JCO oncology practice最新文献

{"title":"Unmet Social Needs Among Cancer Survivors Who Were Concomitant Caregivers: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey.","authors":"Qian Wang, Zhiting Tang, Hui Xie, Chi Wen, Yannan Li, Changchuan Jiang, Lauren Chiec, Sara L Douglas, Melinda L Hsu","doi":"10.1200/OP-25-00388","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-25-00388","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to examine the impact of social determinants of health (SDOH) barriers, including food, housing, and transportation insecurities, on cancer survivors who also serve as caregivers (dual roles), compared with cancer survivors only, caregivers only, and the general population. A secondary aim was to assess their comfort level in sharing these barriers with health care providers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were obtained from the 2022 National Cancer Institute Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 6), which collected information on SDOH outcomes, including food, housing, and transportation insecurities, as well as participants' comfort level in sharing their SDOH concerns with providers. We compared these outcomes across four groups: dual roles, cancer survivors only, caregivers only, and the general population. Weighted multivariable logistic regression models were used to calculate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of SDOH factors by cancer survivor/caregiver status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 49.1% of dual roles reported facing at least one form of food, housing, or transportation insecurities. Dual roles were 4.61 (aOR, 4.61 [95% CI, 2.71 to 7.84]) and 9.45 (aOR, 9.45 [95% CI, 4.45 to 20.07]) times more likely to report one or more of the above SDOH barriers compared with the general population and cancer survivors only, respectively. However, dual roles did not appear to feel more comfortable in sharing their barriers with health care providers compared with other groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study highlights the significant unmet needs of cancer survivors who also serve as caregivers, as they face higher levels of SDOH barriers than both the general population and cancer survivors only. However, they did not have a greater comfort level in sharing them with providers, underscoring the necessity for targeted strategies to address the unique challenges faced by this vulnerable population.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2500388"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144715071","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}

{"title":"Impact of Drug Shortages on Cancer Care Delivery Within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program.","authors":"Lauren V Ghazal, Supriya Mohile, Kah Poh Loh, Karen Mustian, Grace Sventek, Umang Gada, Chin-Shang Li, Eva Culakova, Melyssa Foust, Judith O Hopkins, Heather Kehn, Charles Kamen, Erin R Fox, Elaine L Hill","doi":"10.1200/OP-25-00057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-25-00057","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Drug shortages represent a challenge in oncology care, with potential repercussions including suboptimal treatment options, treatment delays, and medication errors. However, there is scant evidence on how drug shortages interrupt cancer care delivery (CCD) nationally and specifically across National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) community oncology practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between December 2020 and July 2024, 96 NCORP community oncology practices were enrolled. NCORP practice study staff completed the Drug Shortage Baseline Survey and Pharmacy Baseline Survey. The primary outcome was proportion of practices seriously affected by drug shortages (ie, encountered CCD problems [change to less effective treatments, adoption of more toxic alternatives, treatment delays, or an increase in medication errors or near misses]) in the past 3 months. Secondary outcomes included CCD problems among practices (eg, ethical dilemmas) and strategies used by practices (eg, use of alternative drugs, stockpiling). Finally, we described differences between seriously affected and nonaffected practices.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nearly 54% of NCORP practices were seriously affected by drug shortages in the past 3 months, with 23 drugs (including carboplatin [24.7%], leucovorin [22.6%], and cisplatin [19.4%]). Seriously affected practices were more likely to report lack of suitable alternatives (34.7% <i>v</i> 13.6%), substantial resources spent (70.8% <i>v</i> 50.0%), and change to alternative administration (73.5% <i>v</i> 52.3%) and were less likely to hire staff to address shortages (16.3% <i>v</i> 36.4%). Strategies to address shortages included using alternative drugs (91.5%), stockpiling (87.2%), and developing action plans (84.0%). Most (50.5%) practices reported experiencing an ethical dilemma related to a drug shortage.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Drug shortages influenced CCD among NCORP practices. This study underscores the need for robust strategies and policies to mitigate these effects and enhance the resilience of oncology practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2500057"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144715069","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}

{"title":"Derivation and External Validation of Objective Performance Status Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer.","authors":"Eva Ruiz, Christopher R Manz, Anthony Girard, Tatiana Hernández-Guerrero, Bernard Doger De-Speville, Daniel Morillo, Ignacio Mahíllo-Fernández, Jesus García-Foncillas, Eric Li, William J Ferrell, Ian Barnett, Victor Moreno, Ravi B Parikh","doi":"10.1200/OP-25-00195","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-25-00195","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Performance status (PS) assessment is used to determine clinical trial eligibility among patients with cancer, but may be inaccurately assessed by oncology clinicians. Wearable accelerometers may allow objective assessment of physical activity, a proxy for PS. In this analysis of two prospective studies, we derive and externally validate objective PS (OPS) by measuring the association between daily physical activity and overall survival among patients with metastatic cancer.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>For the derivation cohort, we prospectively measured daily physical activity using a wearable accelerometer among patients with metastatic cancer during the screening period for a phase 1 clinical trial in Spain. We used univariable survival analysis, AUCs, and Youden's index to derive an OPS cutoff in mean daily distance walked. We used a multivariable Cox model to calculate the association between OPS and 180-day mortality. We subsequently externally validated OPS in a separate prospective trial of patients with metastatic lung and GI cancers receiving chemotherapy at a large academic health center in the United States.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Full data were available for 123 patients (70 derivation; 53 validation). In the derivation cohort, we defined an OPS cutoff at 1,200 m walked per day. Poor OPS was associated with higher mortality than good OPS in the derivation (180-day mortality, 81.6% <i>v</i> 38.4%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 6.82 [95% CI, 3.44 to 13.5]; <i>P</i> < .001) and external validation cohorts (180-day mortality, 36% <i>v</i> 8%; aHR, 7.07 [95% CI, 1.37 to 36.6]; <i>P</i> = .02).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>OPS is an independent, externally validated prognostic indicator and could serve as an objective surrogate for traditional methods of PS assessment in clinical trials and choice of therapy for patients with cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2500195"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144715068","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}

{"title":"Quality Improvement Effort With Proactive Social Worker Communication to Enhance Palliative Care Access.","authors":"Ellis C Dillon, Amandeep Grewal, Su-Ying Liang, Harold Luft, Martina Li, Natalia Colocci, Steve Lai, Manali I Patel","doi":"10.1200/OP-25-00077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-25-00077","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study evaluates a quality improvement project to improve access to specialty palliative care (PC) for individuals with advanced cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A California health care organization implemented a social worker (SW)-led program to improve education about, and referrals to, PC for patients with advanced cancer at one clinic (intervention site), whereas three control sites continued usual care. We used a rigorous intention-to-treat difference-in-difference analysis to detect whether the intervention increased PC referrals (primary outcome) at the intervention versus control sites while accounting for preimplementation trends. We used multivariable logistic and Poisson regressions to compare primary and exploratory outcomes (advance care planning and end-of-life outcomes: PC visits before death, acute care use within 30 days of death, and systemic therapy within 14 days of death) in the preimplementation and postimplementation period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analytic cohort included 555 patients (177 preimplementation, 378 postimplementation): 147 (26.5%) at the intervention site and 408 at control sites, with 312 (56.2%) deceased. At the intervention site postimplementation, 52 (51.5%) of 101 patients received the SW-led intervention. At the intervention site, PC referrals increased from 30.4% to 32.7% (<i>v</i> 26.7% to 25.3% at control sites). PC visits increased from 21.7% to 28.7% (<i>v</i> 21.4% to 22%), and among decedents, any PC visits increased from 53.1% to 75% (<i>v</i> 57% to 66.9%). In adjusted multivariable analyses, the only near-significant difference-in-difference PC effect was that decedents at the intervention site had higher odds of receiving PC before death (OR, 3.09 [95% CI, 0.89 to 10.67]; <i>P</i> = .07).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This SW-led intervention was not associated with significantly increased PC referrals. When translating evidence from trials to real-world quality improvement efforts, context and changes to the intervention may affect effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2500077"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144715070","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}

{"title":"Patient Preferences on Clinical Decision Making in Multiple Myeloma.","authors":"Ghulam Rehman Mohyuddin, Rajshekhar Chakraborty, Katherine Berger, Ryan Winborg, Mason S Barnes, Jorge Arturo Hurtado Martinez, Jay R Hydren, Douglas Sborov, Amandeep Godara, Brian McClune, Christopher M Booth, Edward R Scheffer Cliff","doi":"10.1200/OP-25-00322","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-25-00322","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To better understand the priorities that guide patients with multiple myeloma, we surveyed patients on four different treatment scenarios, each of treatment strategies shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) but offering similar overall survival (OS) outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a survey using the HealthTree Cure Hub by the HealthTree Foundation, the largest online portal for people with plasma cell dyscrasias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary analysis cohort included 466 participants with myeloma, while an additional 297 responses from patients with smoldering myeloma or monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance were analyzed separately. When presented with either three-drug or four-drug frontline treatment for their myeloma, where four drugs offered better PFS, similar OS, and slightly increased toxicity, 56% of participants chose four drugs. For one-off consolidation treatment after induction, analogous to autologous transplant, which improved PFS but not OS, 50% of participants chose the consolidation. For maintenance therapy, where maintenance with two drugs offered better PFS, but similar OS and increased toxicity than one drug, 17% of participants chose two-drug maintenance. When evaluating a scenario for multiply relapsed disease, where a treatment improved PFS with increased toxicity, and no impact on OS, 7% of participants elected to receive this treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings show that many patients choose not to receive treatments that improve PFS if they do not positively affect OS and lead to substantial clinical, financial, and/or time toxicities.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2500322"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144707498","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}

{"title":"Erratum: Real-World Impact of Low-Grade Toxicities to Adjuvant Pembrolizumab in Stage III Melanoma.","authors":"Nasreen Abdul Aziz, David Burke, Waleed Khalifa, Sharanniyan Ragavan, Ruth Board, Olabode Oladipo","doi":"10.1200/OP-25-00650","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-25-00650","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2500650"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144707497","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}

{"title":"Minimizing Toxicity From Chemotherapy in Early-Stage Testicular Cancer.","authors":"Monica Lee, Timothy Gilligan, Christopher E Wee","doi":"10.1200/OP-25-00605","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-25-00605","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2500605"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144698475","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}

{"title":"Oncology Medical Homes: ASCO-Community Oncology Alliance Standards.","authors":"Kim Woofter, Erin B Kennedy, Kerin Adelson, Ronda Bowman, Andrew E Chapman, Niharika Dixit, Rose Gerber, Paula Jefferies, Eric Martin, Therese M Mulvey, MiKaela Olsen, Deirdre O'Mahony, Blase Polite, Navid Sadeghi, Melissa Shaw, Matthew R Skelton, John Cox","doi":"10.1200/OP-25-00498","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-25-00498","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To update Standards for an Oncology Medical Home (OMH) certification program on the basis of evidence and expert consensus. OMH is a system of care delivery that models coordinated, efficient, accessible, and evidence-based care reinforced by measurement of outcomes to facilitate continuous quality improvement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An Expert Panel formed to review and update the OMH Standards. The Panel updated the 2021 systematic literature review on the topics of OMH model of care, clinical pathways, and survivorship care plans (SCPs). New topics for this update include safety and just culture in health care, multidisciplinary team (MDT) management, and geriatric assessment. An informal consensus process was used to revise, update, and add new standards. The process incorporated practice experience gained from a pilot certification process on the basis of the standards. Input was gained from open comment and external review before finalization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No new evidence was identified to warrant revisions to standards on the overarching OMH model of care, SCPs, and clinical pathways originally reported in the 2021 ASCO-Community Oncology Alliance OMH Standards. An additional literature search on safety and just culture in oncology identified three integrative reviews and one systematic review. This evidence, combined with existing ASCO guidance on MDT management and geriatric assessment, plus Expert Panel survey feedback, resulted in modifications to two existing standards and the addition of four new standards.</p><p><strong>Standards: </strong>2025 OMH Standards are provided. The Standards support quality oncology care delivery in the areas of patient engagement, availability and access to care, evidence-based medicine, comprehensive team-based care, quality improvement, goals of care, palliative and end-of-life care discussions, and safe antineoplastic therapy administration.Additional information, including the Standards implementation manual, is available at: www.asco.org/standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2500498"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144682632","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}

{"title":"Clinical Practice Recommendations for Myelofibrosis Management in the Asia-Pacific Region: The APAC-MF Alliance.","authors":"Keita Kirito, Chul Won Choi, Than Hein, Hsin-An Hou, Chul Won Jung, Yok-Lam Kwong, Garret M K Leung, Melissa G M Ooi, Ponlapat Rojnuckarin, David M Ross, Lee-Yung Shih, Katsuto Takenaka, Winnie Z Y Teo, Harinder Gill","doi":"10.1200/OP-24-00916","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-24-00916","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Myelofibrosis (MF) is a complex and clinically heterogeneous myeloproliferative neoplasm, presenting significant challenges for patient care and clinical decision making. Although global guidelines exist for MF management and continue to evolve with the advent of novel therapies, they do not consider regional variations in drug accessibility nor the availability of diagnostic tools and resources. The notable gap in regional guidance for managing patients with MF in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region has led to regional disparities in patient care practices. To bridge this gap, a steering committee (SC) of 14 expert hematologists from the APAC region collaborated to develop evidence- and consensus-based consensus statements (CSs) for MF management in the APAC region.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>On the basis of evidence from a systematic literature review and their own clinical experience, the SC drafted 13 clinical practice recommendations across four consensus themes: (1) defining the thresholds for anemia and when to initiate or modify treatment; (2) defining when to initiate or modify treatment for thrombocytopenia; (3) defining Janus kinase inhibitor failure and what would warrant switching treatment; and (4) defining the most appropriate risk stratification model for MF in the APAC region. The SC and an extended faculty (EF) of 47 hematologists and two patients voted on the CSs in a modified Delphi process using a 9-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree), with consensus achieved when 75% agreed within the range of 7-9.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following amendments to align with EF feedback, consensus was achieved for all 13 CSs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These CSs offer pragmatic guidance tailored to the MF landscape in the APAC region, which aims to enhance the quality of patient care and outcomes. The CSs in this study are formally endorsed by the Asian Myeloid Working Group.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2400916"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144659232","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}

{"title":"Implementation of Quality Improvement Interventions in Medical Oncology: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Georgia Zachou, Sukumar S Sugeeta, Joanna Dodkins, Adil Rashid, Julie Nossiter, Agnieszka Michael, Julie Gralow, Ajay Aggarwal","doi":"10.1200/OP-25-00289","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-25-00289","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>As global cancer rates rise, the demand for effective, high-quality delivery of systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) is crucial. However, quality improvement (QI) research in medical oncology remains limited. This systematic review aims to identify and characterize QI interventions addressing quality deficits in medical oncology practice, focusing on intervention types, methodologies, and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of EMBASE and MEDLINE was conducted from January 2000 to November 2024, following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42024579992). Studies were included if they evaluated a QI intervention in medical oncology using a baseline measurement and aiming to address a predefined quality deficit in patient-related outcomes. Data on study design, intervention types, quality deficits, and outcomes were extracted, and study quality was assessed using the QI Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 11,655 studies identified, 28 met the inclusion criteria. Five key themes emerged: waiting times for SACT delivery at infusion visits, delays in commencement of initial SACT, optimal utilization of SACT, side effects of SACT, and safety. Most studies were conducted in the United States (n = 17), at a single center (n = 27) with only one national-level study. Funding was reported in three studies (two industry-sponsored, one philanthropic). All studies demonstrated a positive impact on at least one patient-related outcome measure. QI-MQCS scores ranged from 11 to 16 of 16.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although cancer treatment continues to evolve, QI strategies in medical oncology remain underexplored. While all identified interventions were beneficial, generalizability is limited by single-center settings and methodological constraints. Expansion of QI research beyond the United States, adoption of stronger study designs, and increased investment in QI training and infrastructure are needed. Multilevel support and sustainable funding are essential to scale up evidence-based QI efforts and improve oncology care globally.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"OP2500289"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144659233","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}