ArticleESMO open2026
Trends in EU regulatory assessment of oncology medicines.
Article in ESMO open, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring marketing authorisation applications (MAAs), regulators assess extensive data, identifying issues and uncertainties requiring clarification before a medicine reaches the market. Despite structured reviews, quantitative evaluation of regulatory assessment complexity remains limited, constraining systematic insights into challenges of assessments. MATERIALS AND
methodsFocusing on oncology, this study analysed the regulatory complexity of MAAs submitted to the European Medicines Agency, based mainly on the number of distinct issues raised during initial dossier assessment. Issues were disaggregated into quality, nonclinical, and clinical domains to identify primary drivers of complexity, temporal trends, and product- or pathway-specific differences. As a complementary measure, European public assessment report (EPAR) length was examined as the final public documentation of the assessment outcome.
resultsBetween 2015 and 2024, the number of issues increased substantially across all domains (+60%), most prominently clinical issues, driven largely by efficacy-related concerns. Advanced therapy medicinal products generated more quality-related issues, reflecting complex manufacturing, whereas tumour-agnostic indications elicited more clinical issues, consistent with paradigm-shifting trial designs. Conditional marketing authorisation, introduced to manage uncertainty, was associated with higher overall issue counts. Trends in EPAR length paralleled those observed for clinical issue counts, indicating that regulatory assessment complexity during initial review is reflected in the final public documentation.
conclusionsThe growing number of distinct issues raised during initial dossier assessment highlights a marked increase in regulatory complexity in oncology MAAs over the past decade. The measures capture both product-specific and systemic procedural influences, providing a quantitative foundation to inform resource allocation, process optimisation, and regulatory strategy.
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.