Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37054504›Full record

ArticleESMO open2023

Single-arm trials supporting the approval of anticancer medicinal products in the European Union: contextualization of trial results and observed clinical benefit.

J Mulder, S Teerenstra, P B van Hennik, A M G Pasmooij, V Stoyanova-Beninska, E E Voest, A de Boer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

7 authors.

J MulderDutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.mulder@cbg-meb.nl.
S TeerenstraDutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department for Health Evidence, Biostatistics Section, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
P B van HennikDutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
A M G PasmooijDutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
V Stoyanova-BeninskaDutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E E VoestThe Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Oncode Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A de BoerDutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Antineoplastic AgentsNeoplasmsEuropean UnionHumansMedical OncologyAntineoplastic Agentsclinical benefitcontextualizationEuropean Medicines Agencyoncologysingle-arm trials

Identifiers

PMID37054504
PMCPMC10163162

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.