ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025
Verifying Clinical Benefit of New Anticancer Drugs After Regulatory Approval Based on Exploratory Studies.
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. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Japan, anticancer drugs are often approved based on the objective response rate (ORR) when the conduct of a confirmatory study is difficult or expected to take a considerably long time. However, it remains unclear how frequently post-marketing confirmatory studies are conducted and for which indications they are implemented. We aimed to understand the status of post-marketing confirmatory studies for anticancer drugs approved based on ORR.
methodsWe investigated the status of post-marketing confirmatory studies on anticancer drug indications approved based on ORR in Japan between 2015 and 2022. In addition, we compared the status of post-marketing requirements and subsequent regulatory actions between Japan and the US for the indications commonly approved in both countries.
resultsWe found that 60% of the indications did not have planned confirmatory studies, with many receiving orphan drug designations. This observation is consistent with the Japanese regulations that allow the approval of anticancer drugs based on ORR, for which confirmatory studies are difficult to conduct or expected to take a long time. Indications received conditional approval in Japan were fewer compared to those received accelerated approval in the US, and post-marketing confirmatory studies were less frequently requested from the regulatory authority in Japan. Although the results of post-marketing confirmatory studies were often utilized in regulatory actions in Japan (including modifications to approved indications), no indications were found where these results led to withdrawal of approval or additional confirmatory study requirements, and the evaluations of the results were not disclosed when they did not lead to regulatory actions.
conclusionsTo facilitate smoother regulatory actions based on the results of post-marketing confirmatory studies, it would be beneficial to require the submission of the results of post-marketing confirmatory studies if it is feasible following the approval based on ORR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39928237What 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.