ReviewDrug safety2026
Reassessing the Neoplasm Signal with Fezolinetant: Regulatory Inference, Mechanistic Plausibility, and the Case for Proactive Pharmacovigilance.
Review in Drug safety, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fezolinetant, the first neurokinin-3 receptor (NK3R) antagonist licensed for moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, carries an unresolved neoplasm signal. An imbalance in neoplasm events across the SKYLIGHT phase III programme, raised in 2023, has been set aside by regulators as a chance finding lacking a plausible mechanism. We reassess that inference on three grounds. First, exposure-adjusted incidence of non-benign neoplasms rises across placebo, 30 mg and 45 mg, at 0.2, 0.7 and 1.2 per 100 subject-years, giving a relative risk at the licensed dose of 6.6 (95% confidence interval 0.9-51.3); a published recalculation gives 7.83 by counting 13 organ-class entries rather than 11 affected participants. The imbalance is dose related but not statistically significant. Second, of the 15 references mobilised in the European regulatory literature review to support that position, 11 concern the neurokinin-1 receptor or substance P rather than NK3R, two report NK3R expression in oral squamous cell carcinoma without administering an antagonist, one contains no neoplasm data and one alone administers an NK3R antagonist, finding that it reduced tumour burden. The pharmacology of the two receptors does not permit the extrapolation. Third, four mechanisms merit evaluation: loss of KISS1-mediated metastasis suppression and dormancy control, compensatory neurokinin-1 receptor activation by unbound neurokinin B, loss of anti-angiogenic restraint and acceleration of lesions already present. None requires de novo carcinogenesis, so the short-latency argument is not decisive. We recommend structured post-authorisation surveillance, a periodic independent safety review and re-examination of the mechanistic rationale.
Identifiers
42873405What 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.