Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33170262›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Clinical Trial Evidence Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Cancer Therapies Between 2000 and 2016.

Aviv Ladanie, Andreas M Schmitt, Benjamin Speich, Florian Naudet, Arnav Agarwal, Tiago V Pereira, Francesco Sclafani, Amanda K Herbrand, Matthias Briel, Juan Martin-Liberal and 6 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Cardiovascular Interventions in Patients With Active and Advanced Malignancy: An Updated Review.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Aviv LadanieDepartment of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Andreas M SchmittMedical Oncology, University Hospital and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Benjamin SpeichDepartment of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Florian NaudetUniversite de Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, CIC 1414-Centre d'Investigation Clinique de Rennes, Rennes, France.
Arnav AgarwalDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Tiago V PereiraApplied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Francesco SclafaniDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium.
Amanda K HerbrandMedical Oncology, University Hospital and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Matthias BrielDepartment of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Juan Martin-LiberalMelanoma, Sarcoma and GU Tumors Unit, Catalan Institute of Oncology Hospitalet, Barcelona, Spain.
Thomas SchmidSt Clara Hospital, Basel, Switzerland.
Hannah EwaldDepartment of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
John P A IoannidisMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Heiner C BucherDepartment of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Benjamin KasendaDepartment of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Lars G HemkensDepartment of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Clinical trial evidence used to support drug approval is typically the only information on benefits and harms that patients and clinicians can use for decision-making when novel cancer therapies become available. Various evaluations have raised concern about the uncertainty surrounding these data, and a systematic investigation of the available information on treatment outcomes for cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warranted. Objective: To describe the clinical trial data available on treatment outcomes at the time of FDA approval of all novel cancer drugs approved for the first time between 2000 and 2016. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study analyzed randomized clinical trials and single-arm clinical trials of novel drugs approved for the first time to treat any type of cancer. Approval packages were obtained from drugs@FDA, a publicly available database containing information on drug and biologic products approved for human use in the US. Data from January 2000 to December 2016 were included in this study. Main Outcomes and Measures: Regulatory and clinical trial characteristics were described. For randomized clinical trials, summary treatment outcomes for overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumor response across all therapies were calculated, and median absolute survival increases were estimated. Tumor types and regulatory characteristics were assessed separately. Results: Between 2000 and 2016, 92 novel cancer drugs were approved by the FDA for 100 indications based on data from 127 clinical trials. The 127 clinical trials included a median of 191 participants (interquartile range [IQR], 106-448 participants). Overall, 65 clinical trials (51.2%) were randomized, and 95 clinical trials (74.8%) were open label. Of 100 indications, 44 indications underwent accelerated approval, 42 indications were for hematological cancers, and 58 indications were for solid tumors. Novel drugs had mean hazard ratios of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81; I2 = 46%) for overall survival and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.47-0.57; I2 = 88%) for progression-free survival. The median tumor response, expressed as relative risk, was 2.37 (95% CI, 2.00-2.80; I2 = 91%). The median absolute survival benefit was 2.40 months (IQR, 1.25-3.89 months). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, data available at the time of FDA drug approval indicated that novel cancer therapies were associated with substantial tumor responses but with prolonging median overall survival by only 2.40 months. Approval data from 17 years of clinical trials suggested that patients and clinicians typically had limited information available regarding the benefits of novel cancer treatments at market entry.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorClinical Trials as TopicDisease-Free SurvivalDrug ApprovalHematologic NeoplasmsHumansNeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignSurvival RateTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID33170262
PMCPMC7656288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.