Abstract
BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2021 conference provided a high number of randomized phase III trial reports, many of which were claimed to be practice changing. Given the short time available for conference presentations, results and conclusions tend to have greatest priority with less time remaining for study background and study methodology. PURPOSE: On behalf of the ESMO Practicing Oncologists Working Group, 11 potentially practice-changing reports were selected and screened for three main questions: (i) Did the investigators provide sufficient details with regard to Patients and Methods to make the results comprehensible? (ii) Were there any reasons to consider bias? (iii) To which extent did the results presented translate to clinical benefit? RESULTS: In 2 out of 11 trials, the study design presented differed considerably from the study design described at ClinicalTrials.gov. Allocation concealment was not carried out in 6 out of 11 trials. In none of the trials reporting progression-free survival was informative censoring considered an issue. In none of the trials reporting overall survival was desirable crossover considered an issue. Defined trial outcome measures depicted at ClinicalTrials.gov, which could boost or weaken the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale score, were often lacking in the presentation. Study success was claimed in a heterogeneous manner, which was often not clearly linked to overall clinical benefit. CONCLUSION: ESMO conference presentations can inform the scientific community and catalyze further research but cannot replace the full papers in peer-reviewed journals, which are needed to estimate the thoroughness of the results, the overall impact on clinical benefit and the consequences for future treatment guidelines.