ArticleThe oncologist2026
The insufficient publication of early-phase clinical trials in oncology.
Article in The oncologist, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEarly-phase oncology clinical trials are often underrepresented in studies regarding publication of trial results. This study investigated the publication status of early-phase clinical trials, focusing on trials of compounds discontinued in clinical development.
methodsTwo retrospective cohorts were formed: one included early-phase trials supporting European Medicines Agency marketing authorization applications (2017-2020), while the second cohort included early-phase trials of discontinued compounds. Trials were matched with database registry and their corresponding publications.
resultsThe first cohort consisted of 73 trials. Nine ongoing trials were excluded. No full publication or full report was found for 11% (n = 7/64) of trials. Median time from registered closure date to publication of trial results as full publication or full report was 109 days (IQR -733 to 597). Trials sponsored by large-size firms (HR 2.25 [95% CI, 1.23-4.1]), with >100 patients (HR 2.15 [95% CI, 1.19-3.88]) and duration >2 years (HR 6.83 [95% CI, 3.03-14.38]) were more likely to be published. The cohort with discontinued compounds consisted of 66 clinical trials. After exclusion of 9 ongoing trials, 39% (n = 22/57) lacked full publication or full report. Median time from registered closure date to publication of trial results as full publication or full report was 693 days (IQR 406-963). No covariates influencing publication status were found.
conclusionsTimely and complete publication of early-phase clinical trial results remains inadequate. Forty percent of trials with discontinued drugs are not publicly reported, and even among approved compounds, 11% of early-phase trial results cannot be found in the public domain.
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.