GuidelineInternational journal of clinical oncology2026
Pharmacotherapy for older adults with cancer: a digest of the Japanese clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition)-general principles.
Guideline in International journal of clinical oncology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe global population is aging rapidly, and the incidence of cancer in older adults is increasing accordingly. However, older patients often present with complex clinical conditions that are not adequately reflected by chronological age or performance status alone, making the optimization of pharmacotherapy in this population a major challenge in oncology practice.
methodsThe Japanese Society of Medical Oncology and the Japanese Society of Clinical Oncology developed the second edition of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pharmacotherapy in Older Adults with Cancer in accordance with the Minds 2020 methodology. Systematic reviews, the Evidence-to-Decision framework, and multidisciplinary consensus processes were used to formulate recommendations. This article presents an English digest of the general principles section focusing on geriatric assessment (GA).
resultsTwo clinical questions regarding the role of GA in pharmacotherapy decision-making were addressed. GA-based multidisciplinary management is conditionally recommended based on the evidence from randomized trials demonstrating a reduction in grade 3 or higher treatment-related toxicities, although the certainty of the evidence and feasibility of implementation remain limited. The use of GA to support treatment selection is also conditionally recommended. Although randomized trials did not show improved survival outcomes, studies integrating GA findings into shared decision-making demonstrated a reduction in severe treatment-related toxicities. Overall, GA appears to improve treatment safety and support individualized, patient-centered decision-making, although heterogeneity in intervention approaches and the limited certainty of the evidence precluded strong recommendations.
conclusionsThese guidelines provide a framework for integrating GA into oncology practice. GA can help identify patient vulnerabilities, reduce treatment-related toxicity, and support individualized, patient-centered treatment decision-making. Further research is needed to establish optimal implementation strategies and strengthen the evidence base for geriatric oncology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42608628What 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.