Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Frontiers in Oncology · September 24, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Background Cancer clinical trials produce a substantial amount of research waste. The relationship between different study types, such as de-escalation and escalation studies, and research waste has not been studied. Methods This cross-sectional study reviewed phase 2, 3 and 4 randomized clinical trials of breast cancer therapy registered at ClinicalTrials.gov between 2011-2021. Research waste was defined as the presence of one or more of the following three features: nonpublication, inadequate reporting, and design limitations. Studies were categorized as de-escalation, escalation, or other treatment optimization studies, based on the interventions in the experimental and control groups. Results In total, 240 studies were included, including 15 de-escalation studies, 139 escalation studies, and 86 other treatment-optimization studies. De-escalation studies were more likely to be non-pharmacological (26.7%), national (86.7%), or non-industry-funded (73.3%). Escalation studies were more likely to have a palliative intent (71.2%) and a double-blind design (42.4%). Heterogeneity among the three study types was observed across the three components of research waste as well as study discontinuation. Overall, 113 of the 240 studies (47.1%) demonstrated research waste. After adjusting for study characteristics such as design and discontinuation, escalation studies were independently associated with an increased risk of research waste compared to de-escalation studies (odds ratio, 4.337; 95% confidence interval, 1.165–18.567; P = 0.028). Conclusion A substantial burden of research waste was observed among phase 2 to 4 breast cancer treatment studies. The burden of research waste varied across study types, highlighting the need for tailored strategies to mitigate waste. Given the limited number of de-escalation studies, these exploratory findings require further validation.