Journal of Clinical Oncology
Journal Impact IF - Analysis · Trend · Prediction · Ranking


New

Journal Impact IF

2019-2020

32.956

16.3%

Journal Impact IF Trend

Related Journals

Popular Journals

Journal of Clinical Oncology

The 2019-2020 Journal Impact IF of Journal of Clinical Oncology is 32.956, which is just updated in 2020.

Journal of Clinical Oncology Impact Factor
Highest IF
32.956
Highest Journal Impact IF

The highest Journal Impact IF of Journal of Clinical Oncology is 32.956.

Lowest IF
17.96
Lowest Journal Impact IF

The lowest Journal Impact IF of Journal of Clinical Oncology is 17.96.

Total Growth Rate
79.4%
IF Total Growth Rate

The total growth rate of Journal of Clinical Oncology IF is 79.4%.

Annual Growth Rate
8.8%
IF Annual Growth Rate

The annual growth rate of Journal of Clinical Oncology IF is 8.8%.

Journal Impact IF Ranking

Subcategory Quartile Rank Percentile
Oncology Q1 6/331

Oncology 98%

Cancer Research Q1 3/198

Cancer Research 98%

Journal Impact IF Ranking

· In the Oncology research field, the Quartile of Journal of Clinical Oncology is Q1. Journal of Clinical Oncology has been ranked #6 over 331 related journals in the Oncology research category. The ranking percentile of Journal of Clinical Oncology is around 98% in the field of Oncology.
· In the Cancer Research research field, the Quartile of Journal of Clinical Oncology is Q1. Journal of Clinical Oncology has been ranked #3 over 198 related journals in the Cancer Research research category. The ranking percentile of Journal of Clinical Oncology is around 98% in the field of Cancer Research.

Journal of Clinical Oncology Impact Factor 2020-2021 Prediction

Journal of Clinical Oncology Impact Factor Predition System

Journal of Clinical Oncology Impact Factor Prediction System is now online. You can start share your valuable insights with the community.

Predict Check All Preditions
Total Publications
118341
Total Citations
4065362

Annual Publication Volume

Annual Citation Record

International Collaboration Trend

Cited Documents Trend

Journal Impact IF History

Year Journal Impact IF
Year Journal Impact IF
2019-2020 32.956
2018-2019 28.349
2017-2018 26.36
2016-2017 24.008
2015-2016 20.982
2014-2015 18.443
2013-2014 17.96
2012-2013 18.038
2011-2012 18.372
Journal Impact IF History

· The 2019-2020 Journal Impact IF of Journal of Clinical Oncology is 32.956
· The 2018-2019 Journal Impact IF of Journal of Clinical Oncology is 28.349
· The 2017-2018 Journal Impact IF of Journal of Clinical Oncology is 26.36
· The 2016-2017 Journal Impact IF of Journal of Clinical Oncology is 24.008
· The 2015-2016 Journal Impact IF of Journal of Clinical Oncology is 20.982
· The 2014-2015 Journal Impact IF of Journal of Clinical Oncology is 18.443
· The 2013-2014 Journal Impact IF of Journal of Clinical Oncology is 17.96
· The 2012-2013 Journal Impact IF of Journal of Clinical Oncology is 18.038
· The 2011-2012 Journal Impact IF of Journal of Clinical Oncology is 18.372

Publications Cites Dataset

Year Publications Citations
Year Publications Citations
1980 0 5
1981 0 4
1982 0 7
1983 116 72
1984 216 599
1985 251 1581
1986 284 2835
1987 317 4635
1988 268 5536
1989 284 8465
1990 299 10421
1991 322 13935
1992 303 14914
1993 371 18107
1994 413 19607
1995 434 21980
1996 444 26612
1997 480 29430
1998 603 35017
1999 579 43933
2000 603 52303
2001 651 61299
2002 769 71165
2003 846 86564
2004 4369 91190
2005 4974 114722
2006 4867 146800
2007 5120 156277
2008 5328 175064
2009 5204 192710
2010 5851 214842
2011 6714 234577
2012 7189 261801
2013 6824 270068
2014 7348 259897
2015 7247 265715
2016 7698 244827
2017 7710 240156
2018 7923 198958
2019 7316 205812
2020 7728 244977
2021 76 17943
Publications Cites Dataset

· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 0 reports and received 5 citations in 1980.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 0 reports and received 4 citations in 1981.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 0 reports and received 7 citations in 1982.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 116 reports and received 72 citations in 1983.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 216 reports and received 599 citations in 1984.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 251 reports and received 1581 citations in 1985.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 284 reports and received 2835 citations in 1986.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 317 reports and received 4635 citations in 1987.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 268 reports and received 5536 citations in 1988.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 284 reports and received 8465 citations in 1989.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 299 reports and received 10421 citations in 1990.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 322 reports and received 13935 citations in 1991.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 303 reports and received 14914 citations in 1992.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 371 reports and received 18107 citations in 1993.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 413 reports and received 19607 citations in 1994.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 434 reports and received 21980 citations in 1995.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 444 reports and received 26612 citations in 1996.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 480 reports and received 29430 citations in 1997.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 603 reports and received 35017 citations in 1998.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 579 reports and received 43933 citations in 1999.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 603 reports and received 52303 citations in 2000.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 651 reports and received 61299 citations in 2001.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 769 reports and received 71165 citations in 2002.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 846 reports and received 86564 citations in 2003.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 4369 reports and received 91190 citations in 2004.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 4974 reports and received 114722 citations in 2005.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 4867 reports and received 146800 citations in 2006.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 5120 reports and received 156277 citations in 2007.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 5328 reports and received 175064 citations in 2008.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 5204 reports and received 192710 citations in 2009.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 5851 reports and received 214842 citations in 2010.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 6714 reports and received 234577 citations in 2011.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 7189 reports and received 261801 citations in 2012.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 6824 reports and received 270068 citations in 2013.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 7348 reports and received 259897 citations in 2014.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 7247 reports and received 265715 citations in 2015.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 7698 reports and received 244827 citations in 2016.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 7710 reports and received 240156 citations in 2017.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 7923 reports and received 198958 citations in 2018.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 7316 reports and received 205812 citations in 2019.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 7728 reports and received 244977 citations in 2020.
· The Journal of Clinical Oncology has published 76 reports and received 17943 citations in 2021.
· The total publications of Journal of Clinical Oncology is 118341.
· The total citations of Journal of Clinical Oncology is 4065362.

What is Impact Factor?

The impact factor (IF) or journal impact factor (JIF) of an academic journal is a scientometric index calculated by Clarivate that reflects the yearly average number of citations of articles published in the last two years in a given journal. It is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field; journals with higher impact factor values are often deemed to be more important, or carry more intrinsic prestige in their respective fields, than those with lower values.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | Academic Accelerator - About the Impact Factor

Impact factor is commonly used to evaluate the relative importance of a journal within its field and to measure the frequency with which the “average article” in a journal has been cited in a particular time period. Journal which publishes more review articles will get highest IFs. Journals with higher IFs believed to be more important than those with lower ones. According to Eugene Garfield “impact simply reflects the ability of the journals and editors to attract the best paper available.” Journal which publishes more review articles will get maximum IFs. The Impact Factor of an academic journal is a scientometric Metric that reflects the yearly average number of citations that recent articles published in a given journal received. It is frequently used as a Metric for the relative importance of a journal within its field; journals with higher Impact Factor are often deemed to be more important than those with lower ones. The Journal of Clinical Oncology Impact Factor IF measures the average number of citations received in a particular year (2020) by papers published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology during the two preceding years (2018-2019). Note that 2020 Impact Factor are reported in 2021; they cannot be calculated until all of the 2020 publications have been processed by the indexing agency. New journals, which are indexed from their first published issue, will receive an impact factor after two years of indexing; in this case, the citations to the year prior to Volume 1, and the number of articles published in the year prior to Volume 1, are known zero values. Journals that are indexed starting with a volume other than the first volume will not get an impact factor until they have been indexed for three years. Occasionally, Journal Citation Reports assigns an impact factor to new journals with less than two years of indexing, based on partial citation data. The calculation always uses two complete and known years of item counts, but for new titles one of the known counts is zero. Annuals and other irregular publications sometimes publish no items in a particular year, affecting the count. The impact factor relates to a specific time period; it is possible to calculate it for any desired period. In addition to the 2-year Impact Factor, the 3-year Impact Factor, 4-year Impact Factor, 5-year Impact Factor, Real-Time Impact Factor can provide further insights and factors into the impact of Journal of Clinical Oncology.

History

The impact factor was devised by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). Impact factors are calculated yearly starting from 1975 for journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). ISI was acquired by Thomson Scientific & Healthcare in 1992, and became known as Thomson ISI. In 2018, Thomson ISI was sold to Onex Corporation and Baring Private Equity Asia. They founded a new corporation, Clarivate, which is now the publisher of the JCR.

Use

The impact factor is used to compare different journals within a certain field. The Web of Science indexes more than 11,500 science and social science journals. Journal impact factors are often used to evaluate the merit of individual articles and individual researchers. This use of impact factors was summarised by Hoeffel:

Impact Factor is not a perfect tool to measure the quality of articles but there is nothing better and it has the advantage of already being in existence and is, therefore, a good technique for scientific evaluation. Experience has shown that in each specialty the best journals are those in which it is most difficult to have an article accepted, and these are the journals that have a high impact factor. Most of these journals existed long before the impact factor was devised. The use of impact factor as a measure of quality is widespread because it fits well with the opinion we have in each field of the best journals in our specialty....In conclusion, prestigious journals publish papers of high level. Therefore, their impact factor is high, and not the contrary.

Eugene Garfield

In brief, Impact factors may be used by:
  • Authors to decide where to submit an article for publication.
  • Libraries to make collection development decisions
  • Academic departments to assess academic productivity
  • Academic departments to make decisions on promotion and tenure.
As impact factors are a journal-level metric, rather than an article- or individual-level metric, this use is controversial. Garfield agrees with Hoeffel,but warns about the "misuse in evaluating individuals" because there is "a wide variation [of citations] from article to article within a single journal". Other things to consider about Impact Factors:
  • Many journals do not have an impact factor.
  • The impact factor cannot assess the quality of individual articles. Even if citations were evenly distributed among articles, the impact factor would only measure the interests of other researchers in an article, not its importance and usefulness.
  • Only research articles, technical notes and reviews are “citable” items. Editorials, letters, news items and meeting abstracts are “non-citable items”.
  • Only a small percentage of articles are highly cited and they are found in a small subset of journals. This small proportion accounts for a large percentage of citations.
  • Controversial papers, such as those based on fraudulent data, may be highly cited, distorting the impact factor of a journal.
  • Citation bias may exist. For example, English language resources may be favoured. Authors may cite their own work.
Moreover, informed and careful use of these impact data is essential, and should be based on a thorough understanding of the methodology used to generate impact factors. There are controversial aspects of using impact factors:
  • It is not clear whether the number of times a paper is cited measures its actual quality.
  • Some databases that calculate impact factors fail to incorporate publications including textbooks, handbooks and reference books.
  • Certain disciplines have low numbers of journals and usage. Therefore, one should only compare journals or researchers within the same discipline.
  • Review articles normally are cited more often and therefore can skew results.
  • Self-citing may also skew results.
  • Some resources used to calculate impact factors have inadequate international coverage.
  • Editorial policies can artificially inflate an impact factor.
Impact factors have often been used in advancement and tenure decision-making. Many recognize that this is a coarse tool for such important decisions, and that a multitude of factors should be taken into account in these deliberations. When considering the use of the impact factor (IF), keep these aspects in mind:
  • IF analysis is limited to citations from the journals indexed by the Web of Science/Web of Knowledge. Currently, the Web of Science indexes only 8621 journals across the full breadth of the sciences, and just 3121 in the social sciences.
  • A high IF/citation rate says nothing about the quality -- or even, validity -- of the references being cited. Notorious or even retracted articles often attract a lot of attention, hence a high number of citations. The notority related to the first publication on "cold fusion" is one such example.
  • Journals that publish more "review articles" are often found near the top of the rankings. While not known for publishing new, creative findings, these individual articles tend to be heavily cited.
  • The IF measures the average number of citations to articles in the journal -- given this, a small number of highly-cited articles will skew the figure.
  • It takes several years for new journals to be added to the list of titles indexed by the Web of Science/Web of Knowledge, so these newer titles will be under-represented.
  • It's alleged that journal editors have learned to "game" the system, encouraging authors to cite their works previously published in the same journal.
Comparing Journals Across Disciplines? Not a good idea! Using Impact Factors within a given discipline should only be done with great care, as described above. Using impact factor data to compare journals across disciplines is even more problematic. Here are some of the reasons:
  • Disciplines where older literature is still referenced, such as Chemistry and Mathematics, offer challenges to the methodolgy since older citations (older than two years) are not used to calculate the impact factor for a given journal. (Five-year impact factor analysis, which can be calculated using the Journal Citation Index database, helps smooth out this problem only to some degree.)
  • Different disciplines have different practices regarding tendency to cite larger numbers of references. Higher overall citation rates will bump upward impact factor measurements.
  • Where it's common for large numbers of authors to collaborate on a single paper, such as in Physics, the tendency of authors to cite themselves (and in this case, more authors) will result in increased citation rates.

Pros and Cons of the Impact Factor

Pros:

  • A vetted, established metric for measuring journal impact within a discipline.
  • Designed to eliminate bias based on journal size and frequency.
Cons:
  • Individual articles makes an uneven contribution to overall Impact Factor.
  • Impact Factor does not account for certain things, things like context (postive or negative citaion) and intentionality (self-citation).
  • The metric is proprietary to and bound by the contents of the Thomson Reuters database.
  • Citations, on which the Impact Factor is based, count for less than 1% of an article's overall use.

Criticism

Numerous critiques have been made regarding the use of impact factors. A 2007 study noted that the most fundamental flaw is that impact factors present the mean of data that are not normally distributed, and suggested that it would be more appropriate to present the median of these data. There is also a more general debate on the validity of the impact factor as a measure of journal importance and the effect of policies that editors may adopt to boost their impact factor (perhaps to the detriment of readers and writers). Other criticism focuses on the effect of the impact factor on behavior of scholars, editors and other stakeholders. Others have made more general criticisms, arguing that emphasis on impact factor results from negative influence of neoliberal policies on academia claiming that what is needed is not just replacement of the impact factor with more sophisticated metrics for science publications but also discussion on the social value of research assessment and the growing precariousness of scientific careers in higher education.
Experts stress that there are limitations in using impact factors to evaluate a scholar's work. There are many reasons cited for not relying on impact factor alone to evaluate the output of a particular individual. Among these are the following:

  • A single factor is not sufficient for evaluating an author's work.
  • Journal values are meaningless unless compared within the same discipline. Impact factors vary among disciplines.
  • The impact factor was originally devised to show the impact of a specific journal, not a specific scholar. The quality and impact of the author's work may extend beyond the impact of a particular journal.
According to Jim Testa, a researcher for ThomsonReuters Scientific, the most widespread misuse of the Impact Factor is to evaluate the work of an individual author (instead of a journal). "To say that because a researcher is publishing in a certain journal, he or she is more influential or deserves more credit is not necessarily true. There are many other variables to consider." (interview 6/26/2008 in Thomson Reuters blog entry)

Journal of Clinical Oncology
Journal Profile

About

The Journal of Clinical Oncology serves its readers as the single most credible, authoritative resource for disseminating significant clinical oncology research. In print and in electronic format, JCO strives to publish the highest quality articles dedicated to clinical research. Original Reports remain the focus of JCO, but this scientific communication is enhanced by appropriately selected Editorials, Commentaries, Reviews, and other work that relate to the care of patients with cancer. The Journal of Clinical Oncology is a peer-reviewed medical journal published 3 times a month by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. It covers research on all aspects of clinical oncology. All articles older than one year are freely available online. The journal was established in 1983 and the editor-in-chief is Stephen A. Cannistra (Harvard Medical School).

Highly Cited Keywords

ISSN
0732-183X
ISSN

The ISSN of Journal of Clinical Oncology is 0732-183X . An ISSN is an 8-digit code used to identify newspapers, journals, magazines and periodicals of all kinds and on all media–print and electronic.

ISSN (Online)
1527-7755
ISSN (Online)

The ISSN (Online) of Journal of Clinical Oncology is 1527-7755 . An ISSN is an 8-digit code used to identify newspapers, journals, magazines and periodicals of all kinds and on all media–print and electronic.

Publisher
American Society of Clinical Oncology
Publisher

Journal of Clinical Oncology is published by American Society of Clinical Oncology .

Publication Frequency
Three times a month
Publication Frequency

Journal of Clinical Oncology publishes reports Three times a month .

Coverage
1983 - Present
Coverage

The Publication History of Journal of Clinical Oncology covers 1983 - Present .

Open Access
NO
Open Access

Journal of Clinical Oncology is Subscription-based (non-OA) Journal. Publishers own the rights to the articles in their journals. Anyone who wants to read the articles should pay by individual or institution to access the articles. Anyone who wants to use the articles in any way must obtain permission from the publishers.

Publication Fee
Publication Fee

There is no publication fee for submiting manuscript to Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology is Subscription-based (non-OA) Journal. Publishers own the rights to the articles in their journals. Anyone who wants to read the articles should pay by individual or institution to access the articles.

Language
English
Language

The language of Journal of Clinical Oncology is English .

Country/Region
United States
Country/Region

The publisher of Journal of Clinical Oncology is American Society of Clinical Oncology , which locates in United States .

Selected Articles

Full Title Authors
Full Title Authors
Antitumor activity of nivolumab in recurrent and metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: An international, multicenter study of the mayo clinic phase 2 consortium (NCI-9742) - 2018 Brigette Ma · Wan Teck Lim · Boon Cher Goh · Edwin P. Hui · Kwok Wai Lo · Adam Pettinger · Nathan R. Foster · Jonathan W. Riess · Mark Agulnik · Alex Y. Chang · Akhil Chopra · Julie A. Kish · Christine H. Chung · Douglas Adkins · Kevin J. Cullen · Barbara J. Gitlitz · Dean W. Lim · Ka Fai To · K.C. Allen Chan · Y.M. Dennis Lo · Ann D. King · Charles Erlichman · Jun Yin · Brian A. Costello · Anthony T.C. Chan
T Cells Genetically Modified to Express an Anti–B-Cell Maturation Antigen Chimeric Antigen Receptor Cause Remissions of Poor-Prognosis Relapsed Multiple Myeloma - 2018 Jennifer N. Brudno · Irina Maric · Steven D. Hartman · Jeremy J. Rose · Michael Wang · Norris Lam · Maryalice Stetler-Stevenson · Dalia A. Salem · Constance Yuan · Steven Z. Pavletic · Jennifer A. Kanakry · Syed Abbas Ali · Lekha Mikkilineni · Steven A. Feldman · David F. Stroncek · Brenna Hansen · Judith Lawrence · Rashmika Patel · Frances T. Hakim · Ronald E. Gress · James N. Kochenderfer
Impact of additional cytogenetic abnormalities on clinical outcomes in chronic myeloid leukemia: First report in a Latin American population. - 2018 Christianne Bourlon · Katherinee Morales-Chacon · Aldo Adrian Medina-Acosta · Alvaro Aguayo · Víctor Manuel Anguiano-Álvarez · Maria Teresa Bourlon · Antonio Olivas-Martinez · Elena Tuna-Aguilar
Questioning the Value of Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography for Residual Lesions After Chemotherapy for Metastatic Seminoma: Results of an International Global Germ Cell Cancer Group Registry - 2018 Richard Cathomas · Dirk Klingbiel · Brandon David Bernard · Anja Lorch · Xavier Garcia del Muro · Franco Morelli · Ugo De Giorgi · Mikhail Fedyanin · Christoph Oing · Hege Sagstuen Haugnes · Marcus Hentrich · Christian Fankhauser · Silke Gillessen · Jörg Beyer
Early Chemotherapy Intensification With Escalated BEACOPP in Patients With Advanced-Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma With a Positive Interim Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Scan After Two ABVD Cycles: Long-Term Results of the GITIL/FIL HD 0607 Trial - 2018 Andrea Gallamini · Corrado Tarella · Simonetta Viviani · Andrea Rossi · Caterina Patti · Antonino Mulè · Marco Picardi · Alessandra Romano · Maria Cantonetti · Giorgio La Nasa · Livio Trentin · Silvia Bolis · Davide Rapezzi · Roberta Battistini · Daniela Gottardi · Paolo Gavarotti · Paolo Corradini · Michele Cimminiello · Corrado Schiavotto · Guido Parvis · Roberta Zanotti · Guido Gini · Andrés J.M. Ferreri · Piera Viero · Maurizio Miglino · Atto Billio · Abraham Avigdor · Alberto Biggi · Federico Fallanca · Umberto Ficola
Epidemiologic Evidence That Excess Body Weight Increases Risk of Cervical Cancer by Decreased Detection of Precancer - 2018 Megan A. Clarke · Barbara Fetterman · Li C. Cheung · Nicolas Wentzensen · Julia C. Gage · Hormuzd A. Katki · Brian Befano · Maria Demarco · John Schussler · Walter Kinney · Tina Raine-Bennett · Thomas Lorey · Nancy E. Poitras · Philip E. Castle · Mark Schiffman
BRAF Inhibition in BRAFV600-Mutant Gliomas: Results From the VE-BASKET Study - 2018 Thomas Kaley · Mehdi Touat · Vivek Subbiah · Antoine Hollebecque · Jordi Rodon · A. Craig Lockhart · Vicki L. Keedy · Franck Bielle · Ralf-Dieter Hofheinz · Florence Joly · Jean-Yves Blay · Ian Chau · Igor Puzanov · Noopur Raje · Jürgen Wolf · Lisa M. DeAngelis · Martina Makrutzki · Todd Riehl · Bethany Pitcher · José Baselga · David M. Hyman
Phase Ib/II Study of Pembrolizumab and Pegylated-Interferon Alfa-2b in Advanced Melanoma - 2018 Diwakar Davar · Hong Wang · Joe-Marc Chauvin · Ornella Pagliano · Julien Fourcade · Mignane Ka · Carmine Menna · Amy Rose · Cindy Sander · Amir A. Borhani · Arivarasan Karunamurthy · Ahmad A. Tarhini · Hussein Tawbi · Qing Zhao · Blanca Homet Moreno · Scott Ebbinghaus · Nageatte Ibrahim · John M. Kirkwood · Hassane M. Zarour
Clinical targeted next-generation sequencing to identify potentially actionable alterations in the majority of Asian cancer patients. - 2018 Song Ling Poon · Yen-Jung Lu · Ren-Shiang Jhou · Yi-Ting Yang · Pei-Ning Yu · Yen-Ting Liu · Yi-Lin Hsieh · Maarja-Liisa Nairismagi · Shu-Jen Chen · Kien Thiam Tan
Gaps in palliative care provision among the Indian cancer centres. - 2018 Anuja Damani · Jayeeta Chowdhury · Arunangshu Ghoshal · Jayita Deodhar · Mary Ann Muckaden · C.S. Pramesh · Naveen Salins
Understanding patients’ and family caregivers’ preferences and attitudes towards disclosure of cancer related diagnosis and prognosis. - 2018 Arunangshu Ghoshal · Naveen Salins · Jayita Deodhar · Anuja Damani · Jayeeta Chowdhury · Arundhati Chitre · Mary Ann Muckaden · Rajendra A. Badwe
Application of a cancer hot-spot panel to guide lung cancer therapy: Asian experience. - 2018 Yi-Ting Yang · Maarja-Liisa Nairismagi · Kai-Che Tung · Yen-Jung Lu · Ren-Shiang Jhou · Pei-Ning Yu · Yen-Ting Liu · Yi-Lin Hsieh · Song Ling Poon · Shu-Jen Chen · Kien Thiam Tan
Reducing Body Image–Related Distress in Women With Breast Cancer Using a Structured Online Writing Exercise: Results From the My Changed Body Randomized Controlled Trial - 2018 Kerry A. Sherman · Astrid Przezdziecki · Jessica Alcorso · Christopher J. Kilby · Elisabeth Elder · John Boyages · Louise Koelmeyer · Helen Mackie
Pathogenic Germline BRCA1/2 Mutations and Familial Predisposition to Gastric Cancer - 2018 Hiroshi Ichikawa · Toshifumi Wakai · Masayuki Nagahashi · Yoshifumi Shimada · Takaaki Hanyu · Yosuke Kano · Yusuke Muneoka · Takashi Ishikawa · Kazuyasu Takizawa · Yosuke Tajima · Jun Sakata · Takashi Kobayashi · Hitoshi Kemeyama · Hiroshi Yabusaki · Satoru Nakagawa · Nobuaki Sato · Takashi Kawasaki · Keiichi Homma · Shujiro Okuda · Stephen Lyle · Kazuaki Takabe
Cabozantinib (C) versus placebo (P) in patients (pts) with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who have received prior sorafenib: Results from the randomized phase III CELESTIAL trial. - 2018 Ghassan K. Abou-Alfa · Tim Meyer · Ann-Lii Cheng · Anthony B. El-Khoueiry · Lorenza Rimassa · Baek-Yeol Ryoo · Irfan Cicin · Philippe Merle · Yen-Hsun Chen · Joong-Won Park · Jean-Frédéric Blanc · Luigi Bolondi · Heinz Josef Klümpen · Stephen L. Chan · Vincenzo Dadduzio · Colin Hessel · Anne E. Borgman-Hagey · Gisela Schwab
Is cancer associated thrombosis (CAT) a neglected issue? Greek management of thrombosis (GMaT) in cancer patients. - 2018 Nikolaos Tsoukalas · Pavlos Papakotoulas · Athina Christopoulou · Alexandros Ardavanis · Georgios Koumakis · Christos N. Papandreou · George Papatsibas · Pavlos Papakostas · C. Andreadis · Gerasimos Aravantinos · Nikolaos Ziras · Charalambos P. Kalofonos · E. Samantas · Sougleri Maria · Paris Makrantonakis · George Pentheroudakis · Athanasios Athanasiadis · Evangelos Bournakis · Ioannis Varthalitis · Ioannis Boukovinas