Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41640679›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025

Trends in oncology marketing applications in the European Union: a five-year systematic review.

Ricardo Basto, Siddartha Karaya, Alex Zwiers

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Ricardo BastoZwiers Regulatory Consultancy, a Part of ProductLife Group, Oss, Netherlands.
Siddartha KarayaZwiers Regulatory Consultancy, a Part of ProductLife Group, Oss, Netherlands.
Alex ZwiersZwiers Regulatory Consultancy, a Part of ProductLife Group, Oss, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the European Union, before cancer medicines containing a new active substance become available to patients, they must undergo a rigorous authorization process through the Centralized Procedure. This study examines trends in oncology Marketing Authorization Applications (MAAs) over the past 5 years. Oncology MAAs from January 2020 to January 2025 were used to collect and analyze publicly available data. The number of MAAs, therapeutic indications, company and product characteristics, scientific advice (SA), orphan designation (OD)/expedited programs, and overall procedural time were analyzed. A total of 60 MAAs were identified. During the reporting period, only three MAAs received negative opinions; however, two were reverted to positive after re-examination. Blood cancers were the main therapeutic indication. The typical profile of a MAA was as follows: a large-sized company holder (72%); monoclonal antibody (mAb) (31%); SA requested (92%); under OD at both time points: at the moment of application (60%) and at the moment of receiving the opinion by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (67% of the initial number of MAAs under OD); not granted any expedited program (57%); and with an average total procedure time of about 348 days. Additionally, procedural time analysis revealed shorter timelines for MAAs under the accelerated assessment (AA) program and those that obtained SA. Oncology MAAs have increased over the years, particularly for mAbs and blood cancer indications. Large-sized companies were the main MAA holders. Additionally, the SA and AA program might have demonstrated a positive impact in reducing procedural time.

Indexed as

Accelerated assessmentand Orphan designationcancerconditional marketing authorizationdrugsEuropean Unionscientific advice

Identifiers

PMID41640679
PMCPMC12865204

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.