ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025
Pharmaceutical Company's Choices of Indication for the First Clinical Projects in Oncological Drug Development in the United States.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identifying Factors Associated with the Acquisition of Multiple Indications for Anticancer Drugs.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We analyzed factors shaping the choice of the lead indication (i.e., cancer type) in the first clinical development projects of new oncological drugs in the United States (US), and how the type of pharmaceutical company is related to this choice. We selected 576 new clinical development projects in the US since 2000 for analysis. These projects were characterized according to three potential perspectives detected by multiple correspondence analysis: the morbidity of the cancer type which corresponds to market size of each cancer type, the company's previous experience with the cancer type, and the company's attitude to development risks. Mega firms tend to choose cancer types with higher morbidity (and large-market), previously experienced cancer types, while diverse small firms choose both major and rare cancers and both high- and low-risk projects, indicating that different sizes of firms utilize different development entry patterns. Common tendencies concerning the choice of lead indication were found across all companies. Cancer types the company had developed and launched in the past were more likely to be chosen; cancer types with high five-year survival rates and those with high competition were less likely to be chosen. The study showed that pharmaceutical companies seem to enter clinical development from cancer types where they can demonstrate their strengths and advantages through experience, depending on each cancer type's different market sizes and development difficulties. The results could provide clues for considering what support measures and incentives are appropriate to balance the efficiency of industrial development and the fulfillment of society's unmet medical needs.
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.