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.
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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.