ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2025
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.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Critical analysis of withdrawn drug applications in marketing authorization procedures of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 2006-2024.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) - An analysis of the global regulatory status.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Regulatory challenges and current policy for cardiotoxicity detection in oncology drug development.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
- Pharmaceutical 3D Printing for Psychiatric Medications: Advanced Innovations in Taste Masking and Personalized Oral Drug Delivery.Pharmaceutical research · 2025Review
- Repurposing Metformin in Precision Oncology: Mechanistic Insights, Biomarker-Guided Strategies, and Translational Imperatives.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe aim of this study was to compare the final approval decision and time from submission to final decision for new drug applications and applications for extension of indications to the EMA and the FDA within cancer drugs.
methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis on antineoplastic drug applications with a final decision in both the EMA and the FDA from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2022. For each included drug application, we collected data from the EMA website and the Drugs@FDA database.
resultsA total of 48 new drug applications and 94 applications for extension were included. Agreement in the final decision between the EMA and the FDA was found in 94% of new drug applications and 96% of applications for extension. For new drug applications, the time from submission to approval in the EMA and the FDA were median (interquartile range, IQR) 424 (394-481) days and 216 (169-243) days, respectively. For extensions, the median time from submission to approval in the EMA and the FDA were 295 (245-348) days and 176 (140-183) days, respectively.
conclusionsWe found a high agreement in final approval decisions for cancer drug applications between the EMA and the FDA both for new drug applications and applications for extension. The time from submission to the final decision was markedly shorter in the FDA than in the EMA, albeit the difference was smaller for extensions than for new drug applications. The results indicate that the longer time from submission to decision in the EMA than in the FDA has limited influence on the final approval decisions.
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.