ArticleESMO open2016
Between January 2009 and April 2016, 134 novel anticancer therapies were approved: what is the level of knowledge concerning the clinical benefit at the time of approval?
Article in ESMO open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Strength of clinical evidence leading to approval of novel cancer medicines in Europe: A systematic review and data synthesis.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2021Pooled it
- Should Patients Be Allowed to Pay Out of Pocket? The Ethical Dilemma of Access to Expensive Anti-cancer Treatments in Universal Healthcare Systems: A Dutch Case Study.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2024Article
- The Role of Regulator-Imposed Post-Approval Studies in Health Technology Assessments for Conditionally Approved Drugs.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Article
- Approval of Cancer Drugs With Uncertain Therapeutic Value: A Comparison of Regulatory Decisions in Europe and the United States.The Milbank quarterly · 2020Article
- Factors Affecting Usage Levels and Trends of Innovative Oncology Drugs Upon and After Reimbursement Under Taiwan National Health Insurance: Interrupted Time Series Analysis.Clinical and translational science · 2020Article
- Reimbursement Lag of New Drugs Under Taiwan's National Health Insurance System Compared With United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea.Clinical and translational science · 2020Article
- Pre-reimbursement: early assessment for coverage decisions.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2019Article
- Article
- Barriers for Access to New Medicines: Searching for the Balance Between Rising Costs and Limited Budgets.Frontiers in public health · 2018Review
- Adaptive Pathways: Possible Next Steps for Payers in Preparation for Their Potential Implementation.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2017Review
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
objectiveIn the last decade an increasing number of high-priced, new cancer treatments received marketing authorisation in Europe. What is actually known about the clinical benefit of those therapies at the time of approval needs to be elucidated in order to inform decisions about the use and reimbursement of these novel treatment options. Thus, the aim of the current analysis was to systematically investigate oncological therapies approved between January 2009 and April 2016 and extract as well as quantify the level of knowledge of the clinical benefit at the time of marketing authorisation.
methodsTo assess the benefit of new interventions as well as expanded indications, we extracted the median gain of the two study end points: progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Information is based on approval documents provided by the European Medicines Agency and assessments from the Austrian Horizon Scanning programme. We included all cancer therapies approved in Europe between 2009 (January 1) and 2016 (April 15).
resultsCancer drugs for 134 new indications approved since 2009 were identified. In the case of 37 indications (27%), no data were available for PFS or for OS. A positive difference in median OS was reached by 76 licensed indications (55.5%); 22 (16%) of them showed a difference of more than 3 months. Regarding the study end point PFS, an improvement was shown in 90 indications (65.2%).
conclusionScarce knowledge regarding the clinical benefit of anticancer therapies is available at the time of approval. In addition, the survival benefit of the approved indications is less than 3 months in the majority of approved therapies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.