ReviewFrontiers in oncology2026
A landscape analysis of clinical trials in cancer pain management: current trends and emerging therapeutic targets.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite a growing volume of clinical research, cancer pain management remains dependent on opioid-centric paradigms with few therapeutic breakthroughs. To identify innovation gaps and guide future research, a systematic evaluation of the global clinical trial landscape is imperative. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive landscape analysis of 632 interventional cancer pain trials(1994-2025) from the Trialtrove database. Key characteristics including temporal trends, trial phases, therapeutic targets, and primary endpoints were extracted and analyzed. Results: Our analysis revealed a significant "innovation paradox." Although trial initiations have increased 3.2-fold since 2000, research remains focused on established mechanisms. Late-stage (Phase III, 38%) investigations predominated over scarce early-phase (Phase I, 13%) studies. Over half (52%) of all trials targeted opioid receptors, while emerging targets like NaV1.7 (18%)-a peripheral sodium channel implicated in inherited pain syndromes-and cannabinoid receptors (5%) were underrepresented. All percentages reflect proportions of the total 632 trials and categories may overlap. Furthermore, primary endpoints overwhelmingly favored unidimensional pain intensity scales (35.8%) over functional or quality-of-life (QoL) metrics. The most advanced innovations are currently limited to dual-mechanism agents (e.g., tapentadol combining MOR agonism and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition) and novel delivery systems (e.g., iontophoretic transdermal patches or intrathecal pumps). Conclusion: The cancer pain research ecosystem exhibits substantial volume growth unmatched by mechanistic innovation. To surmount this therapeutic stagnation, future priorities must include expanding early-phase trials on novel pathways (e.g., tumor-microenvironment interactions), adopting composite endpoints integrating pain with function and QoL, and leveraging real-world evidence and AI-driven phenotyping to advance precision analgesia. This paradigm shift is critical to addressing the multidimensional burden of cancer pain.
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.