ReviewJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2025
Weight Loss in Cancer and the 2017 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events-Dangerous and Misleading.
Review in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk Management in First-in-Human Trials of Intravenous Drugs: Current Practices and Future Perspectives.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Review
- Not All Weight Loss Is Equal: Divergent Patterns and Prognostic Roles in Head and Neck Cancer Versus High-Grade B-Cell Lymphoma.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Effect of short-term oral nutrients after hospital discharge on postoperative muscle loss and survival in gastric cancer patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate toxicity reporting in cancer clinical trials is necessary to promote regulatory decision making. Up to 85% of those with some cancers (e.g., oesophagus, head and neck, and pancreas) experience significant progressive weight loss (WL) throughout treatment. Therefore, it is necessary that investigators accurately grade and report WL. We have identified two dangerous and misleading approaches in the CTCAE specific to WL: (1) severity grades and associated clinical descriptions and (2) lack of pretreatment weight and longitudinal weight changes. This review highlights the critical importance of a more accurate, comprehensive and patient-focused WL assessment in oncology clinical trials and the CTCAE. We offer a path forward for identification and management of this life-threatening phenomenon, whether it is due to cancer or an antitumor treatment. The National Cancer Institute should consider the following five ideas and concrete action items for future CTCAE versions: (1) Weight assessment has important implications for toxicity determination and prognosis in clinical trials and should be consistently integrated into study reports; (2) Adverse event assessment should be patient-focused and supported by clinically relevant definitions of each grade level; (3) the CTCAE grades and associated clinical descriptions for WL should be revised to better reflect the impact of WL on trial endpoints and patient safety; (4) WL should be assessed as a continuous variable to capture duration, severity, and trajectory; and (5) WL should be urgently incorporated into the PRO-CTCAE to define the individual impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.