English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Over the past 5 years, a small group of cancer patients who stated their physicians had determined there were no additional available antineoplastic therapeutic options (including potential investigational strategies) were seen for a 'second opinion' in a cancer hospital-based oncology program and subsequently experienced what can reasonably be characterized as having achieved meaningful 'clinical benefit' (functioning at a fairly high level for a minimum 1 year in the work, home, and/or family environments) following the further delivery of a variety of treatment approaches. While recognized to be limited (or even simply 'anecdotal'), this experience emphasizes several clinically relevant conclusions, including the overall utility of a 'second-opinion' strategy and the potential that the reported statement of an individual practitioner or cancer program that all rational options have been attempted may be inaccurate.

An Experience with Managing Cancer Patients Reportedly Previously Informed of the Absence of Additional Available Antineoplastic Therapeutic Options