Observational studyCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2026
Identifying Factors Associated with the Acquisition of Multiple Indications for Anticancer Drugs.
Observational study in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the declining success rate of new drug development, lifecycle management strategies have become increasingly important. However, approximately 25-40% of approved drugs remain limited to a single indication. In this study, we compared drugs that obtained multiple indications with those confined to a single indication, aiming to identify factors associated with the acquisition of multiple indications. We identified anticancer drugs initially approved by US Food and Drug administration (FDA) between 2015 and 2020. This retrospective observational study includes 48 anticancer drugs for solid tumors. For each drug, data were collected on approved indications, sponsoring company characteristics, and clinical efficacy outcomes, including objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). The drugs were categorized based on the number of approved indications, and comparative analyses were conducted. No clear association was observed between multiple indication acquisition and factors such as mechanism of action (MoA) or company size at the initial approval. Since additional indications may be obtained through various approaches-including expansion to new tumor types or different lines of therapy-no consistent relationship was observed between specific strategies and the acquisition of multiple indications. In contrast, drugs demonstrating higher clinical efficacy and those initially approved for non-rare cancers were more likely to achieve multiple indications. The factors associated with additional indications varied depending on the approach, and only a limited set of factors consistently correlated with multiple indication acquisition. Notably, clinical efficacy and the tumor type at initial approval appeared to be associated with acquisition of multiple indications. These findings provide important insights into research and development strategies and may inform decision-making in pharmaceutical lifecycle management.
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.