ReviewInternational journal of hematology2016
Regulatory approval pathways for anticancer drugs in Japan, the EU and the US.
Review in International journal of hematology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Economics of Drug Development: A Comparison between Orphan and Non-orphan Drugs.Current drug discovery technologies · 2026Article
- Observational
- Challenges of Systemic Therapy Investigations for Bone Sarcomas.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Flexible and Expedited Regulatory Review Processes for Innovative Medicines and Regenerative Medical Products in the US, the EU, and Japan.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Global Development of Anticancer Therapies for Rare Cancers, Pediatric Cancers, and Molecular Subtypes of Common Cancers.Journal of global oncology · 2018Article
- A comparison of new drugs approved by the FDA, the EMA, and Swissmedic: an assessment of the international harmonization of drugs.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan and the US Food and Drug Administration are responsible for reviewing applications and approving drugs, medical devices, and regenerative medicines. In the EU, the European Medicines Agency is responsible for the centralized authorization procedure of medicines including oncologic drugs. In this review, we discuss general pathways for the marketing authorization of oncologic drugs and other drugs in Japan, the EU, and the US. There are still unmet medical needs in oncology, whereas scientific innovation and clinical development in oncology are rapid and active, suggesting a reasonable scope for new regulatory schemes for expedited review. Because regulatory schemes are also evolving rapidly, clinicians and academic researchers may have difficulty following the updated regulations in other regions as well as those in their own countries. However, keeping current with new regulations is important for the conduct of translational research and clinical development of new therapeutic products efficiently. This review is intended to help an international audience better understand the essence of the regulatory frameworks for the marketing authorization of oncologic drugs in Japan, the EU, and the US.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27084259What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.