ArticleCancer medicine2018
The importance of greater speed in drug development for advanced malignancies.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-generated synthetic data for cancer research and clinical trials.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2026Review
- Impact of Market Access Delays on Time to Patient Access: Multi-Country Comparative Analysis Assessing the First Commercial Launch Indications for Five Oncology Medicines Across Europe and Canada.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- A 3-dimensional Resnet model for assessment of drug efficacy in 3D cancer models using optical coherence tomography.PloS one · 2026Article
- Surrogate end points in oncology: aligning drug development incentives and patient needs.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Correlation between tumor growth rate and survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with trastuzumab deruxtecan.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Generating unseen diseases patient data using ontology enhanced generative adversarial networks.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Quantitative Systems Pharmacology Modeling in Immuno-Oncology: Hypothesis Testing, Dose Optimization, and Efficacy Prediction.Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2025Review
- What Is Ailing Oncology Clinical Trials? Can We Fix Them?Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
- New Anticancer Drugs: Reliably Assessing "Value" While Addressing High Prices.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Mimicking clinical trials with synthetic acute myeloid leukemia patients using generative artificial intelligence.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Impact of Systemic Delays for Patient Access to Oncology Drugs on Clinical, Economic, and Quality of Life Outcomes in Canada: A Call to Action.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
- Timeliness of Health Technology Assessments and Price Negotiations for Oncology Drugs in Canada.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2024Article
- Synthesis, Computational, and Anticancer In Vitro Investigations of Aminobenzylnaphthols Derived from 2-Naphtol, Benzaldehydes, and α-Aminoacids via the Betti Reaction.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Beyond Participation: Evaluating the Role of Patients in Designing Oncology Clinical Trials.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- RAPID framework for improved access to precision oncology for lethal disease: Results from a modified multi-round delphi study.Frontiers in health services · 2023Article
- Determinants of the Cancer Drug Funding Process in Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Treatment Access, Health Economics, and the Wave of a Magic Wand.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Article
- Article
- Potential Life-Years Lost: The Impact of the Cancer Drug Regulatory and Funding Process in Canada.The oncologist · 2020Article
- Cancer drug development: The missing links.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It takes on average 6-12 years to develop new anticancer drugs from discovery to approval. Effective new agents prolong survival. To demonstrate the importance of rapid drug approval, we calculated life-years potentially saved if selected agents were approved more rapidly. As illustrative examples, we used 27 trials documenting improvements in survival. We multiplied improvement in median survival by numbers of patients dying annually and multiplied this by number of years from drug discovery until approval. For every year by which time to drug approval could have been shortened, there would have been a median number of life-years potentially saved of 79,920 worldwide per drug. Median number of life-years lost between time of drug discovery and approval was 1,020,900 per example. If we were able to use available opportunities to decrease the time required to take a drug from discovery to approval to 5 years, the median number of life-years saved per example would have been 523,890 worldwide. Various publications have identified opportunities to speed drug development without sacrificing patient safety. While many investigational drugs prove to be ineffective, some significantly prolong survival and/or reduce suffering. These illustrative examples suggest that a substantial number of life-years could potentially be saved by increasing the efficiency of development of new drugs for advanced malignancies.
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.