ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
FDA first to global follow-on: alignment in expedited oncology approvals across EMA, TGA, and PMDA.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Oncology drugs often receive their first expedited approval in the United States, yet the degree of alignment with subsequent regulatory decisions in other jurisdictions remains uncertain. We examined concordance in evidentiary evaluation and review timelines between the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-first expedited oncology approvals and subsequent decisions by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). Methods: This study included all oncology drugs that received their first expedited approval from the FDA in 2019-2023. Subsequent EMA, TGA, and PMDA decisions were evaluated in pairwise comparison with the FDA. Concordance with the FDA was assessed for expedited pathway use, pivotal trial selection, and three analytical components (primary endpoint, target population, and data cut-off date (DCO)). Submission interval and review duration relative to the FDA were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Results: Among 36 FDA expedited oncology approvals, EMA (n = 28), TGA (n = 18), and PMDA (n = 15) granted subsequent authorizations through expedited or standard pathways. TGA showed the highest concordance with the FDA, retaining expedited pathways in 72% of cases and closely mirroring the FDA's analytical interpretations in the same pivotal trials. EMA maintained a similar rate of expedited use (71%) but often broadened target populations or used later DCOs (median +136 days). PMDA, in contrast, relied mainly on standard approvals (93%) with Japan-specific population analyses. Across all agencies, primary endpoint choice remained concordant with the FDA. EMA had the shortest submission lag (median 27 days), whereas TGA cases exceeded 600 days. All agencies had longer review duration than the FDA. Discussion: These findings highlight the need for international harmonization of regulatory frameworks and evidentiary thresholds to promote consistency in approval decisions and accelerate global access to innovative cancer therapies.
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.