ReviewJAMA internal medicine2019
Assessment of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval.
Review in JAMA internal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 135 papers, 14 of them syntheses 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
135 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of treatment efficacy of targeted therapies approved in China for non-small cell lung cancer before and after the introduction of accelerated drug marketing registration procedures.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Pooled it
- Association Between Survival Benefits of Anticancer Drugs and Probability of US Food and Drug Administration Approval: A Systematic Review.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: efficacy, safety, and biomarkers - a systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Longitudinal changes in the relative toxicity of FDA-approved oncology therapeutics: evidence from paired initial and updated RCT reports.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Regulatory and clinical outcomes of priority-reviewed innovative cancer drugs in China between 2015 and 2024: an observational study.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Correlation between surrogate endpoints and overall survival in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guideline Recommendations of Cancer Drugs With Accelerated Approval.JAMA network open · 2023Guideline
- Dual neoadjuvant blockade plus chemotherapy versus monotherapy for the treatment of women with non-metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2023Pooled it
- New Drug Postmarketing Requirements and Commitments in the US: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.Drug safety · 2022Pooled it
- Risk and Benefit for Targeted Therapy Agents in Pediatric Phase II Trials in Oncology: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis.Targeted oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Guidance for the Harmonisation and Improvement of Economic Evaluations of Personalised Medicine.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Pooled it
- Searching for potential surrogate endpoints of overall survival in clinical trials for patients with prostate cancer.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2021Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Bevacizumab in First-Line Metastatic Breast Cancer: Lessons for Research and Regulatory Enterprises.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020Pooled it
- Public opinion regarding U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of aducanumab and potential policy responses: A nationally representative survey.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2022Trial
- AI-enabled clinical trials.Nature reviews bioengineering · 2026Article
- Proposing a Coverage With Evidence Development Framework for Accelerated Approval at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Insights on postneoadjuvant treatment among patients with triple-negative breast cancer and residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy: can expert consensus help to interpret the current evidence?British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Post-Marketing Requirements for Anticancer Drugs Approved in Japan, 2001-2024: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- Patient Perspectives on Approval Speed vs Evidentiary Certainty in US Cancer Drug Approvals.JAMA network open · 2026Article
75 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) accelerated approval pathway allows investigational cancer drugs to be approved by demonstrating a beneficial effect on a surrogate measure (eg, progression-free survival) that is expected to predict a real clinical benefit (eg, overall survival). However, these drugs must undergo postapproval confirmatory studies to evaluate their actual clinical benefits. In an assessment of the accelerated approval pathway published in 2018, the FDA concluded that this pathway was successful because only 5 (5%) of 93 accelerated drug approvals had been withdrawn or revoked over the last 25 years. Objective: To compare the end points used in preapproval trials leading to accelerated approval with the end points used in the required confirmatory trials that verified clinical benefit and to update the outcomes of accelerated approvals with confirmatory trials that were ongoing at the time of FDA's review. Design, Setting, and Participants: A review of the literature on end points used in preapproval and confirmatory trials of cancer drugs that received accelerated approval and a review of the FDA's database of postmarketing requirements and commitments focused on the outcomes of confirmatory trials that were ongoing at the time of FDA's review of cancer drug approvals published in 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points used as confirmation of clinical benefit in cancer drugs that received accelerated approval, updated status of the confirmatory trials, and regulatory outcomes for cancer drugs that did not meet expectations in the confirmatory trials. Results: The FDA published a review of 93 cancer drug indications for which accelerated approval was granted from December 11, 1992, through May 31, 2017. Of these approvals, the FDA reported that clinical benefit was adequately confirmed in 51 and confirmatory trials for 15 of these indications (16% of the main sample) accelerated approvals reported improvement in overall survival. For 19 approvals (37%), the confirmatory trials used surrogate measures that were the same as those used in the preapproval trials. In this updated review, confirmatory trials for 19 of 93 (20%) cancer drug approvals reported an improvement in overall survival, 19 (20%) reported improvement in the same surrogate used in the preapproval trial, and 20 (21%) reported improvement in a different surrogate. Five confirmatory trials were delayed, 10 were pending, and 9 were ongoing. For 3 recent approvals, the primary end points were not met in the confirmatory trials; however, 1 cancer drug indication still received full approval. Conclusions and Relevance: Confirmatory trials for one-fifth (n = 19 of 93) of cancer drug indications approved via the FDA's accelerated approval pathway demonstrated improvements in overall patient survival. Reassessment of the requirements for confirmatory trials may be necessary to obtain more clinically meaningful information.
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.