ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Clinical outcomes of the best supportive care-clinic for patients with high grade glioma.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and rationalePatients facing a new diagnosis of high-grade glioma may not be felt to benefit from active treatment after multidisciplinary team (MDT) review. Inadequate local knowledge may limit patient information provision and treatment refusal justification. A best supportive care-clinic (BSC-C) enables neurosurgical and clinical nurse specialist (CNS) review. This study assesses uptake and utility of the BSC-C, including appointment acceptance rates, onward referrals generated, and patient feedback.
methodsElectronic records between January and May 2024 of referrals to the BSC-C were retrospectively analysed. Data collected included demographics, diagnoses, time taken from presentation to diagnosis, diagnosis until BSC-C appointment date, content of BSC-C discussions, and follow-up.
resultsTwenty-nine patients were offered a BSC-C appointment between January and May 2024. Of these, 72.4% (n = 21) were accepted. Mean time from MRI diagnosis to an MDT decision was 11.8 days, and to a BSC-C appointment was 13.7 days. After the first appointment, a further 32 follow-up telephone calls were made across 15 patients (range 1-6 calls per patient). This resulted in 29 interventions made by the CNS, including palliative care referrals and changes to corticosteroid doses. A patient-reported feedback form indicated that patients benefitted from the clinic.
conclusionsThe BSC-C offers support to palliative neuro-oncology patients, who might otherwise be discharged to the community with little insight into their diagnosis or clinical advice on their symptom management. Appointments and follow-up calls are accepted by most patients, and offer both specialised advice, and a point-of-contact during a time of uncertainty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42675321What 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.