Cancer prevention and interception studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: a landscape analysis of trial characteristics and reporting gaps.
4 affiliations
- 1Escuela de Medicina, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Las Américas Redondel del Ciclista Sin Número, antigua Via A Nayón, Quito, Pichincha, Ecuador.
- 2Biblioteca, Universidad de Las Américas, Quito, Ecuador.
- 3Universidad Tecnológica Indoamérica, Quito, Ecuador.
- 4Universidad Nacional del Chimborazo (UNACH), Riobamba, Ecuador.
Abstract
Background
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.Methods
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.Results
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.Conclusions
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.
Related
- Representation of Surgery in Registered Clinical Trials for Brain Metastases: An Analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov Database
- Registered trials for healthcare-associated infections prevention in intensive care units, 2000-2025
- Registered therapeutic trials in adults with functional dyspepsia: a scoping review of design and registration characteristics.
- Clinicopathologic characteristics and molecular landscape for pseudomyxoma peritonei of appendiceal origin.
- Evaluating the landscape and characteristics of endometriosis research published between 1990 and 2024.
BibTeX
@article{fors2026cancer,
title = {{Cancer prevention and interception studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: a landscape analysis of trial characteristics and reporting gaps.}},
author = {Martha Fors and Paloma González and Ariel Torres and Lizbeth Silva-Guayasamín and Christian Silva-Sarabia},
journal = {Frontiers in epidemiology},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.3389/fepid.2026.1943268},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42910228},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Cancer prevention and interception studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: a landscape analysis of trial characteristics and reporting gaps.
AU - Martha Fors
AU - Paloma González
AU - Ariel Torres
AU - Lizbeth Silva-Guayasamín
AU - Christian Silva-Sarabia
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/28
JO - Frontiers in epidemiology
DO - 10.3389/fepid.2026.1943268
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42910228
AB - Background 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.Methods 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.Results 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.Conclusions 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.
SN - 2674-1199
ER -