ReviewJAMA internal medicine2019
An Overview of Cancer Drugs Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration Based on the Surrogate End Point of Response Rate.
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 73 papers, 9 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
73 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Risk-Benefit of Phase 2 Monotherapy Trials in Adult Solid Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of cancer · 2026Pooled 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
- Pivotal studies of pharmacotherapies approved by the US FDA for cancer treatment: a meta-analysis.The oncologist · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical Outcomes and Effectiveness of CRLX101 for Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Current medicinal chemistry · 2025Pooled it
- Objective Response Predicts Survival in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Systemic Therapies.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2022Pooled it
- Overall Survival Benefits of Cancer Drugs Approved in China From 2005 to 2020.JAMA network open · 2022Pooled it
- New Drug Postmarketing Requirements and Commitments in the US: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.Drug safety · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Validation of Progression-Free Survival Rate at 6 Months and Objective Response for Estimating Overall Survival in Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2020Pooled it
- Main factors associated with variability in the assessment of the objective response rate. A re-analysis of the PHEREXA phase 3 clinical trial.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Trial
- What drives cancer clinical trial accrual? An empirical analysis of studies leading to FDA authorisation (2015-2020).BMJ open · 2022Trial
- Characteristics of clinical trials for non-small cell lung cancer therapeutic vaccines registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Trial
- Surrogate markers used as efficacy endpoints in NIH-sponsored clinical trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2026Article
- Therapeutic innovation in FDA-approved ophthalmic drugs over four decades: A 40-year analysis (1985-2024).Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Efficacy and Safety Evidence Supporting Cancer Drug Approvals in Switzerland (2001-2020): A Meta-Analysis of Pivotal Randomised Controlled Trials.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Clinical Utility of an Ex Vivo Functional Test in Personalized Cancer Treatment.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Article
- Modern Clinical Trials: Seamless Designs and Master Protocols.Cancer medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical Benefit and Global Regulation of Bispecific Antibody Drugs: A Cross-sectional Analysis.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2026Article
- Oncolytic Virotherapy and Immunogenic Cell Death: Mechanisms, Platforms, and Clinical Translation.Viruses · 2026Review
- Assessing patient risk, benefit, and outcomes in drug development: a decade of sorafenib clinical trials.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Approximately one-third of cancer drugs are approved based on response rate (RR)-the percentage of patients whose tumors shrink beyond an arbitrary threshold-typically assessed in a single-arm study. Objective: To characterize RR end points used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for cancer drug approval. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective review of FDA-approved drug indications in oncology from 2006 to 2018. Exposures: Data related to cancer type, line of therapy (first-line, second-line, or third-or-later-line treatment for advanced/metastatic disease), type of FDA approval pathway, trial design, sample size, and level of innovation were extracted. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the RR used as the basis for FDA approval. The secondary outcome was rate of complete response. Results: Eighty-five indications for 59 cancer drugs were identified, 32 (38%) received regular approval, and 53 (62%) were granted accelerated approval. Twenty-nine (55%) accelerated approvals were later converted to regular approval. Of these, 6 (21%) approvals showed overall survival benefit, 16 (55%) later established progression-free survival benefit, and 7 (24%) continued to use RR but gained regular approval. The median RR among the 85 indications was 41% (interquartile range [IQR], 27%-58%). Among them, 14 of 85 (16%) had an RR less than 20%, 28 of 85 (33%) had an RR less than 30%, and 40 of 85 (47%) had an RR less than 40%. The median complete RR for 81 participants was 6% (IQR, 2%-22%). The median sample size among studies leading to approval was 117 (IQR, 76-182; range, 18-1052 participants). Drugs with accelerated approval pending confirmatory data had lower RR compared with drugs that have completed most postmarketing efficacy requirements (median, 28%; IQR, 15%-50% vs median, 42%; IQR, 31%-58%; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: Many cancer drugs approved on the basis of response rate offer numerically low or modest response rates. Most premarket studies accrue more than 100 patients. Some of these drugs could potentially be tested in premarket randomized clinical trials measuring directly end points that demonstrate clinical benefit.
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.