The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Patient preferences for oral versus intravenous palliative chemotherapy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess patient preference for oral versus intravenous (i.v.) palliative chemotherapy (CT). A strong preference would be an important quality-of-life issue. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A structured interviewer-administered scenario-based questionnaire evaluated incurable cancer patients who would be likely to receive palliative CT in the future. Using probability trade-offs, the preference for route of administration was evaluated against diminishing treatment response. RESULTS: Of 103 assessable patients, 92 preferred oral CT, 10 preferred i.v. CT, and one had no preference. Patient preferences were not associated with age, sex, site of primary cancer, or previous CT experiences. Major reasons for preferring oral CT were convenience, problems with i.v. access or needles, and a better CT-taking environment (outside of the clinic). Regardless of initial preference, 70% of patients were not willing to accept a lower response rate and 74% were not willing to accept a shorter duration of response to retain their initial preference. Although 99% of patients had a preference, 39% wanted the specific treatment decision made primarily by their physicians, 38% primarily by themselves, and 22% shared equally. CONCLUSION: Patients with incurable cancer have a clear preference for oral CT, but are generally not willing to sacrifice efficacy for their preference. Almost 40% of patients did not want to make final treatment decisions themselves.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Oral Druggable Space beyond the Rule of 5: Insights from Drugs and Clinical Candidates
Doak, B. C., Over, B., Giordanetto, F., & Kihlberg, J. (2014) · Chemistry & Biology · doi:10.1016/j.chembiol.2014.08.013 · Cited by 835
Cutsem, E. V., Hoff, P. M., Harper, P., Bukowski, R. M., Cunningham, D., Dufour, P., Graeven, U., Lokich, J., Madajewicz, S., Maroun, J. A., et al. (2004) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6601676 · Cited by 401
Clinical studies of three oral prodrugs of 5-fluorouracil (capecitabine, UFT, S-1): A review
Malet-Martino, M., & Martino, R. (2002) · The Oncologist · doi:10.1634/theoncologist.7-4-288 · Cited by 382
Verbrugghe, M., Verhaeghe, S., Lauwaert, K., Beeckman, D., & Van Hecke, A. (2013) · Cancer Treatment Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.12.014 · Cited by 202
Lin, C., Clark, R., Tu, P., Bosworth, H. B., & Zullig, L. L. (2017) · Breast Cancer Research and Treatment · doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4317-2 · Cited by 160
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, G., Franssen, E., Fitch, M. I., & Warner, E.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 1997-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 110-115
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W1905936368
- Cited by
- 919
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Patient preferences for oral versus intravenous palliative chemotherapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1997.15.1.110
- The paper
- Liu, G., Franssen, E., Fitch, M. I., & Warner, E. (1997). Patient preferences for oral versus intravenous palliative chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1997.15.1.110
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.