Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40468097›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025

Analysis of Regulatory Botanical Submission Profile for Cancer Management from the U.S. FDA Perspectives.

Jin-Young K Park, Daniel Lee, Lixin Rui, Xiaoyue Gao, M Scott Furness, Charles Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Phytochemical Composition of Clonally PropagatedMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Mistletoe in Cancer Cell Biology: Recent Advances.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jin-Young K ParkOffice of Pre-Market Additive Safety, Office of Food Chemical Safety, Dietary Supplements, and Innovation, Human Foods Program, Food and Drug Administration, College Park, MD, 20740, USA.
Daniel LeeOffice of Oncologic Disease, Office of New Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Lixin RuiDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine & Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 4053, WIMR, 1111 Highland Ave, Madison, WI, 53705-2275, USA.
Xiaoyue GaoDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine & Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 4053, WIMR, 1111 Highland Ave, Madison, WI, 53705-2275, USA.
M Scott FurnessOffice of New Drug Products, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Charles WuOffice of New Drug Products, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA. charles.wu@fda.hhs.gov.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received over 700 botanical investigational new drug applications (INDs) in a broad spectrum of therapeutic areas since 1984. The greatest numbers were for cancer management. The aims of our study were to conduct a first-time, in-depth analysis of the regulatory submission profiles for botanical INDs with oncologic indications, in comparison with non-oncologic indications, and to share our regulatory review experience of oncologic botanical drug research and development.

methodsThe FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) maintains an in-house database of botanical INDs that contains many data elements, including initial 30-day actions (safe-to-proceed, clinical hold, etc.), current regulatory status, primary purpose of the proposed clinical trials, and initially proposed clinical trial phase information by sponsor. The database provided internally validated regulatory submission information that FDA received between March 1984 and December 2020 for 254 botanical INDs with oncologic indications, as well as 485 non-oncologic botanical INDs.

resultsA higher percentage of the oncologic botanical INDs (69% versus 58% for non-oncologic botanical INDs, p < 0.01) received an initial 30-day safe-to-proceed designation to initiate the clinical investigations. One hundred thirty-seven oncologic botanical INDs were submitted to conduct phase 1 trials to investigate the safety and tolerability of their products, and 46 of these INDs are currently active. An additional 117 INDs were proposed to conduct phase 2 or phase 3 trials to assess safety and efficacy of oncologic botanical products, and 36 of those INDs are currently active, including 3 INDs in phase 3 trials. Most of the oncologic botanical INDs were for the investigation of specific solid tumors (71%) with more than one third of these related to prostate and breast tumors.

conclusionsDespite the scientific and regulatory challenges that FDA reviewers previously experienced, our analysis shows that there were over 80 currently active botanical oncologic INDs, including several in the late phase of drug development for cancer management. The implication of this finding is significant in that many clinical trials of botanical drug products intended to provide high-quality cancer patient care are in the regulatory pipeline.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalInvestigational New Drug ApplicationNeoplasmsPhytotherapyClinical Trials as TopicDatabases, FactualHumansUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationCancer managementDrug developmentFDA/CDER botanical submissionOncological applicationRegulatory experience

Identifiers

PMID40468097
PMCPMC12446141

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.