annals-of-oncology

name	annals-of-oncology
description	Use when targeting Annals of Oncology (ESMO) or deciding whether a clinical or translational oncology study fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the practice-changing trial and ESMO-guideline evidence bar, reporting-guideline and registration requirements, ESMO house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. Venue-fit aid only, not clinical advice.

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>