ArticleESMO open2023
Single-arm trials supporting the approval of anticancer medicinal products in the European Union: contextualization of trial results and observed clinical benefit.
Article in ESMO open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Repurposing Registries: Completeness of Real-World Data for Regulatory and HTA Purposes in Three Cancer-Focused Registries.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Toward Fit-for-Purpose Data for Drug Assessment in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Core Dataset.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Use of real-world evidence in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency approvals of oncology products supported by single-arm trials (2022-2025).The oncologist · 2026Article
- Challenges and Potential Solutions to Advance Global Cancer Drug Development.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Review
- Challenges and Criteria for Single-Arm Trials Leading to an Added Benefit in German Health Technology Assessments.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Overcoming barriers to advanced biomolecular technologies that inform treatment of solid tumors: a roadmap to access.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Review
- Single-arm interventional versus observational studies for assessing efficacy: A meta-epidemiological study.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Augmenting external control arms using Bayesian borrowing: a case study in first-line non-small cell lung cancer.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2024Article
- Harnessing the Potential of Real-World Evidence in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Where Do We Stand?Current treatment options in oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-arm trials (SATs) can sometimes be used to support marketing authorization of anticancer medicinal products in the European Union. The level and durability of antitumor activity of the product as well as context are important aspects to determine the relevance of trial results. The aim of this study is to provide details on the contextualization of trial results and to evaluate the magnitude of benefit of medicinal products approved based on SATs. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe focused on anticancer medicinal products for solid tumors approved on the basis of SAT results (2012-2021). Data were retrieved from European public assessment reports and/or published literature. The benefit of these medicinal products was evaluated via the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS).
resultsEighteen medicinal products were approved based on 21 SATs-few medicinal products were supported by >1 SAT. For the majority of clinical trials, a clinically relevant treatment effect was (pre)specified (71.4%) and most often an accompanying sample size calculation was provided. For 10 studies, each testing a different medicinal product, a justification for the threshold for a clinically relevant treatment effect could be identified. At least 12 out of 18 applications included information to facilitate the contextualization of trial results, including six supportive studies. Of the pivotal SATs analyzed (n = 21), three were assigned an ESMO-MCBS score of 4, which corresponds to 'substantial' benefit.
conclusionsThe clinical relevance of the treatment effects shown by medicinal products for solid tumors tested in SATs is dependent on the effect size and context. To better facilitate regulatory decision making, prespecifying and motivating a clinically relevant effect and aligning the sample size to that effect is important. External controls may facilitate in the contextualization process, but the associated limitations must be addressed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.