ArticleESMO real world data and digital oncology2026
Real-world data sources for pediatric cancers: a targeted literature review.
Article in ESMO real world data and digital 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pediatric cancers cause substantial childhood mortality and evidence gaps remain for rare tumors. Real-world data (RWD) can complement trials by providing long-term follow-up, broader populations, and external controls. We reviewed global pediatric cancer RWD to characterize sources and key data elements. Materials and methods: PubMed was searched (February 2015-February 2025) for studies referencing cancer databases or initiatives collecting RWD on patients aged 0-25 years. After screening 1666 records, 225 articles yielded 134 unique data sources. We extracted database type, geography, population, tumor/treatment coverage, and availability of demographic, clinical, and outcome variables. Results: Of 134 sources, 34.1% were pediatric-only. Most were in Europe (47.0%) or the Americas (18.7%). About 75% were population-based registries and ∼10% genomic/biobank resources. Age and sex were documented in >60% of sources; tumor site, histology, and stage in >50%; tumor grade in ∼30%; treatment modalities in 36%-40%; and survival in 61.2%. Race, medical history, and clinical outcomes (progression and response) were infrequently reported. Conclusions: Pediatric oncology RWD are numerous but concentrated in high-income regions and vary in completeness. Core demographics and major tumor features are commonly recorded yet sociodemographic detail and many clinical outcomes are often missing. Improving data completeness, quality assessments, and representation from low- and middle-income regions will strengthen RWD utility for research and regulatory use.
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.