ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2026
(Neo)adjuvant approvals for solid tumors by the US Food and Drug Administration 2010-2023.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background(Neo)adjuvant systemic treatments aim to improve overall survival by reducing recurrence risk; however, there can be challenges, such as reliance on surrogate endpoints, censoring, loss to follow-up, and impact on quality of life. We examine the design, reporting, and outcomes of US Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs for solid tumors.
methodsWe searched Food and Drug Administration (neo)adjuvant approvals for solid tumors 2010-2023 with time-to-event endpoints. Trial characteristics, endpoints, and censoring were evaluated descriptively. Statistical designs and sample size calculations were assessed for reproducibility and transparency.
resultsA total of 24 studies supporting 25 approvals met inclusion criteria. Common tumor types included melanoma (7 of 24, 29%), breast (6 of 24, 25%), and non-small cell lung cancer (6 of 24, 25%). Among 21 trials reporting overall survival, 52% (11 of 21) showed benefit at any time, but only 36% (4 of 11) reported overall survival benefits at the time of approval and/or primary publication. In 21 (88%) trials the expected number of events could be reproduced, in 11 (46%) trials sample size calculations could be attempted (though calculations often differed), and only 14 (58%) stated expected absolute numerical outcomes. Censoring rules were applied inconsistently; only 36% defined rules adequately. Quality-of-life outcomes were reported in 79%, with 31% reporting clinically meaningful declines in one or more domains.
conclusions(Neo)adjuvant trials often lack transparency in sample size justifications and censoring rules. Approximately half demonstrated an overall survival improvement at any time, and one-third showed a decline in quality of life. Greater standardization in trial designs and reporting is needed to ensure trials align with patient and health-care priorities.
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.