Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
Placebo-response inflation in supportive oncology symptom trials: mechanisms, methodological challenges, and design implications.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Davis Mellar P, Kiselev Boris
Аннотация
CONTEXT: Placebo-response inflation is increasingly recognized as an important determinant of treatment-placebo separation in symptom-focused clinical trials. This issue is particularly relevant in supportive oncology and palliative care, where primary outcomes are frequently patient-reported and may be influenced by expectancy, symptom variability, trial conduct, disease trajectory, and regression to the mean.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the major mechanisms contributing to placebo-response inflation in symptom-focused clinical trials and evaluate their implications for supportive oncology and palliative care research.
METHODS: This narrative methodological review and conceptual synthesis examined evidence from meta-analyses, meta-regressions, methodological reviews, and cancer symptom-management studies addressing placebo-arm improvement, assay sensitivity, operational trial characteristics, expectancy effects, blinding integrity, regression to the mean, symptom variability, and disease-related moderators. Evidence was organized around mechanistic themes relevant to symptom-focused clinical trials.
RESULTS: Evidence across multiple therapeutic domains indicates that placebo-arm improvement is influenced by operational factors such as site number and recruitment density, psychological factors including expectancy and blinding integrity, statistical factors such as regression to the mean, and disease-related moderators including symptom chronicity, baseline symptom burden, and illness trajectory. Studies conducted in patients with cancer demonstrate that placebo-arm improvement can be clinically meaningful in symptom-management trials. These mechanisms may converge in supportive oncology and palliative care research, where subjective endpoints, fluctuating symptoms, multicenter recruitment, and expectancy-sensitive interventions are common. Collectively, the evidence suggests that placebo-response inflation should be viewed as a design-sensitive and potentially measurable determinant of assay sensitivity rather than as nonspecific background variability.
CONCLUSIONS: Placebo-response inflation represents an important methodological challenge in supportive oncology trials. Greater attention to recruitment density, site quality, participant expectations, blinding integrity, symptom stability, repeated baseline assessments, and disease trajectory may improve trial sensitivity and enhance the ability to distinguish true therapeutic benefit from nonspecific symptom improvement. Incorporating a mechanism-based understanding of placebo response into trial design may improve the evaluation of symptom-directed interventions in supportive oncology and palliative care.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the major mechanisms contributing to placebo-response inflation in symptom-focused clinical trials and evaluate their implications for supportive oncology and palliative care research.
METHODS: This narrative methodological review and conceptual synthesis examined evidence from meta-analyses, meta-regressions, methodological reviews, and cancer symptom-management studies addressing placebo-arm improvement, assay sensitivity, operational trial characteristics, expectancy effects, blinding integrity, regression to the mean, symptom variability, and disease-related moderators. Evidence was organized around mechanistic themes relevant to symptom-focused clinical trials.
RESULTS: Evidence across multiple therapeutic domains indicates that placebo-arm improvement is influenced by operational factors such as site number and recruitment density, psychological factors including expectancy and blinding integrity, statistical factors such as regression to the mean, and disease-related moderators including symptom chronicity, baseline symptom burden, and illness trajectory. Studies conducted in patients with cancer demonstrate that placebo-arm improvement can be clinically meaningful in symptom-management trials. These mechanisms may converge in supportive oncology and palliative care research, where subjective endpoints, fluctuating symptoms, multicenter recruitment, and expectancy-sensitive interventions are common. Collectively, the evidence suggests that placebo-response inflation should be viewed as a design-sensitive and potentially measurable determinant of assay sensitivity rather than as nonspecific background variability.
CONCLUSIONS: Placebo-response inflation represents an important methodological challenge in supportive oncology trials. Greater attention to recruitment density, site quality, participant expectations, blinding integrity, symptom stability, repeated baseline assessments, and disease trajectory may improve trial sensitivity and enhance the ability to distinguish true therapeutic benefit from nonspecific symptom improvement. Incorporating a mechanism-based understanding of placebo response into trial design may improve the evaluation of symptom-directed interventions in supportive oncology and palliative care.