ArticleInvestigational new drugs2025
Association of different approvals with Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology recommendation levels for solid tumor drugs: a cross-sectional analysis.
Article in Investigational new drugs, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In China, many solid tumor drugs have been approved via the accelerated approval (AA) pathway. We extracted data regarding indications for solid tumor-treating drugs approved by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) between 2015 and 2023, along with their corresponding Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) guideline recommendation levels and inclusion data. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact tests, and t-tests were used to examine associations between NMPA approval pathways and CSCO guideline recommendation levels. The study included 92 solid tumor drugs comprising 191 indications. Sixty-three indications were approved via the regular approval (RA), and 128 were approved via the AA. One hundred fifty-seven indications obtained CSCO guideline recommendation level I, 28 obtained level II, and 6 obtained level III. No significant difference in the recommendation level was observed between the approval pathways. The average time for the indications approved via the RA to obtain the recommendation level was 2.03 months before NMPA approval. The average time for the indications approved via the AA to obtain the level was 6.66 months after NMPA approval. Compared with initial levels, 57 indications had their recommendation levels upgraded. Most indications obtain the CSCO guideline recommendation level I, with similar likelihoods across obtaining different approval pathways. Indications approved via the RA tended to obtain the CSCO guideline recommendation earlier than those via the AA. Given the limitations in data completeness and CSCO guideline coverage, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Clearer criteria for evaluating recommendation levels and standardizing rating procedures will enable CSCO guidelines to better support clinicians and patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40921945What 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.