The comprehensive RadComp trial enrolled 1,239 women who had been diagnosed with non-metastatic breast cancer and were scheduled to receive comprehensive nodal irradiation—a treatment strategy addressing both the tumor and regional lymph nodes. Participants were randomized to receive either proton or photon radiotherapy, enabling direct head-to-head comparison of these modalities within an ethically sound, trial-driven framework. The trial’s significance lies not only in the scale and randomized design but also in its focus on patient-centered outcomes rather than solely tumor control or survival metrics.

Proton therapy harnesses charged particles that deposit the majority of their energy at a defined depth, known as the Bragg peak, thereby minimizing radiation exposure to surrounding healthy tissues. Photon therapy, in contrast, utilizes high-energy X-rays that penetrate through tissue, depositing dose along the entire beam path. The theoretical advantage of protons involves sparing critical organs such as the heart and lungs, potentially reducing long-term toxicity. However, proton therapy is limited by higher costs, less widespread availability, and technical complexity, making comparative effectiveness data invaluable.

The primary outcomes examined in RadComp centered on HRQOL metrics, incorporating validated patient-reported instruments such as the PROMIS Fatigue scale, BREAST-Q assessing breast cosmetic satisfaction, and the FACT-B module evaluating functional wellbeing and breast cancer-specific quality of life. Secondary evaluations included FACIT-TS-G and the PRO-CTCAE to capture nuanced treatment-related adverse effects and patient satisfaction. By gathering longitudinal data at baseline and six months post-treatment, researchers sought to discern differences in fatigue, body image, and overall quality of life linked to treatment modalities.

Results demonstrated a remarkable parity between proton and photon therapy recipients in major HRQOL domains six months following radiation. Fatigue levels, cosmetic satisfaction, and overall functional outcomes did not differ significantly between the groups, underscoring that both radiation approaches are associated with excellent patient-reported outcomes in women undergoing comprehensive nodal irradiation. Intriguingly, secondary analyses indicated a modest preference among proton therapy patients for recommending their assigned treatment and willingness to undergo it again, signaling a potentially positive subjective experience.

Dr. Shannon M. MacDonald, leading the RadComp manuscript, emphasized that the trial’s completion represents a watershed moment in radiation oncology’s commitment to technology comparison. “Health-related quality of life is an essential endpoint,” Dr. MacDonald remarked, underscoring the broader imperative to harmonize clinical effectiveness with patient-centered outcomes. Despite awaiting the trial’s primary endpoint—which focuses on major cardiac events potentially arising years post-radiotherapy—the current HRQOL findings support clinician discretion in modality selection based on individual patient and disease characteristics.

The multidisciplinary nature of RadComp warrants special acknowledgment. Principal Investigators Drs. Alexander Lin and Bonnie Ky highlighted the collaboration of radiation oncologists, cardiologists, medical physicists, and patient participants. This synergy fostered robust trial design and meticulous outcome measurement, crucial to tackling the complex interplay between cancer therapy efficacy and long-term organ preservation. As cardiac toxicities remain a paramount concern with breast irradiation, especially in left-sided tumors, the forthcoming cardiac event data will be highly anticipated.

Funding support from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, National Cancer Institute, and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute bolstered the trial’s rigorous methodology and comprehensive data collection. Supplementary resources from philanthropic foundations and institutional centers further facilitated this ambitious project, culminating in a dataset that can inform clinical guidelines and health policy. This investment reflects a broader trend in oncology research emphasizing comparative effectiveness and value-based care.

The RadComp trial’s comprehensive nodal irradiation context is particularly noteworthy. Patients receiving regional nodal radiation often experience higher radiation exposure to critical organs such as the heart and lungs, amplifying the importance of therapy modality choice. Proton therapy’s inherent dosimetric advantages theoretically translate to reduced incidental exposure, potentially mitigating cardiovascular and pulmonary sequelae. However, the current HRQOL data suggest that these dosimetric benefits may not yet translate to measurable differences in patient experience at 6 months, signifying the need for longer-term follow-up.

Importantly, the cost and accessibility of proton therapy remain determinants in its widespread adoption. Despite potential clinical advantages, proton centers are less ubiquitous and represent a significant financial burden. These pragmatic considerations, alongside equivalent HRQOL outcomes observed in RadComp, inform the nuanced decision-making process faced by clinicians and patients. Tailoring radiation modality selection to individual patient anatomy, tumor characteristics, and health system factors remains paramount.

In parallel with publication at the 2025 American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting, the RadComp team has engaged with the broader oncology community through media outreach including a special podcast episode featuring Dr. MacDonald. This engagement facilitates knowledge dissemination and dialogue surrounding novel radiation modalities, driving awareness among clinicians, researchers, and patients alike.

As the leading randomized trial comparing proton versus photon radiation for non-metastatic breast cancer, RadComp sets a precedent in evaluating emergent cancer technologies through the lens of patient-centered endpoints. The team’s anticipation of the primary endpoint related to cardiac events underscores the longitudinal nature of therapy outcome assessment, vital for comprehensive risk-benefit evaluations. These findings mark a crucial inflection point in the trajectory of radiation oncology, blending technological innovation with holistic patient care.

Looking forward, integration of RadComp results with ongoing studies examining clinical efficacy, toxicity profiles, and economic analyses will be crucial. This trial exemplifies the promise of pragmatic, multi-disciplinary research collaborations in advancing cancer treatment paradigms. Clinicians are encouraged to continue individualized treatment planning, balancing evidence, patient preferences, and resource considerations while awaiting definitive long-term outcomes.

Ultimately, the RadComp trial not only illuminates the comparable impact of proton and photon radiotherapy on quality of life but also fosters an informed, patient-centered dialogue regarding the evolution of breast cancer care. As research continues to unravel the complex interdependencies of physics, biology, and patient experience, such landmark studies pave the way for optimizing therapeutic strategies and enhancing survivorship.

Subject of Research: Comparative Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes in Proton versus Photon Radiotherapy for Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer

Article Title: Pragmatic Phase III Randomized Trial of Proton vs. Photon Therapy for Patients with Non-metastatic Breast Cancer Receiving Comprehensive Nodal Radiation: Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes

News Publication Date: 2025, September-October

Web References:

• RadComp Podcast — https://www.nrgoncology.org/Podcast
• RTOG Foundation — http://www.rtog.org/

References:
MacDonald SM, Pugh SL, Paulus R, et al. Pragmatic Phase III Randomized Trial of Proton vs. Photon Therapy for Patients with Non-metastatic Breast Cancer Receiving Comprehensive Nodal Radiation: A Radiotherapy Comparative Effectiveness (RADCOMP) Consortium Trial: Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes. Presented at the ASTRO Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 2025.

Keywords: Breast Cancer, Proton Therapy, Photon Therapy, Radiation Oncology, Health-Related Quality of Life, Randomized Controlled Trial, Comprehensive Nodal Irradiation, Fatigue, Cosmetic Outcomes, Cardiac Toxicity, Comparative Effectiveness

Aggressive NHL represents a formidable challenge within oncology, characterized by rapid disease progression and intensive treatment regimens. Despite advancements in therapy, survival outcomes frequently hinge not only on disease biology but also on patient experience and quality of life metrics. Recognizing this, the authors focused their inquiry on the Core Symptoms Burden Set (CSBS)—a constellation of symptoms that notably impairs HRQoL—from the patient’s perspective, employing rigorous analytic methodologies.

The research incorporated the MDASI-TCM and EQ-5D-5L instruments to meticulously quantify symptom severity, symptom interference, and quality-of-life indices. By stratifying symptom burdens during and after cancer therapy via established statistical techniques including t-tests, chi-square, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, the team dissected temporal changes and highlighted persistent challenges in symptom management throughout the treatment trajectory.

Central to the study’s findings was the identification of disturbed sleep, fatigue, and difficulty remembering as predominant symptoms, each afflicting nearly half of the cohort. These symptoms resonate deeply with known toxicities of chemotherapeutic agents, yet their quantification as core burden markers with direct impacts on quality of life metrics reframes clinical prioritization towards targeted interventions.

From a quantitative standpoint, the EQ-5D index values demonstrated a broad spectrum, ranging from profoundly negative values indicative of health states worse than death, up to an optimal score of 1.0. The median EQ Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score of 80 emphasizes a heterogeneous patient experience, with approximately 22% of patients reporting no problems across all examined domains. This variability underscores the nuanced HRQoL landscape shaped by aggressive NHL pathology and treatment side effects.

Crucially, regression analyses revealed that the CSBS exerts statistically robust influence on multiple facets of functioning. The physical domain showed a parameter estimate (B) of 0.442, while psychological function was even more profoundly affected with a B value of 0.674, both with p-values below 0.001 — affirming their clinical relevance. Moreover, health status indices captured by EQ-5D showed negative associations; specifically, the index value decreased by 0.014 units per increment in symptom burden, while EQ VAS scores dropped significantly by over 3 points, reinforcing the debilitating nature of the symptomatology experienced.

The study broke new ground by establishing a clinically significant cutoff point for the CSBS at 2.50. This threshold not only optimizes sensitivity at 82.4% but also achieves a respectable specificity of 64.6%, pointing towards its utility as a practical marker for clinicians aiming to identify patients at heightened risk of compromised quality of life. Identification of such a benchmark paves the way for tailored symptom-management strategies in clinical practice.

Interpreting these findings through a broader oncology lens, it becomes evident that symptom burden assessment must transcend traditional clinical metrics, integrating patient-reported outcomes to refine prognostic evaluations and therapeutic decision-making. The study’s methodology, combining psychometrically sound instruments with statistical rigor, sets a new standard for symptom quantification in hematologic malignancies.

Furthermore, the multidimensional impact of sleep disturbances, fatigue, and cognitive complaints on quality of life elucidated here invites exploration of integrative care models. This may encompass interventions spanning pharmacological, behavioral, and psychosocial domains, thereby addressing symptom clusters that erode both physical function and mental health in tandem.

The authors’ use of the ECOG grading scale as an anchoring reference in the ROC curve analysis ensures that the identified cutoff is clinically interpretable and relevant to established functional status grading systems. Such alignment enhances the translational potential of the study, making its insights immediately actionable for oncologists monitoring functional decline.

Beyond symptom quantification, the results spotlight the imperative for longitudinal studies to monitor the evolution of symptom burden over the treatment continuum. Cross-sectional designs offer critical snapshots, but future research incorporating time-sequenced data will unravel dynamic symptom trajectories and potential windows for intervention.

In clinical oncology, prioritizing the alleviation of core symptom burdens identified by this research could lead to meaningful improvements in patient-centered outcomes. As treatment protocols evolve, incorporating routine CSBS assessments may guide clinicians in personalizing supportive care, thereby enhancing adherence, reducing morbidity, and ultimately optimizing survival.

Importantly, this study also contributes to the growing discourse on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as indispensable tools in cancer care. The robust association between CSBS and HRQoL indices validates the integration of PROMs in both research and routine clinical workflows, influencing real-world practice guidelines.

Given the aggressive nature of NHL and the intensity of its therapeutic regimens, the elucidation of specific symptom burdens offers a nuanced framework for symptom management, potentially informing multidisciplinary care approaches that encompass oncologists, nurses, mental health professionals, and rehabilitation specialists.

Equally noteworthy is the comprehensive approach to statistical analysis employed, which includes multivariate linear regression and ROC curve analysis, showcasing the sophistication required to interpret complex clinical data and derive meaningful thresholds that practitioners can apply confidently.

The implications of defining a symptom burden cutoff transcend diagnostics; they serve as a clarion call for the development of targeted symptom control therapies and highlight the possibility of incorporating digital health tools for continuous symptom tracking, enabling proactive care adjustments.

Finally, this study epitomizes the paradigm shift towards embracing patient-centered metrics in oncologic research, underscoring that disease control is not merely a function of tumor response but equally depends on alleviating symptoms that compromise daily functioning and overall well-being.

As the oncology community continues to strive for holistic cancer care, the insights derived from this work provide a crucial foundation for more empathetic, effective, and data-driven strategies to support patients with aggressive Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Subject of Research: Patient-reported symptom burden and health-related quality of life in aggressive Non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients.

Article Title: Patient-reported symptom burden and health-related quality of life in patients with aggressive Non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a cross-sectional study.

Article References:
Jin, J., Ren, S., Zhang, W. et al. Patient-reported symptom burden and health-related quality of life in patients with aggressive Non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a cross-sectional study. BMC Cancer 25, 1406 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14730-8

Image Credits: Scienmag.com

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14730-8

Colorectal cancer remains one of the most prevalent oncological challenges in China, yet large-scale, systematic characterizations of patient profiles have been sparse until now. By encompassing a diverse patient population across 14 major Chinese cities and enrolling over 4,500 individuals diagnosed with CRC, the investigators have substantially broadened the understanding of demographic and clinical variables that define this disease cohort. The study identifies that a predominant majority of CRC patients present at an advanced age, with nearly 80 percent diagnosed after passing the half-century mark.

An intriguing dimension of the findings is the gender distribution within the CRC population: men constitute approximately 60 percent of cases, a factor that may indicate underlying genetic, behavioral, or environmental susceptibilities that warrant further molecular and epidemiological exploration. Meanwhile, tumor localization patterns revealed a notable predominance of rectal cancer, as opposed to colon cancers, accounting for over half the documented cases. This regional tumor site predilection raises important questions about etiological differences and the potential need for site-specific therapeutic strategies.

Distressingly, nearly one-third of the surveyed patients were diagnosed at the dreaded stage IV of colorectal cancer, often synonymous with metastatic spread and limited curative options. This late-stage diagnosis underscores gaps in early detection mechanisms and reflects the systemic challenges facing cancer screening programs in China. Supporting this concern, the data elegantly revealed a staggering paucity of pre-diagnosis colonoscopy utilization, with only 2.6 percent of patients having undergone this critical screening test before receiving their diagnosis.

Foremost among the barriers to colonoscopy adherence was a profound lack of awareness about colorectal cancer and its screening protocols. This finding provides a compelling impetus for public health authorities and oncological societies to recalibrate educational campaigns that emphasize the silent progression and early detection benefits, aiming to elevate community comprehension and engagement. Beyond awareness, further structural and socioeconomic factors likely contribute to screening deficits, suggesting a need for multi-faceted intervention frameworks.

Utilizing sophisticated statistical methodologies, including multivariable regression analyses and structural equation modeling (SEM), the researchers rigorously interrogated the interplay between patient characteristics and alterations in HRQOL across the treatment trajectory. Their analysis unequivocally demonstrates a statistically significant decline in HRQOL following therapeutic interventions, highlighting the enduring toll of CRC treatment on physical, emotional, and social well-being. The overall HRQOL score decreased from an average of approximately 67 before treatment to 65 afterward, a change that, while numerically subtle, carries meaningful clinical implications for survivorship care.

Notably, patients’ awareness of their colorectal cancer treatment emerged as a pivotal determinant influencing HRQOL dynamics. Those with higher treatment awareness exhibited better preservation or improvement in quality of life metrics, underscoring the power of informed patient engagement and education in modulating clinical outcomes. SEM findings corroborated this association, revealing that treatment awareness contributed positively and independently to HRQOL changes, reinforcing the premise that knowledge empowers patients to navigate their cancer journey with greater resilience.

These revelations carry profound ramifications for healthcare delivery models in China. Radiation therapy, chemotherapy, surgical interventions, and emerging targeted therapies impose significant physiological and psychological burdens, necessitating a holistic approach encompassing patient education, counseling, and supportive care. The observed decline in HRQOL post-treatment underscores the urgency for integrative oncology programs that prioritize symptom management and psychological well-being alongside tumor control.

The study’s nationwide scope and methodological rigor set new benchmarks in CRC research within the Chinese context, providing policymakers with invaluable evidence to drive reforms in cancer screening, public health outreach, and survivorship care pathways. Strategic intensification of colonoscopy screening rates is especially paramount, which may entail expanding community-based accessibility, subsidizing costs, and cultivating culturally sensitive communication strategies to combat misconceptions and stigma.

Moreover, findings ignite an imperative to refine clinical guidelines by incorporating patient-reported outcomes into therapeutic decision-making processes. Personalized medicine frameworks must transcend tumor biology to embrace the lived experiences and psychological preparedness of patients, fostering shared decision-making that enhances compliance and optimizes quality of life throughout the continuum of care.

In addition to clinical and psychosocial insights, the research also illuminates broader systemic challenges. Medical service utilization patterns and medical expenditure data, although not explicitly detailed here, likely reflect disparities in access and affordability, which constitute critical barriers to timely and effective CRC management. This multifactorial predicament calls for enhanced health insurance reforms and equitable resource allocation to mitigate the socio-economic determinants of cancer prognosis.

Equally significant is the application of structural equation modeling within this study, spotlighting its capacity to unravel complex interrelations among variables influencing HRQOL outcomes. This methodological innovation offers a template for future oncological research seeking to parse the nuanced and mediated effects of clinical and psychosocial factors, thereby enriching the evidence base for patient-centered care algorithms.

The nuanced characterization of CRC in Chinese patients—capturing epidemiological patterns, clinical staging, and quality of life trajectories—adds a rich layer of context-specific knowledge that can inform both domestic and global oncology communities. As colorectal cancer incidence escalates worldwide, studies such as this accentuate the necessity of culturally and demographically attuned research that transcends generic models to deliver actionable insights.

Ultimately, this comprehensive investigation reveals a sobering reality: while significant strides have been made in therapeutic modalities, the journey toward improving quality of life and early detection for colorectal cancer patients in China remains fraught with challenges. Elevating public awareness is not merely an adjunct to clinical care but a cornerstone of effective cancer control strategies that can shift diagnosis toward earlier, more treatable stages and safeguard post-treatment well-being.

As the Chinese healthcare ecosystem contends with an aging population and epidemiological transitions, integrating robust CRC screening initiatives allied with patient education and support services emerges as a public health imperative. Future research endeavors must continue to explore the molecular underpinnings of CRC heterogeneity, the psychosocial dimensions of survivorship, and the efficacy of integrative interventions designed to alleviate the burden illuminated by this seminal study.

The findings from this landmark investigation illuminate a path forward—where informed, engaged patients coupled with comprehensive, accessible healthcare resources can collectively retire the ominous shadows cast by late-stage colorectal cancer diagnoses and compromised quality of life. The promise lies in harnessing data-driven insights to inspire innovative policies and empathetic clinical practices that holistically address the needs of this vulnerable population.

Subject of Research: Clinical epidemiological characteristics and health-related quality of life changes in advanced colorectal cancer patients in China

Article Title: Clinical profiles and health-related quality of life changes after treatment in advanced colorectal cancer patients: a nationwide study in China

Article References:
Liu, H., Jia, Z., Xu, H. et al. Clinical profiles and health-related quality of life changes after treatment in advanced colorectal cancer patients: a nationwide study in China. BMC Cancer 25, 1256 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14713-9

Image Credits: Scienmag.com

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14713-9

The study recruited 1,404 cancer patients from eight hospitals across two provinces in China. Employing the CA-PROM, a patient-reported outcomes measurement specifically designed for cancer patients, the researchers meticulously gathered data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), symptom severity, and functional status. This comprehensive approach allowed for a multidimensional perspective often missing in traditional clinical assessments, which typically prioritize objective markers over subjective patient experience.

A pivotal methodological cornerstone of the study is the application of latent profile analysis (LPA). Unlike conventional subgroup classifications, LPA uses mathematical modeling to uncover hidden patterns within large datasets. The researchers used four distinct model-fit indicators to distill the patient sample into three distinct latent risk subgroups based on HRQoL: high-risk, medium-risk, and low-risk. The high-risk group constituted patients with markedly reduced quality of life, while the low-risk group exhibited relatively preserved function and fewer symptoms. This stratification underscores the heterogeneity that often confounds uniform cancer treatment approaches.

Beyond identifying subgroups, the study innovatively applied network modeling (NM) to understand how symptoms and functional impairments interconnect at an item-specific level. This approach treats symptoms and functions as nodes within a network, with “edges” representing their interactions. By calculating metrics such as expected influence (EI) and bridge EI, researchers pinpointed which symptoms or functional impairments acted as central hubs or bridges within these networks. Such nodes potentially drive the complex progression of symptom clusters affecting patients’ overall quality of life.

Importantly, the network analyses demonstrated variability in the role and influence of specific symptoms across the three risk subgroups. Symptoms like despair, gastrointestinal abnormalities, appetite loss, and social support from family and friends emerged as critical in shaping HRQoL, but their prominence differed by subgroup. For example, despair was a central symptom in the high-risk cluster, potentially exacerbating other symptoms and functional deficits, while the role of social support had a more nuanced impact across groups.

Ensuring the robustness of their findings, the researchers utilized rigorous statistical validations, including case-dropping bootstrap procedures to assess network stability and accuracy. These steps mitigated concerns surrounding sample variability and model overfitting, lending confidence to the replicability of these network structures. Furthermore, a network comparison test (NCT) revealed significant edge differences among specific symptom nodes across subgroups, emphasizing the heterogeneity in symptom interrelations depending on patients’ risk status.

One of the profound implications of this study lies in its potential to inform personalized care strategies for cancer patients. Identifying central and bridge symptoms that differ by risk subgroup offers clinicians tangible targets for intervention. Such targeted approaches could optimize symptom management, enhance functional recovery, and ultimately improve patients’ quality of life in a way that one-size-fits-all paradigms cannot.

The use of PROs as a foundation for this analysis reflects a broader shift in oncology towards incorporating patient voices directly into clinical decision-making. Traditionally, cancer management has centered on disease biomarkers and imaging studies, often neglecting the subjective burden experienced by patients. By quantifying and mapping the symptom-function landscape through PROs, this study highlights the importance of clinical assessments that prioritize patient experience alongside objective disease measures.

Moreover, the sophisticated use of network modeling in this context introduces a novel analytical lens in cancer research. It moves beyond linear cause-effect frameworks to capture the dynamic and interconnected nature of symptomatology and functional impairment. This systems-based perspective aligns with emerging theories that complex diseases like cancer involve multifaceted interactions across biological, psychological, and social domains.

Given that the study was conducted among Chinese patients, it also underscores the importance of culturally sensitive assessments in capturing accurate patient experiences. Social support, for instance, may manifest differently across cultural contexts, influencing symptom networks uniquely. Future studies might explore similar methodologies in other populations to validate and expand these insights globally.

Additionally, the differentiation of risk subgroups based on latent profiles offers practical implications for resource allocation in healthcare systems. High-risk patients, as identified in this study, may warrant closer monitoring and more intensive supportive services, while low-risk patients could benefit from routine follow-ups with a focus on maintenance therapies. Such precision in stratification enhances healthcare efficiency and prioritizes patient needs accordingly.

The interplay of despair and gastrointestinal issues as central symptoms in the high-risk group also highlights the bidirectional relationship between psychological and physical symptoms. This finding complements the growing recognition of psycho-oncology as an essential facet of cancer care, advocating for integrated mental health support to mitigate symptom burden effectively.

This study’s comprehensive approach also paves the way for leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning in oncology. The latent profile analysis and network modeling frameworks could be enhanced by AI algorithms that predict risk subgroup transitions over time or forecast symptom emergence, further refining personalized treatment plans.

Importantly, the authors emphasize that the identification of central and bridge symptoms or functional nodes could act as potential intervention targets. The dynamic nature of such networks suggests that alleviating one critical symptom may disrupt the entire symptom cluster, yielding disproportionate improvements in patient well-being.

In conclusion, this transformative research bridges quantitative rigor with clinical relevance, presenting a compelling argument for integrating multidimensional patient-reported data into the fabric of cancer care. By revealing distinct latent risk subgroups and their unique symptom-function networks, the study charts a path toward interventions tailored not just to disease pathology but to the lived experiences of patients. As the oncology community moves forward, embracing such nuanced, patient-centered approaches promises to enhance quality of life—and perhaps survival—in the complex battle against cancer.

Subject of Research: Risk stratification and symptom-function networks in cancer patients based on patient-reported outcomes.

Article Title: Symptom and functional networks of patients with cancer in different latent risk subgroups based on patient-reported outcomes.

Article References:
Hu, X., Duan, Z., Li, X. et al. Symptom and functional networks of patients with cancer in different latent risk subgroups based on patient-reported outcomes. BMC Cancer 25, 872 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14256-z

Image Credits: Scienmag.com

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14256-z