2026-10-14T08:07:26Z https://api.figshare.com/v2/oai

oai:figshare.com:article/34010430 2026-09-28T06:46:37Z category_414 portal_316 item_type_3 month_year_09_2026

Table 1_Cancer prevention and interception studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: a landscape analysis of trial characteristics and reporting gaps.xls Martha Fors (22750862) Paloma González (22750859) Ariel Torres (22750865) Lisbeth Silva (25120527) Christian Siva (25120530) Epidemiology cancer interception cancer prevention chemoprevention clinical trial registries ClinicalTrials.gov premalignant lesions Background<p>Cancer interception has emerged as a prevention-oriented approach that seeks to intervene during early stages of carcinogenesis, before the development of clinically manifest invasive disease. However, the extent to which prevention and interception research is represented and classified in clinical trial registries remains unclear.</p>Methods<p>We conducted a cross-sectional, registry-based analysis of cancer prevention and interception-related studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov through September 2025. Records identified using terms related to cancer prevention, interception, chemoprevention, risk reduction, premalignant lesions, precursor lesions, and minimal residual disease were screened for eligibility. Study characteristics, including study type, recruitment status, participant eligibility, enrollment, intervention model, allocation, masking, cancer localization, study phase, and funding category, were summarized descriptively. Associations between categorical variables were assessed using exact tests when appropriate.</p>Results<p>Among 209 eligible studies, 157 (75.1%) were interventional and 52 (24.9%) were observational. Most studies included adults and older adults, and 52.6% were classified as completed. Among interventional studies, randomized allocation and parallel-group designs predominated, while most studies were unmasked. Gynecological and gastrointestinal malignancies were the most frequently represented cancer localizations. Funding was classified as ‘Other’ in most records, reflecting a heterogeneous registry category that could not be further disaggregated. Study type was associated with funding category (p = 0.028), whereas the association between study type and cancer localization was not statistically significant (p = 0.09, with a Cramér's V of 0.32). Among interventional studies, 54 (34.4%) focused on early detection and diagnosis, aligning with the registry's ’Screening’ and ‘Diagnostic’ fields. Cancer interception and post-treatment disease control accounted for 52 studies (33.1%) but lacked distinct registry designations, while 51 (32.5%) addressed primary prevention and chemoprevention, corresponding to the ‘Prevention’ category.</p>Conclusions<p>Cancer prevention and interception research registered in ClinicalTrials.gov is heterogeneous and encompasses distinct clinical objectives. Our findings highlight the need for explicit operational definitions and more granular, standardized reporting fields to improve the visibility, interpretability, and comparability of preventive oncology.</p> 2026-09-28T06:46:37Z Dataset Dataset 10.3389/fepid.2026.1943268.s001 https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Table_1_Cancer_prevention_and_interception_studies_registered_in_ClinicalTrials_gov_a_landscape_analysis_of_trial_characteristics_and_reporting_gaps_xls/34010430 CC BY 4.0