ArticleESMO real world data and digital oncology2024
Real-world evidence reported for clinical efficacy evaluation in European Public Assessment Reports of authorised targeted therapies for solid malignancies: a comprehensive review (2018-2022).
Article in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Realising precision oncology through shared real-world data infrastructure.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2026Article
- FRAME: Framework for Real-World Evidence Assessment to Mitigate Evidence Uncertainties for Efficacy/Effectiveness - An Evaluation of Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Decision Making.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Article
- Characteristics and impact of real-world evidence studies in oncology: comprehensive mapping review of publications evaluating targeted therapies in solid tumours.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The role of real-world evidence (RWE) for clinical efficacy regulatory evaluation remains unclear. We aimed to assess and describe the reported use of RWE for clinical efficacy evaluation of authorised targeted therapies for treatment of solid malignancies in Europe. Design: We studied all authorised indications of targeted therapies for the treatment of solid malignancies granted by the European Medicines Agency between 2018 and 2022. Data were retrieved in March 2023 from European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). We evaluated the frequency of RWE use for clinical efficacy evaluation and its role based on the reported information in the EPAR, and assessed characteristics and risk of bias of published studies. Results: Out of 75 authorised indications identified, most related to the treatment of patients with lung (21.3%) or breast (20.0%) cacer, and to advanced settings (89.3%). The use of RWE for clinical efficacy evaluation was reported in the EPAR of 16 (21.3%) indications, tending to increase overtime (15.0%-35.7% in 2018-2022). RWE was more frequently considered in lung (37.5%) and breast (33.3%) cancer indications, for antibody-drug conjugates (60.0%), and conditional approvals (46.7%). We classified RWE's role as 'supportive' confirmatory evidence in 12 of 16 (75.0%) indications. RWE studies were mostly analytical (57.1%), non-international (92.9%), retrospective cohort studies (57.1%), and originated from the United States (78.6%). High or serious risk of bias was identified in different domains of most studies assessed. Conclusions: RWE was reported to be used for clinical efficacy regulatory evaluation in 21% of targeted therapy indications for solid malignancies, with an increasing trend over time.
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.