Use of subjective minimizing language at hematology and oncology conferences: A systematic review.

Background: Subjective minimizing language in oncology conferences may undermine patient-centered care and hinder comprehensive treatment strategies. Subjective terms like "safe," "tolerable," and "well-tolerated" can vary in interpretation among individuals, making it difficult to compare results across trials and potentially downplaying significant risks and limitations associated with treatments.

Methods: This study evaluates subjective minimizing language in major oncology conferences and its use in adverse event reporting. We conducted a search of three electronic databases, ASCO, ASH, and ESMO, for published abstracts from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. This study included prospective cohort studies or clinical trials in humans that used safety terms like "safe," "well-tolerated," "tolerable," "no new safety signal," or "no new safety concern" in the abstract text.

Results: Out of 34,975 reviewed records, 5299 (15.2%) abstracts used subjective minimizing language terms. The analysis included 2797 (52.8%) abstracts meeting the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were Phase 1 trials (45.5%), followed by Phase 2 (29.6%) and Phase 3 trials (7.4%). Solid tumors accounted for the most common disease category (56.5%), followed by malignant hematology following (37.1%). Subjective minimizing terms like "safe" (69.2%), "well-tolerated" (53.2%), "tolerable" (25.6%), and "no new safety signal/concerns" (10%) were used frequently. Of the abstracts using subjective minimizing language (n = 2797), 81.9% reported data on any grade adverse events (AEs). Grade I/II AEs were reported in 62.6% of abstracts, Grade III/IV AEs in 78%, and Grade V AEs (death related to AEs) in 8.8%. Discontinuation due to AEs occurred in 11.4% (SD 9.5%) of studies using subjective minimizing language terms.

Conclusions: Frequent use of subjective minimizing language in major oncology conferences' abstracts may obscure interpretation of study results and the safety of novel treatments. Researchers and clinicians should provide precise and standardized information to avoid overstatement of benefits and understand the true impact of interventions on patients' safety and well-being.