ArticleClinical and translational science2025
Bridging Gaps in Oncology: Comparative Analysis of Development and Approval Pathways for Anticancer Drugs and Companion Diagnostic in the United States and Japan.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-World Testing Landscape and Costs of Companion Diagnostics and Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Across Nine Solid Tumors in Japan: A 10-Year Analysis.Oncology and therapy · 2026Article
- Strategic Integration of Companion Diagnostics in Precision Oncology: Key Factors, Drug Development Timelines, and Regulatory Insights from U.S. FDA Approvals.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Molecular Oncodiagnostics in Precision Oncology: Integrating Tumor Transcriptomics, Patient Pharmacogenetics, and Ex Vivo Chemoresistance Testing to Improve Individual Chemotherapy Response.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- An analysis of FDA drug approvals for oncological hematological malignancies in relation to companion diagnostics.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
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
Companion diagnostics (CDxs) are essential in personalized medicine for oncology, where specific genetic mutations drive treatment decisions. Some differences remain in the regulatory frameworks and approval processes for CDx between the United States (U.S.) and Japan. Data were collected from public databases for CDxs and anticancer drugs approved between January 1, 2014, and August 15, 2024, in both countries. The analysis included both initial drug approvals and supplemental approvals to examine the characteristics of approved CDxs and anticancer drugs, identify regional differences, compare development and approval timelines of CDxs and associated anticancer drugs in both countries, and assess the factors influencing approval timelines. CDx approval has increased significantly in both countries since 2014, driven by next-generation sequencing technologies, with 96 anticancer drug indications approved with CDx in the U.S. and 61 in Japan. In the U.S., drug approvals often preceded CDx approvals, influenced by post-marketing commitments (PMCs), whereas Japan tended to approve CDxs and drugs almost simultaneously. The median gap between CDx and drug approvals in the U.S. was 0 days (interquartile range (IQR): 0-391), indicating a broader range and often longer delay compared to 18 days (IQR: -52 to 0) in Japan, with a statistically significant difference between the two countries (p < 0.0001). Logistic regression analysis revealed orphan drug designation was significantly associated with CDx-related PMC in the U.S. (p = 0.042). These results highlight the need for greater regulatory harmonization between the U.S. and Japan to streamline approval processes and improve patient access to personalized treatments.
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.