ArticleJAMA network open2020
Clinical Trial Evidence Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Cancer Therapies Between 2000 and 2016.
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.
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
44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Association Between Survival Benefits of Anticancer Drugs and Probability of US Food and Drug Administration Approval: A Systematic Review.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for locoregionally advanced, recurrent and metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review of phase III randomised controlled trials.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Trial
- Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Regulatory Convergence in Cell and Gene Therapy: Harmonizing Quality, CMC, and Approval Pathways Across the FDA, EMA, PMDA, and Emerging Markets.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2026Review
- Real-world evidence for the postmarket surveillance of cancer medicines: opportunities and challenges using Australia's population-based cancer registries.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
- Post-Marketing Requirements for Anticancer Drugs Approved in Japan, 2001-2024: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 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
- Article
- The Impact of Survival Benefit and Study Design on FDA Approval for Anticancer Drugs Over the Past Decades.Journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Real-World Data Confirm That the Integration of Deuterium Depletion into Conventional Cancer Therapy Multiplies the Survival Probability of Patients.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Trends in complexity of single-agent and combination therapies for solid tumor cancers approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Article
- Strength of clinical evidence supporting the United States Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approvals from 2015 to 2022.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- The impact of different censoring methods for analyzing survival using real-world data with linked mortality information: a simulation study.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Mitochondrial-Stem Cell Connection: Providing Additional Explanations for Understanding Cancer.Metabolites · 2024Article
- Rapid access to innovative medicinal products while ensuring relevant health technology assessment. Position of the French National Authority for Health.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2024Article
- Cardiovascular Interventions in Patients With Active and Advanced Malignancy: An Updated Review.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2024Review
- Progress in the Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease Is Needed - Position Statement of European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium (EADC) Investigators.The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease · 2024Article
- Uptake and availability of new outpatient cancer medicines in 2010-2021 in Nordic countries - survey of competent authorities.BMC health services research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.