ReviewExploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy2026
Bioethical challenges in the implementation of targeted anti-tumor therapies in low-resource settings: a perspective from Latin America.
Review in Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Precision oncology has revolutionized cancer care in high-income countries, but its implementation in Latin American low-resource settings faces profound bioethical dilemmas. This study analyzes these challenges through the lens of social justice and equity. An integrative review was conducted following the Whittemore and Knafl framework. A systematic search was performed across PubMed, Scopus, SciELO, and LILACS (2015-2025). Thematic synthesis was applied to integrate empirical data with normative bioethical theories. Four major analytical themes were identified: 1) The innovation paradox and financial toxicity, where prohibitive pricing (exceeding 100,000 USD/year) violates distributive justice and leads to a biological penalty in survival; 2) Infrastructure deficits and epistemic injustice, highlighted by a 9.4% access rate to next-generation sequencing (NGS) and the risks of applying Eurocentric genomic data to admixed LA populations; 3) Research vulnerability, where clinical trials serve as survival strategies, compromising autonomy and informed consent; and 4) The judicialization dilemma, where individual court orders for high-cost drugs threaten systemic sustainability and equity. To prevent a genomic apartheid, Latin America must transition toward genomic sovereignty and frugal precision oncology. Bioethical frameworks in the region must prioritize protection ethics and social justice to ensure that scientific innovation does not exacerbate existing health inequities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.