Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42542683›Full record

ReviewESMO real world data and digital oncology2026

Real-world evidence for the postmarket surveillance of cancer medicines: opportunities and challenges using Australia's population-based cancer registries.

B Daniels, N S Meagher, J Ruiz, C M Vajdic, P Gibbs, S J Lord, C Williams, A Wilson, N Pratt, S-A Pearson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

B DanielsMedicines Intelligence Research Program, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW)-Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
N S MeagherMedicines Intelligence Research Program, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW)-Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
J RuizMedicines Intelligence Research Program, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW)-Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
C M VajdicThe Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
P GibbsPersonalised Oncology, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia.
S J LordThe National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
C WilliamsPersonalised Oncology, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia.
A WilsonLeeder Centre for Health Policy, Economics and Data, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
N PrattQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, School of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, Adelaide University, Adelaide, Australia.
S-A PearsonMedicines Intelligence Research Program, School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW)-Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spending on cancer medicines has increased rapidly worldwide, driven by the introduction of immunotherapy and targeted therapy. Australia exemplifies this trend, with cancer medicines representing one of the largest and fastest-growing areas of expenditure for Australia's public medicines funder, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. While this growth reflects therapeutic innovation and expanded clinical use, it has intensified concerns around the real-world safety, effectiveness, and value of novel therapies once adopted into routine care. Randomised clinical trials remain essential for regulatory approval but often provide limited insight into outcomes in broader, more heterogeneous populations, particularly as many therapies enter practice via accelerated pathways based on surrogate endpoints. Population-based cancer registries offer an important resource for postmarket surveillance when linked with national administrative datasets such as dispensing and hospitalisations records. However, limitations in registries' timeliness, disease stage ascertainment, biomarker and genomic data capture, and information on recurrence and progression constrain their current utility. This perspective examines the Australian population-based cancer registry landscape, highlighting its strengths, untapped potential, and critical gaps. We outline priority enhancements required to realise a robust, whole-of-population cancer medicine surveillance system that can inform clinical practice, policy, and sustainable health care decision making.

Indexed as

administrative health dataAustraliacancer registrypopulation-basedpostmarket medicine surveillancereal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID42542683
PMCPMC13427659

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.