Mapping Integrative Decision-Making Frameworks in Advanced Cancer Care: A Scoping Review of Diagnostic, Supportive-Care, and Therapeutic Integration.
- 1Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, S-1 W-16, Chuo-ku, Sapporo 060-8543, Hokkaido, Japan.
- 2Higashi Sapporo Hospital, 3-3-7-35 Higashi Sapporo, Shiroishi-ku, Sapporo 003-8585, Hokkaido, Japan.
Abstract
Background/objectives
Decision-making in advanced cancer care is intertwined with diagnostic profiling, prognostic communication, supportive care, and anticancer treatment selection. An author-developed D-S-T × B/C/E conceptual mapping scaffold-three decision/action domains (Diagnosis, Supportive care, Therapy) and three evaluative dimensions (Biological, Clinical, Existential)-was used to organise the literature, to identify coverage gaps and recurring framework categories, and, as a secondary conceptual synthesis objective, to derive a candidate integrative framework.Methods
The review was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews, pre-registered on OSF, and reported per PRISMA-ScR. PubMed was searched on 21 June 2026, and the final evidence set was derived solely from this search. Eligible records concerning adults with advanced cancer were dual-screened and charted using a structured form.Results
Eighty-two records (2010-2026) were included. Under the strict D-S-T × B/C/E matrix, Supportive care showed the highest joint coverage, particularly S × C (59/82, 72.0%), whereas D × B and D × E were the least represented cells (13/82 each, 15.9%). Eight recurring framework categories were inductively derived from the charted framework descriptors, led by early integrated palliative care (30/82) and prognosis-informed shared decision-making (27/82). Twenty-two records met an emergence-candidate screen defined at the synthesis stage, of which three received the maximum cross-axis coupling score of 6/6 from both reviewers.Conclusions
The advanced-cancer decision-framework literature clusters around a small number of architectures with uneven D-S-T × B/C/E coverage. Diagnosis-centred frameworks coupled with biological or existential dimensions were relatively under-represented within our mapping and represent priority targets for future primary research; the proposed Adaptive framework provides one structure in which this research could be conducted.
Related
- Visualizing orbital and arterial wall involvement in arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy with time-of-flight simultaneous [18F]FDG-PET/MRI: a novel supportive diagnostic imaging modality?
- Treating diagnostic frameworks as information systems: normative implications and opportunities
- Diagnostic frameworks and abortifacient findings in domestic ruminant abortions: a multicountry European study (2022–2024)
- Integrative Multi-Omics and Machine Learning Unveil Plakophilin 1 as a Robust Diagnostic Biomarker for Thymoma
- Exerkines in Cardiovascular–Kidney–Metabolic Syndrome: An Integrative Framework for Mechanisms and Therapeutic Implications—A Narrative Review
BibTeX
@article{murase2026mapping,
title = {{Mapping Integrative Decision-Making Frameworks in Advanced Cancer Care: A Scoping Review of Diagnostic, Supportive-Care, and Therapeutic Integration.}},
author = {Kazuyuki Murase and Yusuke Sugama and Yohei Arihara and Kohichi Takada and Kunihiko Ishitani},
journal = {Cancers},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/cancers18193245},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42882939},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Mapping Integrative Decision-Making Frameworks in Advanced Cancer Care: A Scoping Review of Diagnostic, Supportive-Care, and Therapeutic Integration.
AU - Kazuyuki Murase
AU - Yusuke Sugama
AU - Yohei Arihara
AU - Kohichi Takada
AU - Kunihiko Ishitani
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/08
JO - Cancers
DO - 10.3390/cancers18193245
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42882939
AB - Background/objectives Decision-making in advanced cancer care is intertwined with diagnostic profiling, prognostic communication, supportive care, and anticancer treatment selection. An author-developed D-S-T × B/C/E conceptual mapping scaffold-three decision/action domains (Diagnosis, Supportive care, Therapy) and three evaluative dimensions (Biological, Clinical, Existential)-was used to organise the literature, to identify coverage gaps and recurring framework categories, and, as a secondary conceptual synthesis objective, to derive a candidate integrative framework.Methods The review was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews, pre-registered on OSF, and reported per PRISMA-ScR. PubMed was searched on 21 June 2026, and the final evidence set was derived solely from this search. Eligible records concerning adults with advanced cancer were dual-screened and charted using a structured form.Results Eighty-two records (2010-2026) were included. Under the strict D-S-T × B/C/E matrix, Supportive care showed the highest joint coverage, particularly S × C (59/82, 72.0%), whereas D × B and D × E were the least represented cells (13/82 each, 15.9%). Eight recurring framework categories were inductively derived from the charted framework descriptors, led by early integrated palliative care (30/82) and prognosis-informed shared decision-making (27/82). Twenty-two records met an emergence-candidate screen defined at the synthesis stage, of which three received the maximum cross-axis coupling score of 6/6 from both reviewers.Conclusions The advanced-cancer decision-framework literature clusters around a small number of architectures with uneven D-S-T × B/C/E coverage. Diagnosis-centred frameworks coupled with biological or existential dimensions were relatively under-represented within our mapping and represent priority targets for future primary research; the proposed Adaptive framework provides one structure in which this research could be conducted.
SN - 2072-6694
ER -