OnCo
ideasIdea

Choose regimens by infusion-chair hours, not just efficacy, where chairs are the constraint

When a hospital's real limit is the number of chemotherapy chairs and nurses, guidelines should favour treatments given by mouth or in fewer, shorter visits, if they work about as well.

Guidelines optimise efficacy and toxicity assuming unlimited delivery capacity. In systems where the chair, nurse, or pharmacy is the constraint, a regimen that is marginally less effective but needs a third of the visits may cure more people because more people get treated at all. Oral capecitabine-based regimens, three-weekly rather than weekly schedules, subcutaneous formulations, and shorter adjuvant durations are candidates. The proposal is a resource-stratified guideline layer that explicitly trades chair-hours against outcome, and trials to fill the evidence gaps.

Hypothesis
In capacity-limited systems, adopting infusion-sparing regimens for the five most common indications will increase the number of patients starting curative treatment within 60 days by at least 25% without a measurable fall in two-year survival.
Rationale
Population-level outcome is efficacy multiplied by coverage; the field measures the first and ignores the second. Resource-stratified guidelines (NCCN Harmonized Guidelines for Sub-Saharan Africa) exist but do not model capacity explicitly.
What would test it
A health-systems simulation of chair capacity in three hospitals, then a pragmatic switch study comparing coverage, time to treatment, and survival before and after regimen policy change.
Maturity
speculative
Who has to act
research
Cost to try
Medium ($1M to $50M)
Years to first evidence
4
Bottlenecks it attacks

Connected

7top