ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025
Analysis of Regulatory Botanical Submission Profile for Cancer Management from the U.S. FDA Perspectives.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nanocarrier-Enabled Delivery of Glucosinolates for Skin Cancer Prevention and Therapy.The AAPS journal · 2026Review
- TCM-Derived Small Molecules Targeting Metabolic Vulnerabilities in NSCLC: Ferroptosis-Centered Mechanisms and Emerging Cuproptosis- and Disulfidptosis-Related Vulnerabilities.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Phytochemical Composition of Clonally PropagatedMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Pinocembrin as a novel anti-cancer agent: Exploring preclinical evidence along with therapeutic potential.World journal of experimental medicine · 2025Review
- Mistletoe in Cancer Cell Biology: Recent Advances.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.