Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 5, 2026

Generation of Comprehensive Thoracic Oncology Database - Tool for Translational Research
Published on: January 22, 2011
Decision Making Criteria in Oncology.
Markus Glatzer1, Cedric Michael Panje2, Charlotta Sirén3
1Department of Radiation Oncology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland, markus.glatzer@kssg.ch.
Oncologists face complex treatment decisions influenced by many factors. This review categorizes key decision criteria, including patient, doctor, and contextual elements, to aid in selecting optimal cancer care.
Area of Science:
- Oncology
- Medical Decision Making
- Health Services Research
Background:
- Oncologists navigate complex treatment choices with varied outcomes, side effects, and costs.
- Limited evidence, therapy availability, and patient-specific factors complicate optimal treatment selection.
- Standardized approaches can aid decision-making, but numerous criteria are relevant.
Purpose of the Study:
- To review and categorize common decision criteria used in oncological treatment selection.
- To focus on three primary categories: decision-maker (patient and physician), decision-specific, and contextual factors.
- To highlight the diversity and interpretation variability of decision criteria in oncology.
Main Methods:
- Literature review of decision criteria in oncology.
- Categorization of criteria into decision-maker, decision-specific, and contextual factors.
- Analysis of the range and interpretation of these criteria.
Main Results:
- Identified decision criteria encompass patient preferences, physician expertise, treatment efficacy, and socioeconomic factors.
- Highlighted the significant role of contextual factors, such as healthcare system constraints and cultural influences.
- Observed variability in how criteria are weighted and interpreted by different stakeholders.
Conclusions:
- Understanding the multifaceted nature of decision criteria is crucial for effective oncological practice.
- A comprehensive approach considering patient, physician, and contextual factors can improve treatment decisions.
- Further research is needed to standardize the application and interpretation of these criteria for equitable cancer care.
More Related Videos
10:49Automated Multiplex Immunofluorescence Panel for Immuno-oncology Studies on Formalin-fixed Carcinoma Tissue Specimens
Published on: January 21, 2019
06:37Multispectral Real-time Fluorescence Imaging for Intraoperative Detection of the Sentinel Lymph Node in Gynecologic Oncology
Published on: October 20, 2010
Related Concept Videos
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II
Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I
Decision Making
Automatic decision-making is fast, intuitive, and relies on gut feelings...
Decision Making: P-value Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses: a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can...
Decision Making: Traditional Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
Criteria for Aromaticity and the Hückel 4n + 2 Rule
For the first time, Eric Hückel, a German chemical physicist, derived a set of structural features for a compound to be classified as aromatic. This is now known as Hückel’s rule or the 4n +...