Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Informative censoring — a neglected cause of bias in oncology trials

Informative censoring occurs when progression-free survival is the primary end point of a randomized clinical trial and unequal patient dropout is observed between treatment arms owing to poorer tolerance of experimental treatment. Herein we discuss how informative censoring in the experimental arm before criteria for disease progression are met causes bias towards a positive result.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. Ranganathan, P. & Pramesh, C. S. Censoring in survival analysis: potential for bias. Perspect. Clin. Res. 3, 40 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Stone, A. M. et al. Research outcomes and recommendations for the assessment of progression in cancer clinical trials from a PhRMA working group. Eur. J. Cancer 47, 1763–1771 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fleming, T. R., Rothmann, M. D. & Lu, H. L. Issues in using progression-free survival when evaluating oncology products. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 2874–2880 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Shih, W. Problems in dealing with missing data and informative censoring in clinical trials. Curr. Control Trials Cardiovasc. Med. 3, 4 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baselga, J. et al. Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 520–529 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Piccart, M. et al. Everolimus plus exemestane for hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative advanced breast cancer: overall survival results from BOLERO-2. Ann. Oncol. 25, 2357–2362 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Templeton, A. J. et al. Influence of censoring on conclusions of trials for women with metastatic breast cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 51, 721–724 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sun, J. The Statistical Analysis of Interval-Censored Failure Time Data: Statistics for Biology and Health. (Springer, 2006).

  9. Sparano, J. A. et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy guided by a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 379, 111–121 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ethier, J.L. et al. Influence of competing risks of death on the interpretation of adjuvant endocrine therapy trials for breast cancer. Cancer Res. 79, Abstract P4-14-03 (2019).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ian F. Tannock.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Templeton, A.J., Amir, E. & Tannock, I.F. Informative censoring — a neglected cause of bias in oncology trials. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 17, 327–328 (2020).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer