Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35687337›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Cancer Therapy Approval Timings, Review Speed, and Publication of Pivotal Registration Trials in the US and Europe, 2010-2019.

Mark P Lythgoe, Aakash Desai, Bishal Gyawali, Philip Savage, Jonathan Krell, Jeremy L Warner, Ali Raza Khaki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Redefining Regulatory Proof: The End of the Two-Trial Paradigm.Fundamental & clinical pharmacology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Comparison of drug approvals of the FDA and EMA between 2013 and 2023.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mark P LythgoeDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Aakash DesaiDivision of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Bishal GyawaliDivision of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences, Queen's University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Canada.
Philip SavageBrighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Jonathan KrellDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jeremy L WarnerDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
Ali Raza KhakiDivision of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California.

Funding

Network Analysis for a Data-Driven Approach to Cancer CareU01CA231840 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI WARNER, JEREMY LYLE · 2018 to 2020
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA231840
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Ensuring patients have access to safe and efficacious medicines in a timely manner is an essential goal for regulatory agencies, one which has particular importance in oncology because of the substantial unmet need for new therapies. The 2 largest regulatory agencies, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), have pivotal global roles, and their recommendations and approvals are frequently followed by other national regulators. Objective: To compare market authorization dates for new oncology therapies approved in the US and Europe over the past decade and to examine and contrast the regulatory activities of the FDA and EMA in the approval of new cancer medicines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study reviewed the FDA and EMA regulatory databases to identify new oncology therapies approved in both the US and Europe from 2010 to 2019, and characterization of the timings of regulatory activities. Statistical analysis was performed from January to April 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Regulatory approval date, review time, submission of market authorization application, accelerated approval or conditional marketing authorization status and proportion of approvals prior to peer-reviewed publication of pivotal trial results. Results: In total, 89 new concomitant oncology therapies were approved in the US and Europe from 2010 to 2019. The FDA approved 85 oncology therapies (95%) before European authorization and 4 therapies (5%) after. The median (IQR) delay in market authorization for new oncology therapies in Europe was 241 (150-370) days compared with the US. The median (IQR) review time was 200 (155-277) days for the FDA and 426 (358-480) days for the EMA. Sixty-four new licensing applications (72%) were submitted to the FDA first, compared with 21 (23%) to the EMA. Thirty-five oncology therapies (39%) were approved by the FDA prior to pivotal study publication, whereas only 8 (9%) by the EMA. Conclusion and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, new oncology therapies were approved earlier in the US than Europe. The FDA received licensing applications sooner and had shorter review times. However, more therapies were approved prior to licensing study publication, leaving uncertainty for practitioners regarding clinical utility and safety of newly approved therapies.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalNeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEuropeHumansUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID35687337
PMCPMC9187952

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.