annals-of-oncology

Annals of Oncology (annals-of-oncology)

Journal positioning

Annals of Oncology is the flagship journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology

(ESMO), publishing clinical and translational oncology — practice-changing therapeutic

trials, biomarker and translational studies tied to clinical questions, and ESMO

clinical practice guidelines and consensus. It favors **rigorous, clinically

consequential oncology research with direct implications for the systemic treatment of

cancer**, with a strong emphasis on robust trial design, validated biomarkers, and

relevance to medical-oncology practice across tumor types. Single-arm early-phase

studies without a clear development path, retrospective series with limited

generalizability, and purely preclinical work with no clinical bridge are a weak fit.

This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing aid; it is not clinical or

regulatory advice and does not replace the journal's current instructions for authors.

Before submitting, re-check the live Annals of Oncology author instructions.

When to trigger

• The author names Annals of Oncology for a clinical or translational oncology study and

wants a fit/framing check.

• A trial or biomarker study must be re-framed around a practice-changing,

medical-oncology question with translational grounding.

• The author is choosing between Annals of Oncology, JAMA Oncology, and a review-only

oncology venue.

• The author needs the journal's reporting-guideline, registration, and desk-reject

expectations for clinical/translational oncology evidence.

Scope & topic fit

• Randomized and well-designed therapeutic trials (systemic therapy, immunotherapy,

targeted agents, combinations) with patient-important outcomes.

• Translational and biomarker studies tied to a clinical question, including predictive/

prognostic biomarker development and validation.

• Practice-changing phase II/III studies and rigorous early-phase work with a clear

development rationale and signal of efficacy/safety.

• Real-world, registry, and high-quality observational oncology studies with robust

design and confounding control.

• ESMO clinical practice guidelines, consensus statements, and evidence syntheses

(typically commissioned or aligned with ESMO process).

• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses resolving a focused, clinically consequential

oncology question.

Method & evidence bar

• Trials must be adequately powered with prespecified, patient-important primary

outcomes (overall/progression-free survival, response with clinical anchoring, quality

of life); surrogate endpoints need justification and, where relevant, validation.

• The applicable reporting guideline and completed checklist are expected: CONSORT for

trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews, REMARK for

prognostic-biomarker studies.

• Trials require prospective registration; the registration number, protocol, and

statistical-analysis plan are expected; biomarker analyses should prespecify cut-offs

and analysis populations.

• Translational claims must be supported by validated assays, appropriate controls, and,

where possible, independent confirmation; preclinical-only work needs a clear clinical

bridge.

• Observational and real-world claims must address confounding, immortal-time and

selection bias, and missing data; causal language must match the design.

• Effect estimates need confidence intervals and absolute as well as relative measures;

toxicity/safety reporting must be complete.

Structure & house style

• ESMO/Annals format with a structured abstract; re-check current article types

(original article, ESMO guideline, etc.) and limits on the live guide.

• The introduction frames the medical-oncology gap; the discussion states the

practice-changing implication, the translational rationale, and limitations plainly.

• A CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA/REMARK flow diagram and checklist are expected where

applicable; tables/figures follow the journal's statistical-reporting standards.

• Supplementary material carries protocol, full statistical and translational methods,

safety detail, and additional analyses; a data-sharing statement is expected.

Official-submission checklist

• Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and

../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the ICMJE/EQUATOR and ESMO

anchors, then cite the current Annals of Oncology page you checked.

• Search the live site for "Annals of Oncology guide for authors" and follow the current

version.

• Re-check article types, structured-abstract format, and word/reference/figure limits.
• Confirm trial registration, the reporting checklist (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA/REMARK),

protocol/SAP, biomarker-analysis prespecification, and data-sharing statement.

• Re-check IRB/ethics and consent, ICMJE authorship and conflict-of-interest disclosure

(notable for industry-sponsored oncology trials), funding, and AI-use disclosure.

• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions

win.

Pre-submission self-check

• [ ] The study answers a practice-changing medical-oncology question with translational grounding where relevant.
• [ ] The primary outcome is prespecified and patient-important; the study is adequately powered.
• [ ] The correct reporting checklist (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA/REMARK) is completed and attached.
• [ ] Trials are prospectively registered with the number in the manuscript; protocol/SAP and biomarker cut-offs prespecified.
• [ ] Confounding, selection/immortal-time bias, missing data, and complete safety reporting are addressed; causal language matches the design.
• [ ] IRB/consent, ICMJE disclosures (including industry sponsorship), and a data-sharing statement are prepared.

Common desk-reject triggers

• Single-arm early-phase or retrospective series with limited generalizability and no clear development path.
• Purely preclinical or mechanistic work with no clinical bridge or translational endpoint.
• Surrogate endpoints presented as definitive without justification or validation.
• Missing trial registration, protocol, complete safety data, or the required reporting checklist.
• Underpowered or single-center observational analyses with overstated causal/efficacy claims.
• Unsolicited guideline-style reviews not aligned with ESMO process, or narrow scope without practice relevance.

Re-routing decision

• JAMA Network family or US-centric clinical-oncology framing → jama-oncology.
• Authoritative, commissioned clinical-oncology review or perspective (not primary data) → nature-reviews-clinical-oncology.
• Cancer epidemiology with a population/policy core rather than a treatment endpoint → the-lancet-public-health.
• Oncology imaging with an imaging-method core → radiology.
• Broad, practice-changing significance beyond oncology specialty → general medicine (jama / NEJM / The Lancet in the natural-science bundle).

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Annals of Oncology (ESMO)
[Specialty tags] <2–3 closest clinical/translational oncology topics>
[Study design / reporting guideline] <RCT-CONSORT / biomarker-REMARK / cohort-STROBE / review-PRISMA>
[Method/evidence] <power, endpoint, registration, translational validation — does it clear the practice-changing bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / registration / checklist / biomarker prespecification / ethics / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>