ArticleJAMA network open2022
Cancer Therapy Approval Timings, Review Speed, and Publication of Pivotal Registration Trials in the US and Europe, 2010-2019.
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.
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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Regulatory and clinical outcomes of priority-reviewed innovative cancer drugs in China between 2015 and 2024: an observational study.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Redefining Regulatory Proof: The End of the Two-Trial Paradigm.Fundamental & clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
- International approval of Chinese pharmaceuticals: a USA-anchored analysis with comparative insights from Europe and other markets.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Privacy rights and improving knowledge are not hierarchical needs: data protection and good epidemiologic standard (DP_GOES) checklist for retrospective observational studies using secondary data.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Accelerating cancer therapy review: a cross-sectional analysis of expedited approval in China, 2005-2021.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- FDA first to global follow-on: alignment in expedited oncology approvals across EMA, TGA, and PMDA.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- A mixed-methods evaluation of the quantitative and perceived impact of Brexit on UK oncology clinical trial initiation between 2011 and 2020.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Article
- Patient Preferences for Treatment in Relapsed/Refractory Acute Leukemia: A Multinational Discrete Choice Experiment.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Comparison of drug approvals of the FDA and EMA between 2013 and 2023.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Global research progress in antibody-drug conjugates for solid tumors: Bibliometrics and visualized analysis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Review
- Article
- Advances in Precision Oncology: From Molecular Profiling to Regulatory-Approved Targeted Therapies.Cancers · 2025Review
- Regulatory Disparities Between US Accelerated Approval and Japanese Authorization of Oncology Drugs: An Analysis of Evidence Quality.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Current landscape of innovative drug development and regulatory support in China.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025Review
- Public perceptions of high-cost cancer drugs and the implications for reimbursement decisions.Health economics review · 2025Article
- Predictors of withdrawal of anticancer drug indications granted accelerated approval: a retrospective cohort study.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Cancer drug applications to the EMA and the FDA: A comparison of new drugs and extension of indication in terms of approval decisions and time in review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- New systemic treatment paradigms in advanced biliary tract cancer and variations in patient access across Europe.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Review
- Article
- FGFR-Altered Urothelial Carcinoma: Resistance Mechanisms and Therapeutic Strategies.Targeted oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.