SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Evolution of clinical benefit in cancer trials: comparing pivotal approval data with updated efficacy.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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
Background: Many oncology drugs are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on interim analyses from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using immature efficacy data. Although expedited approvals expedite access, they create uncertainty about the durability of benefit and long-term efficacy. We aimed to systematically compare initial and updated results from RCTs supporting FDA oncology approvals, evaluating longitudinal changes in relative efficacy. Methods: All phase II-III RCTs supporting FDA oncology drug approvals from 2006-2025 that reported both initial and updated results were included. Relative efficacy (overall survival [OS] and progression-/event-free survival [PFS/EFS]) between groups was quantified using restricted mean survival time (RMST) ratio, with changes over time expressed as Ratio of updated-to-initial RMST ratio (RR). Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to estimate pooled effects and identify trial-level factors. Multiple sensitivity analyses, including those based on RMST difference (RMSD), were conducted to assess robustness. Results: A total of 165 RCTs were included. For OS, mean RR was 1.052 (95% CI, 1.029-1.063) and meta-analytic RR 1.023 (1.015-1.031, Conclusions: With extended follow-up, most FDA-approved oncology drugs with available updated data showed more durable survival benefits. Given the inherent selection of trials with publicly available updates and reconstructable survival curves, these findings should not be interpreted as a global validation of FDA approval decisions, but they underscore the need for dynamic, evidence-maturity-based oversight with ongoing reassessment and strengthened post-marketing surveillance.
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.