ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2022
The value of anticancer drugs - a regulatory view.
Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Review
- Advances in molecular pathology and therapy of non-small cell lung cancer.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2025Review
- Predictors of withdrawal of anticancer drug indications granted accelerated approval: a retrospective cohort study.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Understanding healthcare efficiency-an AI-supported narrative review of diverse terminologies used.BMC medical education · 2025Review
- Bayesian interim analysis for prospective randomized studies: reanalysis of the acute myeloid leukemia HOVON 132 clinical trial.Blood cancer journal · 2024Article
- The impact of level of documentation on the accessibility and affordability of new drugs in Norway.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Global Cancer Drug Development-A Report From the 2022 Accelerating Anticancer Agent Development and Validation Meeting.JCO global oncology · 2023Article
- Article
- Not All Canadian Cancer Patients Are Equal-Disparities in Public Cancer Drug Funding across Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
- May phytophenolics alleviate aflatoxins-induced health challenges? A holistic insight on current landscape and future prospects.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Review
- An Empirical Analysis of Anti-Cancer Drug Lags in South Korea.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The high prices of new anticancer drugs and the marginal added benefit perceived by some stakeholders have fuelled a debate on the value of anticancer drugs in the European Union, even though an agreed definition of what constitutes a drug's value does not exist. In this Perspective, we discuss the value of drugs from different viewpoints and objectives of decision makers: for regulators, assessment of the benefit-risk balance of a drug is a cornerstone for approval; payers rely on cost-effectiveness analyses carried out by health technology assessment agencies for reimbursement decisions; for patients, treatment choices are based on personal preferences and attitudes to risk; and clinicians can use several scales (such as the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS)) that have been developed as an attempt to measure value objectively. Although a unique definition that fully captures the concept of value is unlikely to emerge, herein we discuss the importance of understanding different perspectives, and how regulators can help to inform different decision makers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34873312What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.