ArticleDrugs - real world outcomes2025
Real-World Evaluation of Regulatory Judgments on Anticancer Drug Use During Pregnancy in Japan: A Retrospective Analysis from 2004 to 2024.
Article in Drugs - real world outcomes, 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
backgroundThe administration of antineoplastic agents to pregnant women requires comprehensive evaluation of fetal risks and therapeutic benefits for the mother. In Japan, there has traditionally been a tendency to uniformly classify such cases as 'contraindicated' when reproductive toxicity data are insufficient. However, a shift toward a more flexible policy has occurred since the approvals of daratumumab and pembrolizumab in 2017.
objectiveThis study quantitatively evaluated the changes in regulatory decisions regarding the administration of antineoplastic agents to pregnant women approved by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) following review by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) of Japan since October 2004 to identify influencing factors and compare decision trends with those of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
methodsA total of 129 drugs approved by the PMDA and FDA were analyzed. The evaluation included classification of decisions (contraindicated, warning, benefit-based administration), annual trends (Joinpoint regression), and background factors (logistic regression).
resultsSince 2018, the proportion of drugs judged as 'benefit-based administration' increased to 82.5%. Significant positive associations were observed between benefit-based administration and the following predictors:more recent PMDA approval year, monoclonal antibody drug modality (vs small molecules), absence or presence offetal death, and absence or presence of reversible alterations. Fetal growth retardation showed a negative association with benefit-based administration; 'unassessable' classifications tended to act as a barrier to decision making. The concordance rate with the FDA was only 12.4%, suggesting systematic differences in decision-making approaches.
conclusionIn recent years, the PMDA has adopted a more flexible approach that prioritizes clinical benefit. Importantly, the presence of assessable information-rather than the absence or presence of risk-was identified as a key factor influencing regulatory decisions. However, this descriptive comparison did not restrict the sample to clinically similar drugs. Therefore, while the observed differences likely reflect regulatory tendencies to some extent, they may also be partially influenced by differences in drug background characteristics.
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.