Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40408185›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2025

Analysis of 2023 World Health Organization cancer Essential Medicines List and concordance with resource-stratified guidelines.

Brooke E Wilson, Kristin Wright, Manju Sengar, Richard Sullivan, Sallie-Anne Pearson, Michael B Barton, Bishal Gyawali, Elisabeth De Vries, Lorenzo Moja, C S Pramesh and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Brooke E WilsonDepartment of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6557-7298
Kristin WrightDepartment of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0297-2041
Manju SengarDepartment of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, National Cancer Grid, Mumbai, India.
Richard SullivanInstitute of Cancer Policy, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6435-1825
Sallie-Anne PearsonSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sidney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7137-6855
Michael B BartonFaculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0112-0680
Bishal GyawaliDepartment of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7444-8594
Elisabeth De VriesUniversity Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8949-7425
Lorenzo MojaDepartment of Health Product Policy and Standards, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6680-6507
C S PrameshDepartments of Surgical Oncology and Administration, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, National Cancer Grid, Mumbai, India.ORCID 0000-0002-3635-0083
Christopher M BoothDepartment of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1505-0575

Funding

Research Initiation Grant from Queen's UniversityWorld Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) Essential Medicines List (EML) and resource-stratified guidelines both prioritize high-value medicines. We compared the 2023 EML cancer medicines list with global cancer statistics, examined the proportion of EML therapies recommended by resource-stratified guidelines, and identified gaps that merit evaluation by the WHO EML Committee.

methodsWe compared the 2023 EML medicines for adult cancers with cancer incidence and mortality data from GLOBOCAN 2022. We cross-referenced the EML with 2 resource-stratified guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN] and National Cancer Grid [NCG] of India) and evaluated preferred treatments in resource-stratified guidelines that were not recommended by the EML.

resultsThe 2023 EML included 64 cancer medicines for 219 tumor-specific indications. The greatest number of medicines are listed for leukemia (37/219 [17%]) and lymphoma (33/219 [15%]). Although some common cancers (eg, hepatocellular carcinoma) have no EML-listed medicines because of the low clinical benefit, we identified some cancers (eg, esophageal, gastric) with effective therapies that the EML Committee should evaluate for inclusion. Cancers with no listed medicines make up 34% of cancer deaths globally. Among EML indications with an NCCN resource-stratified guideline, 42% (35/84) and 73% (62/84) were recommended by the NCCN Basic and Core Guidelines, respectively. Among EML indications with an NCG resource-stratified guideline, 163 of 196 (83%) and 175 of 196 (89%) were recommended by the NCG Essential and Optimal guidelines, respectively.

conclusionsWe identified some effective medicines that should be evaluated for inclusion in the WHO EML. Prioritization of cancer medicines was similar between the EML and NCG India but discordant between with NCCN resource-stratified guideline.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsDrugs, EssentialNeoplasmsPractice Guidelines as TopicHumansWorld Health OrganizationAntineoplastic AgentsDrugs, Essential

Identifiers

PMID40408185
PMCPMC12505124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.