SynthesisThe oncologist2026
Overall survival in oncology phase III trials: an individual patient level meta-analysis (OPTIMA).
Synthesis 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Designing phase III oncology trials to demonstrate overall survival (OS) superiority may be challenging due to sample size, follow-up time, resources, and costs as compared to trials evaluating intermediate endpoints, which may or may not be reliable surrogates of OS. In this study, we investigate at scale the relative gains in OS achieved in modern phase III oncology trials using OS primary endpoints in OPTIMA, a prospectively registered, pre-specified meta-analysis leveraging a large assembly of reconstructed individual patient-level data (PROSPERO: CRD420251162778). After screening 1184 trials and excluding 937 without an OS primary endpoint, 159 trials enrolling 104 740 patients met the inclusion criteria. In the two-stage Cox model, randomization to the experimental arm was associated with improvement in OS (random effects HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.85-0.89; P < .0001). In the one-stage Cox model stratified by trial identity, OS was also longer with the experimental arm (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.90; P < .0001). Taken together, the data from OPTIMA should encourage renewed enthusiasm among trialists, funders, regulatory agencies, and policymakers for prioritizing phase III oncology trials evaluating OS primary endpoints.
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.