ArticlePloS one2026
Expedited pathway portfolios, trial complexity, and FDA approval timelines in oncology and neurology: A comparative analysis.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
FDA expedited programs are intended to facilitate development and review for therapies addressing serious conditions with unmet medical need, but their use may depend on whether the evidentiary package is compatible with regulatory acceleration. We compared FDA original approvals in oncology and neurology from 2015 to 2024 to evaluate whether differences in approval timing reflected expedited pathway portfolio intensity, pivotal evidence architecture, or alignment between the two. We conducted a retrospective comparative cohort study of 195 original FDA approvals, including 136 oncology products and 59 neurology products. Product-level regulatory data were curated from FDA approval materials. Pivotal or registrational trials supporting first approval were identified from FDA labels and review documents and enriched through exact National Clinical Trial identifier matching to AACT. The final evidence dataset included 221 curated product-trial links. Regulatory pathway-portfolio intensity was summarized using a Regulatory Bundling Index incorporating Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy designation, Priority Review, Accelerated Approval, and Orphan designation. Outcomes included regulatory approval time, clinical development time, total time to approval, and pivotal evidence architecture. Oncology products had higher pathway intensity than neurology products, with median Regulatory Bundling Index 3 [IQR, 2-4] versus 2 [IQR, 0-3] (p < 0.001). Neurology products had longer regulatory approval time than oncology products: 362 days [IQR, 245-366] versus 234 days [IQR, 182-329] (p < 0.001). In contrast, clinical development time and total time to approval did not differ significantly. Neurology pivotal evidence was more often randomized, masked, and late phase, while oncology evidence was more often single group. Trial enrollment did not differ significantly. In exploratory counterfactual analyses, increasing neurology pathway intensity to the oncology median was associated with a median predicted review-time reduction of 37.8 days. Differences in FDA approval timing between oncology and neurology appear to reflect both pathway configuration and pivotal evidence architecture. These findings support a pathway-evidence alignment framework rather than a simple model in which more expedited designations alone explain faster approval.
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.