ArticleESMO open2024
Clinical relevance of reports on early access programs for checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients: a French retrospective nationwide cohort study.
Article in ESMO open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo accelerate access to new drugs, France operated an early access program known as Temporary Authorizations for Use (ATUs) until 2021. We analyzed clinical reports submitted under ATUs for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and assessed their clinical relevance regarding the approval of ICIs in oncology.
methodsWe included all ICIs granted an ATU by the French drug safety agency, Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM; French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products), for patients with cancer between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020. We collected patients' clinical and pharmacovigilance data from ATU reports submitted by pharmaceutical companies and compared these data with those from corresponding pivotal clinical trials (CTs).
resultsThe ATUs provided early access to 5807 patients with seven ICIs across 11 cancer indications, 1 of which had no corresponding ATU report. Of the 10 available ATU reports, only 1 included all required data. Clinical follow-up forms were available for 40.5% of patients. Differences in data reporting prevented us from comparing serious adverse events between the CTs and ATU reports. Clinicians and pharmaceutical companies often disagreed on whether ICIs caused 163 permanent treatment discontinuations, with Cohen's bias- and prevalence-adjusted κ = 0.52, 95% CI 0.33-0.68. Although agreement was almost perfect for 93 nonprogressive tumor deaths (κ = 0.88, 95% CI 0.66-0.97), 29% of ATU patient deaths remained unexplained and were reported as unrelated to treatment by the pharmaceutical companies.
conclusionFrench ATUs facilitated early access to new ICIs for many patients with cancer. However, data attrition hindered effective real-world monitoring.
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.