Journal of Cancer Policy最新文献

{"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":"2025-12-01","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":"Longitudinal validation of the PROFFIT questionnaire to assess financial toxicity in cancer patients","authors":"L. Arenare ,&nbsp;C. Porta ,&nbsp;D. Barberio ,&nbsp;S. Terzolo ,&nbsp;V. Zagonel ,&nbsp;S. Pisconti ,&nbsp;L. Del Mastro ,&nbsp;C. Pinto ,&nbsp;D. Bilancia ,&nbsp;S. Cinieri ,&nbsp;M. Rizzo ,&nbsp;G. Migliaccio ,&nbsp;V. Montesarchio ,&nbsp;L. Del Campo ,&nbsp;F. De Lorenzo ,&nbsp;E. Iannellil ,&nbsp;L. Gitto ,&nbsp;C.M. Vaccaro ,&nbsp;L. Frontini ,&nbsp;D. Giannarelli ,&nbsp;F. Perrone","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100645","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100645","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Financial toxicity (FT) is a growing issue for cancer patients worldwide. The PROFFIT questionnaire was developed in Italy to measure FT and identify its determinants in cancer patients within a public health system.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A prospective study was conducted with 221 cancer patients from 10 Italian centres between March 2021 and July 2022 to validate the PROFFIT questionnaire in patients undergoing active treatment. The PROFFIT and EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaires were administered. Statistical analyses were performed on the PROFFIT-score (items 1–7), the financial difficulties item (Q28), and the global health status/quality of life (HR-QOL) scale from the EORTC-QLQ-C30. Geographic disparities were also analysed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 1149 questionnaires were completed (83 % paper-based, 17 % electronically). The median observation period was 5 months (IQR 4.5–5.8). Missing phenomenon increased over time but was not affected by the baseline PROFFIT-score. PROFFIT-score remained stable throughout treatment, with patients in Southern Italy reporting higher (worse) values. Significant associations (p &lt; 0.0001) were found between PROFFIT-score and Q28 at all time-points. Moderate inverse correlations were observed between PROFFIT-score and HR-QOL.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>PROFFIT shows strong longitudinal validity for assessing FT in cancer patients. PROFFIT-score does not significantly change during treatment, but regional disparities highlight the need for targeted interventions, particularly in underserved areas. Further research will define cut-off values and explore FT dynamics across different patient populations.</div></div><div><h3>Policy Summary</h3><div>PROFFIT validation analyses make the instrument suitable to measure FT in cancer patients within public health systems. In addition, it may represent a valuable tool to plan specific local health policies being sensible to macro-regional variability. Finally, on the long run, it might be useful to test the impact of policies implemented against FT.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100645"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145240040","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":"Beyond virtual learning: Leveraging project ECHO to sustain and localize national cancer control plan implementation in LMICs","authors":"Nathkapach Kaewpitoon Rattanapitoon,&nbsp;Natnapa Heebkaew Padchasuwan,&nbsp;Nav La,&nbsp;Schawanya Kaewpitoon Rattanapitoon","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100638","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100638","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Project ECHO has emerged as a promising virtual peer-learning model to support National Cancer Control Plan (NCCP) implementation in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). It aligns with the WHO Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases 2013–2020, which underscores national coordination and multisectoral action [2]. In response to the recent evaluation by Eldridge et al., we offer additional insights highlighting the limitations of individual-level training when structural barriers remain unaddressed. Drawing lessons from cervical cancer prevention in Botswana and palliative care capacity-building in India, we argue that ECHO’s full potential lies in national-level integration, cross-sector policy coordination, and localized implementation. This correspondence emphasizes a systems-level perspective to sustainably embed ECHO-based knowledge into cancer control programs across LMICs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100638"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145070990","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":"Mapping the global oncology & policy research landscape","authors":"Ajay Aggarwal,&nbsp;Richard Sullivan","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100637","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100637","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100637"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144972800","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":"Promoting a research agenda for cancer treatment for intravenous devices with clinicians in Europe; the PRACTICE survey","authors":"Caitriona Duggan ,&nbsp;Orlaith Hernon ,&nbsp;Andrew J. Simpkin ,&nbsp;Viktor Manasek ,&nbsp;Julio C. de la Torre-Montero ,&nbsp;Paulo Santos-Costa ,&nbsp;Jonathan G. Moss ,&nbsp;Christina H. Ruhlmann ,&nbsp;Knut Taxbro ,&nbsp;Miguel Angel Rodriguez- Calero ,&nbsp;Rodrigo Oom ,&nbsp;Rita Barroca ,&nbsp;Onagh O. Grady ,&nbsp;Jacqueline Daly ,&nbsp;Ian Blanco-Mavillard ,&nbsp;Nikolina Dodlek ,&nbsp;Jiri Charvát ,&nbsp;Saloa Unanue-Arza ,&nbsp;Bibiana Krakovska ,&nbsp;Peter J. Carr","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100643","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100643","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aims</h3><div>The <em>PRACTICE</em> survey aimed to characterize vascular access device (VAD) practices for systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) across Europe, addressing gaps in clinician decision-making, training, and complication management.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Conducted as a cross-sectional survey from May to October 2024, the study engaged healthcare professionals (HCPs) from 18 European countries, with 403 completing demographic questions and 166 responding to procedural and training-related queries.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Results revealed significant variability in VAD selection, influenced by institutional protocols, geographic location, and the presence of vascular access teams (VATs). Oncologists were identified as primary decision-makers (36 %), though nursing staff played a pivotal role in daily management. Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) dominated in Ireland and Finland (43–49 %), while tunnelled implantable devices (TIVADs) were preferred in Belgium (65 %). Barriers to optimal VAD selection included insufficient training (80 % sought further education) and inconsistent guideline adoption (51 % reported institutional protocols).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The study underscores the need for standardised practices, interdisciplinary collaboration, and enhanced training. Findings highlight opportunities for integrating VAD selection into cancer care certification metrics and fostering partnerships between oncology and vascular access societies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100643"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145139085","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":"Invisible geographies - the rural and coastal blind spot in UK cancer policy: A content analysis","authors":"David Nelson ,&nbsp;Natalia Calanzani ,&nbsp;Ben Pickwell-Smith ,&nbsp;Katie Spencer ,&nbsp;Samuel Cooke ,&nbsp;Tanja K. Kleinhappel ,&nbsp;Maxime Inghels ,&nbsp;Kathie McPeake ,&nbsp;Ros Kane ,&nbsp;Shahana A. Naqvi ,&nbsp;Eila Watson ,&nbsp;Anna Prytherch ,&nbsp;Rebecca Foster ,&nbsp;Lynn Calman ,&nbsp;Peter Selby ,&nbsp;Mark Lawler ,&nbsp;Peter Murchie","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100650","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100650","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The United Kingdom’s (UK) diverse geography means many people live in rural and coastal areas, where cancer outcomes are often poorer than in urban settings. Devolution means that the four nations of the UK have distinct approaches to cancer care. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have recently published national cancer strategies, while England’s new plan is expected later in 2025. This study examined UK cancer policy documents, to identify, how, and to what extent, rural or coastal issues were considered.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>UK cancer policy documents from 2000 to 2024 were sourced via The International Cancer Control Partnership (ICCP) website (<span><span>https://iccp-portal.org/</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>), UK government sites and Google. Documents were searched for rural and coastal related terms.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Fifty-five documents were included (England n = 17; Northern Ireland n = 10; Scotland n = 21; Wales n = 7). No recent policies included a specific section or explicit recommendations for rural or coastal cancer care. Across the policies, contextual analysis highlighted that terms to promote rural or coastal equity rarely appeared within recommendations. Northern Ireland gave more attention to rural issues than other nations, as evidenced by a rural needs impact assessment and supporting documents to inform Northern Ireland’s Cancer Strategy 2022–2032.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Despite sizeable rural and coastal populations facing specific health challenges across the UK, national cancer policies excepting Northern Ireland gave minimal guidance for delivering cancer care tailored to these communities. Other UK nations should consider adopting more rural-centric approaches like Northern Ireland.</div></div><div><h3>Policy summary</h3><div>Coastal and rural health issues have received policy attention via the Chief Medical Officer for England’s annual reports (2021; 2023) and more recently in the UK Government’s 10 Year Health Plan for England (July 2025). However, when it comes to high-level cancer policy across the UK, the needs of rural and coastal people with cancer are not being adequately or specifically recognised.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100650"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145309629","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":"Overlooked and underreported: A systematic review of quality of life in recent Phase III metastatic breast cancer trials","authors":"Shreyas Kalantri ,&nbsp;Chiranjeevi Sainatham ,&nbsp;Jayanth Reddy Tallapalli ,&nbsp;Pranali Pachika ,&nbsp;Blake Kelley ,&nbsp;Ranadheer Reddy Dande ,&nbsp;Greeshma Gaddipati ,&nbsp;Zhanxu Liu ,&nbsp;Maiying Kong ,&nbsp;Brian Dong ,&nbsp;Elizabeth Riley","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100653","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100653","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>In metastatic breast cancer (MBC), where treatment is non-curative, patient quality of life (QoL) is a critical consideration alongside traditional survival outcomes. Despite increasing recognition by regulatory bodies, the extent of QoL incorporation into contemporary Phase III trials remains unclear.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a systematic review of Phase III randomized controlled trials evaluating therapeutic interventions for MBC published between 2019 and 2023, using the PubMed database. Trials were categorized based on receptor subtype (HR+, HER2 +, TNBC), trial design (superiority vs. non-inferiority), study outcome (positive vs. negative), and journal impact factor. The primary outcome was the incorporation of QoL outcomes in published results.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 122 eligible trials, only 36.9 % included QoL measures. Subgroup analysis revealed higher QoL incorporation in hormone receptor-positive trials compared to HER2 + and TNBC subtypes. Non-inferiority trials were more likely to include QoL endpoints (50 %) than superiority trials (33.7 %). QoL reporting was higher in negative studies (45 %) compared to positive studies (33 %), with no significant difference based on journal impact factor.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Despite regulatory emphasis on patient-centered outcomes, QoL assessments remain underreported in publications of Phase III MBC trials. Standardized incorporation of QoL metrics is essential to better capture the holistic impact of therapies, improve clinical decision-making, and align oncologic research with patient priorities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100653"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145356331","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":"A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of HPV (self-sampling and health care provider sampling) versus VIA for cervical cancer screening in India","authors":"Apourv Pant,&nbsp;Gowthaman Thangavel,&nbsp;Stany Mathew,&nbsp;Anita Nath","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100642","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100642","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Cervical cancer ranks as the fourth most common cancer in women globally and the second most prevalent in India. Preventive measures, such as HPV vaccination and various screening methods, are essential. Despite these strategies, the economic burden of cervical cancer remains significant due to its long-term nature and treatment costs. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of three screening approaches—VIA, HPV physician sampling, and HPV self-sampling—for women aged 30–65. A Markov-based cost-utility analysis with a lifetime horizon and one-year cycle length was conducted. Model parameters were sourced from peer-reviewed literature, national cancer registries, and health economic studies. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to ensure the robustness of the results. Health Provider HPV sampling yielded the highest Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) at 5.97 (three years) and 4.28 (five years), compared to VIA’s 4.01 (three years) and 2.9 (five years), and HPV self-sampling’s 4.71 (three years) and 3.41 (five years). Over 30 cycles for 100,000 women, healthcare provider sampling achieved a maximum QALY gain of 13.40. Compared to other methods, it offered a gain of 2.94 QALYs at an incremental cost of 19,409 INR. While VIA screening is cost-saving, it provides reduced health benefits. HPV healthcare provider sampling is more cost-effective in terms of QALYs gained despite higher screening costs. A policy analysis is necessary to achieve 70 % cervical cancer screening coverage in India, focusing on current HPV screening strategies and identifying areas for improvement.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100642"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145103065","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":"Therapeutic value of oncology drugs approved by Health Canada through Project Orbis: a cross-sectional study","authors":"Joel Lexchin","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100635","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100635","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>In May 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initiated Project Orbis with the aim of providing patients faster access to promising cancer treatments by promoting coordination with international regulatory agencies, including Health Canada. This study evaluates the additional therapeutic value of drugs approved by Health Canada through Project Orbis.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The FDA list of drugs approved through Project Orbis until the end of 2024 was downloaded and drugs that Health Canada participated in were identified. The type of approval that Health Canada gave these drugs – standard, priority and Notice of Compliance with conditions (NOC/c, conditional approval) was identified. The additional therapeutic value of the drugs (major, moderate and minor) was assessed from the ratings of four international organizations. The distribution of additional therapeutic value (minor, moderate, major) according to review type was compared using a Chi-square test.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The FDA approved 68 drugs for 112 indications of which 49 (72.1 %) drugs were reviewed by Health Canada for 78 (69.6 %) indications (30 new drugs and 48 new indications for existing drugs). The manufacturer withdrew one drug from the approval process leaving 77 new drugs and new indications for analysis. Twenty-eight drugs had a standard review, 31 a priority review and 18 a NOC/c review. The distribution of additional therapeutic value by review type was statistically significantly different, p = 0.0052 (Chi-square test). Sixteen (69.6 %) out of 23 drugs with a priority review offered either moderate (10) or major (6) additional therapeutic gains. Only 12 of the remaining 40 drugs with a therapeutic evaluation that had other types of approval had moderate or major additional therapeutic value.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The results of this study suggest that Health Canada’s participation in Project Orbis should concentrate on drugs that qualify for a priority review.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100635"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144893481","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":"Time to rethink diffusion modality of preliminary results from industry-sponsored clinical trials in oncology: Considerations from the Italian Network of Cancer Patients (ROPI).","authors":"Stefania Gori","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100644","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100644","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100644"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145182312","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}