ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2025
Evolving Recommendations for Patient Populations Among Oncology Medicines: A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
After a medicine has been tested in pivotal trials, regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) organizations, and professional societies make decisions about the patients best served by the medicine. This study assesses how the patient populations for oncology medicines (2010-2023) are defined (1) at trial, (2) regulatory submission, (3) upon approval for marketing authorization, (4) at submission, and (5) recommendation by the HTA, and (6) in clinical guidelines in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Based on 25 populations for oncology medicines, we developed a framework for describing oncology populations consisting of 20 elements in four domains: disease specifications, patient characteristics, treatment position, and exclusion criteria. In exploratory analyses, we tabulated any observed variation in these framework elements throughout the six steps in the lifecycle of a medicine. On average, 10 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.2-10.9) potential adjustments were made, 2.3 (95% CI: 2.0-2.5) by each decision-maker. The adjustments by pharmaceutical developers focused mostly on the disease specifications (0.5 of the average 0.8 adjustments, 63%), while adjustments by regulators, HTA organizations, and guideline developers predominantly targeted the treatment's position (range: 0.5/1.3 [36%] in guidelines to 0.6/1.0 [58%] in regulatory approvals). Each decision-maker on average modifies 1.0 element (out of 2.3 [43%]) that was previously adjusted by another decision-maker. The multiple differences observed in the description of patient populations reflect inconsistency in reporting between decision-makers, complicating communication to patients and potentially affecting access to medicines. The developed framework can support consistent reporting across stakeholders and countries.
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.