Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42799946›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical medicine2026

Galenic Modification as an Alternative Strategy for Administering Oral Anticancer Drugs: Assessment of Bioequivalence.

Pauline Claraz, Cécile Pineau, Coralie Guillemot, Etienne Chatelut, Cécile Arellano, Florent Puisset

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical medicine, 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

6 authors.

Pauline ClarazUniversity of Toulouse, Oncopole Claudius Regaud, IUCT-Oncopole, Pharmacy Department, Toulouse, France.
Cécile PineauUniversity of Toulouse, Oncopole Claudius Regaud, IUCT-Oncopole, Pharmacy Department, Toulouse, France.
Coralie GuillemotInstitut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse, Pharmacy Department, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Etienne ChatelutUniversity of Toulouse, Oncopole Claudius Regaud, IUCT-Oncopole, Inserm, CRCT, Toulouse, France.
Cécile ArellanoUniversity of Toulouse, Oncopole Claudius Regaud, IUCT-Oncopole, Inserm, CRCT, Toulouse, France.
Florent PuissetUniversity of Toulouse, Oncopole Claudius Regaud, IUCT-Oncopole, Pharmacy Department, Toulouse, France. puisset.florent@iuct-oncopole.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3083-5784

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOral anticancer drugs have become widely used, improving patient autonomy and quality of life. However, patients with swallowing disorders, such as children, older adults, and patients with head and neck cancer or neurologic disease, often require galenic modifications (e.g., crushed tablets, oral suspensions) that may impact drug pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the impact of these modifications on bioequivalence and systemic drug exposure.

methodsA systematic research of regulatory documents and scientific literature was conducted on 96 oral anticancer drugs. Data were collected on bioequivalence or relative bioavailability between standard oral solid forms and alternative manipulated or liquid formulations. Chemical and pharmaceutical properties of drugs were assessed as predictive factors for bioequivalence.

resultsData were available for 39 drugs among the 96 selected for the study. The liquid form of 26 drugs did not meet full bioequivalence criteria: maximum plasma concentration (C

conclusionLiquid formulation and galenic modification of anticancer drugs primarily increases drug exposure, especially C

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.