SynthesisClinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain))2026
Quality of Life Endpoints in Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancer Trials: Systematic Review of Inclusion, Challenges, and Implications (2020-2024).
Synthesis in Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)), 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
Abstract
aimAdvanced gastrointestinal (GI) cancers negatively impact patients' quality of life (QoL). Incorporating QoL endpoints is essential for holistic therapeutic assessment. This systematic review investigated QoL inclusion in advanced GI cancer phase III clinical trials and its associated factors.
methodsA PubMed search identified 3795 articles published between January 2020 and December 2024. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 80 trials evaluating novel agents or dosing regimens were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression was performed.
resultsOf the 80 trials, 60% included QoL as an endpoint, predominantly as secondary (68.7%) or exploratory (31.3%) endpoints; none incorporated QoL as a primary endpoint. Single-country trials had lower QoL inclusion than multi-country trials (41.9% vs 81.1%; aOR, 0.15, 95% CI, 0.04-0.53; P = 0.003). Studies in journals with impact factors >10 showed greater QoL inclusion (65.4%) compared to those with impact factors <10 (48.0%). Superiority trials had a 61.4% QoL inclusion rate compared to 50.0% in-inferiority trials. QoL inclusion by anatomic location varied, with biliary tract cancers having the highest rates (100%), followed by gastric and GE junction (78.6%), liver (58.8%), colorectal (53.6%), gastric (50.0%), esophageal (40.0%), and pancreatic (25.0%) cancers. Profit-funded trials incorporated QoL assessment more than those non-profit-funded (65.5% vs 45.5%). The EORTC QLQ-C30 was the most frequently used QoL tool, with 75% QoL assessment.
conclusionsOur systematic review highlights a critical gap in QoL integration. Multi-country trials, those in higher-impact journals, and studies involving biliary tract and gastric cancers demonstrated higher QoL inclusion, emphasizing opportunities to standardize QoL assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.