(Neo)adjuvant approvals for solid tumors by the US Food and Drug Administration 2010-2023
Clicks: 8
ID: 328262
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
2.1
/100
8 views
7 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #298 of 357 articles by views in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 357 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
BACKGROUND: (Neo)adjuvant systemic treatments aim to improve overall survival (OS)_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 (QOL). We examine the design, reporting, and outcomes of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs for solid tumors. METHODS: We searched FDA (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. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies supporting 25 approvals met inclusion criteria. Common tumor types included melanoma (7/24, 29%), breast (6/24, 25%) and non-small cell lung cancer (6/24, 25%). Among 21 trials reporting OS, 52% (11/21) showed benefit at any time, but only 36% (4/11) reported OS benefits at the time of approval and/or primary publication. In 21 trials (88%) the expected number of events could be reproduced, in 11 trials (46%) 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. QOL outcomes were reported in 79%, with 31% reported 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 OS improvement at any time, and one third showed a decline in QOL. Greater standardization in trial designs and reporting is needed to ensure trials align with patient and healthcare priorities.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7212003423
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Consolacion Molto Valiente, Abhenil Mittal, Dongsheng Tu, Eitan Amir, Joseph Pater, Janet Dancey, Bishal Gyawali, Christopher M Booth, Brooke E. Wilson |
| Journal | JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/jnci/djag133
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.