Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40205620›Full record

ArticleTrials2025

Core outcome sets in cancer clinical trials: current status and future opportunities-an EORTC perspective.

Ailbhe Lawlor, Steven MacLennan, Jan Bogaerts, Saskia Litiere, Vassilis Golfinopoulos, Jens Lehmann, Petr Szturz, Paula Williamson, Mieke Van Hemelrijck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ailbhe Lawlor *Transforming Cancer Outcomes Through Research (TOUR), King's College London, London, UK. ailbhe.lawlor@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-5304-6957
Steven MacLennan *Academic Urology Unit, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Jan BogaertsEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
Saskia LitiereEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
Vassilis GolfinopoulosEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.
Jens LehmannUniversity Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Petr SzturzDepartment of Oncology, University of Lausanne (UNIL) and Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Paula WilliamsonInstitute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Mieke Van HemelrijckTransforming Cancer Outcomes Through Research (TOUR), King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInconsistent, varied and selective outcome reporting is problematic in clinical trials. Core outcome sets (COS) standardise the outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials in a specific area of health or health care. We reviewed available cancer COS and assessed their uptake in cancer clinical trials through surveying members of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC).

methodsThis study employs an exploratory cross-sectional design across two phases. The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database was searched for cancer-specific COS on June 1st, 2023. Awareness and use of COS amongst EORTC trialists was assessed in November 2023 via an online survey.

resultsWe identified a total of 85 cancer-related COS on the COMET database. Of these, 69 related to the tumour types as categorised by the EORTC and their disease orientated groups. A total of 710 EORTC members responded, of whom half (50%) stated they were unfamiliar with COS. Relevant COS were available to over a quarter of respondents, with a tenth utilising available COS. Those who chose not to use an available COS cited volume of outcomes, lack of time and infrastructure for implementation as key barriers.

conclusionsWhile COS are becoming increasingly available to, and acknowledged by, cancer clinical trialists, their implementation is currently still limited. Our findings indicate that further development of COS to fill gaps for missing tumour types, greater involvement of trialists in the COS development process, and increased awareness and understanding of COS amongst trialists are all required to ensure widespread implementation of COS in cancer clinical trials.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicEndpoint DeterminationNeoplasmsResearch DesignCross-Sectional StudiesHumansTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID40205620
PMCPMC11983956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.