Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41647784›Full record

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).

J W G Derksen, D Martins-Branco, A Valachis, A Pellat, S C M W van Nassau, A Aggarwal, G Pentheroudakis, M Koopman, L Castelo-Branco, S Delaloge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

10 authors.

J W G DerksenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, Department of Epidemiology and Health Economics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
D Martins-BrancoScientific and Medical Division, European Society for Medical Oncology, Lugano, Switzerland.
A ValachisDepartment of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
A PellatDepartment of Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology Unit, Cochin Hospital AP-HP, Paris, France.
S C M W van NassauDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
A AggarwalInstitute of Cancer Policy, School of Cancer Sciences, King's College London, London.
G PentheroudakisScientific and Medical Division, European Society for Medical Oncology, Lugano, Switzerland.
M KoopmanDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
L Castelo-BrancoScientific and Medical Division, European Society for Medical Oncology, Lugano, Switzerland.
S DelalogeDepartment of Cancer Medicine, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cancerEuropean medicines agencymarketing authorisationoncologyreal-world evidencetargeted therapy

Identifiers

PMID41647784
PMCPMC12836655

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.