ArticleActa haematologica2026
Progression-Free Survival Effect Sizes in Randomized Controlled Trials of Targeted Cancer Therapies with Positive Outcomes.
Article in Acta haematologica, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionImprovement in progression-free survival (PFS) is increasingly used by health authorities for cancer drug approvals.
methodWe analyzed 106 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with positive PFS outcomes published in JAMA Oncology, Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, and Annals of Oncology during 2020-2023. RCTs were categorized as "targeted" (n = 83) or "conventional" (n = 23) by their interrogated treatment variables. Two measures of PFS effect sizes were analyzed: hazard ratio (HR) and PFS increment.
resultsAmong the RCTs of targeted therapies, the 25th-percentile value (Q1) of HR increased significantly (slope = 0.05 per year; p = 0.02) during the study period whilst Q1 of PFS increment decreased significantly (slope = -9.1 percentage points per year; p = 0.03). Similar trends were not observed among the RCTs of conventional therapies.
conclusionsOur analyses suggest a potential bias in accepting RCTs of targeted therapies despite decreased PFS effect sizes.
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.