missingness-driven bias: continue outcome collection after treatment discontinuation, set triggers for asymmetric loss to follow-up, and perform structured tipping-point analyses. We recommend a regulatory traffic-light aligned to OS maturity, green (traditional approval), amber (time-limited with confirmatory obligations), red (standards unmet), and conditioning economic conclusions (QALYs, net monetary benefit) on OS harm exclusion. Operationalising OS as a safety guardrail protects patients and strengthens the credibility and value of cancer trials.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100666"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145497030","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Letter to the Editor – Commentary on “Continued tobacco use beyond cancer diagnosis in India – A systematic review and meta-analysis”","authors":"Ruihang Luo ,&nbsp;Maosen Liu ,&nbsp;Wei Zhong,&nbsp;Hongyi Lai,&nbsp;Kun Ai,&nbsp;Mingshan Liu","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100661","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100661","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100661"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145496983","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Geographic variation in experiences of cancer care in Scotland: Insights and policy implications from the Scottish Cancer Patient Experience Survey","authors":"Peter Murchie ,&nbsp;David McLernon ,&nbsp;Alexander Murchie ,&nbsp;David Nelson ,&nbsp;Natalia Calanzani","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100663","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100663","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Rural residence is associated with reduced cancer survival but research linking geography to patient experience is limited. Evidence from Scotland suggests rural patients experience cancer care differently. The Scottish Cancer Patient Experience Survey (SCPES) provides nationally representative, patient-reported datasets capturing experiences across the cancer care pathway, offering a unique opportunity to examine geographic variation in care.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>SCPES 2024 responses from 4540 adults were analysed. Data were weighted to account for non-response bias and structured for analysis by Scottish Government six-fold Urban-Rural classification. From 102 SCPES items, 32 were selected by two researchers independently (percentage agreement and Cohen’s kappa were calculated) based on relevance to cancer pathway stages, travel burden or rural-urban disparities. Analyses were conducted in three blocks: (1) pathway-relevant questions (n = 15), (2) distance to care components (n = 7), and (3) specific travel difficulties (n = 10). Cross-tabulations employed weighted counts, with χ² tests and linear-by-linear trend analyses for ordinal responses. Bonferroni correction was applied within each block.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Rural-dwelling respondents reported significantly longer journeys to access aspects of their cancer care and were more likely to report specific travel difficulties. Rural-dwellers were significantly less-likely to be given the chance to participate in research. Despite this, rural-dwelling cancer patients were as likely as urban-dwellers to report that their cancer experience was positive overall.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Satisfaction with cancer care in Scotland is positive irrespective of geography. Further research should focus on sustainably reducing travel-burden for rural-dwelling cancer patients and ensuring equal opportunities for them to participate in qualitative and quantitative research.</div></div><div><h3>Policy summary</h3><div>Efficient and meaningful analysis of publicly available cancer data should be encouraged. Future UK policy should support sustainable access to care for rural patients. Equal opportunities for research participation among rural patients should also be promoted. The SCPES should continue, and an additional question on overall support would be a useful addition.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100663"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145497018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Inequalities in the utilisation of curative-intent treatments for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer across urban and rural areas: A population-based study in England","authors":"Eva Kagenaar ,&nbsp;David G. Lugo-Palacios ,&nbsp;Ajay Aggarwal ,&nbsp;Andrew Hutchings ,&nbsp;Lu Han ,&nbsp;Stephen O’Neill ,&nbsp;Bernard Rachet ,&nbsp;John Edwards ,&nbsp;Corinne Faivre-Finn ,&nbsp;Richard Grieve","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100662","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100662","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>This study aims to assess sociodemographic inequalities in anticancer treatments including curative-intent surgery and curative-intent radiotherapy for people with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), across urban and rural areas.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A total of 38,229 eligible patients with early-stage NSCLC were identified from the English cancer registry and information on anti-cancer treatment (curative-intent surgery, curative-intent radiotherapy, palliative treatment, no anticancer treatment) was extracted from linked data. Multinomial logistic regression models estimated the association of sociodemographic measures with receipt of anticancer treatments, adjusting for case-mix and travel time.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Those living in more deprived areas were less likely to receive curative-intent surgery with a mean change in the estimated probability of −11.1 %age points (95 % CI −12.5;-9.6), but more likely to receive curative radiotherapy with a mean change of + 4.3 %age points (95 % CI 3.0;5.6), than those living in the least deprived areas. Compared to those living in the five largest cities, the estimated probability of receiving curative-intent surgery was lower for those living in other urban areas with a mean change of −2.7 %age points (95 % CI −3.7;-0.2), and those living in rural areas, with a mean change of −2.2 %age points (95 % CI −3.7;-0.6). The probability of receiving curative-intent radiotherapy was lower by on average −2.3 %age points (95 % CI −3.2;-1.3) for those living in other urban areas versus the largest cities, but the corresponding reduction for those living in rural areas was small (-0.5 %age points, 95 % CI −1.9;0.1).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>There are major inequalities in receipt of curative-intent surgery for early-stage NSCLC according to deprivation, and urban versus rural residence with smaller inequalities for receipt of curative-intent radiotherapy.</div></div><div><h3>Policy Implications</h3><div>The further expansion of radiotherapy services could reduce inequalities in uptake of curative-intent treatment for NSCLC, but the impact on patient outcomes must be assessed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100662"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145490663","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"National cancer plans and primary care a systematic analysis comparing Latin American and non-Latin American countries","authors":"Andrea Rioseco ,&nbsp;Klaus Puschel ,&nbsp;Gabriela Soto ,&nbsp;Zdenka Vescovi ,&nbsp;Isabella Fuentes ,&nbsp;Felipe Dibiase ,&nbsp;Gonzalo Ulloa ,&nbsp;Carolina Goic ,&nbsp;Jon Emery ,&nbsp;Beti Thompson ,&nbsp;Javiera Martinez-Gutierrez","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100659","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100659","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Cancer is a growing global health issue, particularly in middle- and high-income countries. National Cancer Control Plans (NCCPs) have emerged as a strategic response to reduce this burden. Primary care plays a crucial role across the cancer care continuum, yet its systematic inclusion in NCCPs remains unclear—especially in countries facing significant epidemiological challenges.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This study employed a systematic qualitative design based on document analysis. Using the READ (Ready material, Extract data, Analyze, Distil) model, we examined the integration of primary care policies and practices in eight NCCPs: four from non-Latin American high-income countries (NLAHIc—Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom) and four from Latin American middle-income countries (LATAMc—Argentina, Colombia, Chile, and Mexico). Covidence software facilitated the systematic text review, and a set of evidence-based key performance indicators (KPIs) was developed to guide the analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Primary care integration varied across countries. LATAMc NCCPs showed greater inclusion of primary care than NLAHIc. Health promotion strategies were more consistently present in NLAHIc, while LATAMc better integrated primary prevention into primary care. However, only 50 % of KPIs for secondary prevention and 15 % for survivorship care were included in LATAMc. Palliative care was more consistently integrated in LATAMc (75 %) than in NLAHIc (33 %).</div><div>Policy Summary</div><div>This is the first study to benchmark NCCPs from Latin American and high-income countries using evidence-based KPIs to assess primary care involvement in cancer control. Findings highlight an urgent need to strengthen primary care integration. LATAMc should improve secondary prevention and survivorship care, while NLAHIc need to better incorporate primary prevention and palliative care into their NCCPs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100659"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145490651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Discrepancies in the therapeutic indications granted by the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration for new cancer drugs: An analysis of potential explanations","authors":"Allan Cramer ,&nbsp;Freja Karuna Hemmingsen Sørup ,&nbsp;Hanne Rolighed Christensen ,&nbsp;Kristian Karstoft ,&nbsp;Tonny Studsgaard Petersen","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100660","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100660","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Studies have found notable differences between the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in indications granted to new cancer drugs (e.g., different treatment lines). It is unknown why they occur; therefore, we aimed to analyse if maturity of data or characteristics of the pivotal trials might be explanations.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>New cancer drugs approved by both EMA and the FDA in the study period between January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022, and new cancer drugs that were approved by one agency in the study period and at the other agency outside the study period were included in the analysis. The drugs were identified by searching the FDA and EMA websites.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 36 new cancer drugs were included. Notable differences between EMA and the FDA in the granted indication were found in 15 (42 %) of the drugs. The proportion of cancer drugs with differences in maturity of data at time of assessment between EMA and the FDA was similar for drugs with and without notable differences in the indication. Furthermore, the results did not indicate that low level of evidence (e.g., early phase trial as the pivotal, single-arm design, or use of surrogate endpoints) was more common in the cancer drugs with notable differences in the indication.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The frequent discrepancies in the granted indications between EMA and the FDA for new cancer drugs during a three year period could not be explained by maturity of data at time of assessment or characteristics of the pivotal trials. Therefore, divergence in regulatory policies between the two agencies is considered a more likely explanation.</div></div><div><h3>Policy summary</h3><div>Discrepancies between regulatory agencies in the indications granted to new cancer drugs suggest a problematic extrapolation and thus uncertainty regarding the clinical benefit for the patients. The present study seeks to identify potential explanations for the discrepancies to reduce the misalignment in the future.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"47 ","pages":"Article 100660"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145472435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}