Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40687736›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025

Predictors of withdrawal of anticancer drug indications granted accelerated approval: a retrospective cohort study.

Ariadna Tibau, Edward R Scheffer Cliff, Alejandra Romano, Maria Borrell, Consolacion Molto, Aaron S Kesselheim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Ariadna TibauProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Edward R Scheffer CliffProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Alejandra RomanoOncology Department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Maria BorrellVall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Consolacion MoltoR.S. McLaughlin Durham Regional Cancer Centre, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada.
Aaron S KesselheimProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The accelerated approval pathway allows the FDA to approve drugs for serious conditions based on promising surrogate measures, with confirmatory studies required later. If subsequent testing shows an unfavorable benefit-risk profile, the indication may be withdrawn. This study aimed to identify factors associated with the withdrawal of drug indications following accelerated approval. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we identified FDA-approved drugs for solid and hematologic cancers from 1992 to 2022 and extracted factors present at the time of accelerated approval, including pivotal trial characteristics, outcomes, and confirmatory study initiation timing from drug labels and published reports. Clinical benefit was assessed using the European Society of Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), with high benefit as A-B/4-5 and low as C/≤2. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with drug indication withdrawal. Findings: Among 167 accelerated approval indications for 113 anticancer drugs, by August 2024, 102 (61%) had been converted to regular approval, 31 (19%) were withdrawn, and the remaining 34 (20%) were ongoing accelerated approvals. Of the 133 indications that were either converted or withdrawn, 52 (39%) were approvals for hematologic cancer drugs, and 41 (31%) supported genome-targeted drug approvals. Among 83 eligible indications, 46 (55%) were granted Breakthrough Therapy designation. In the 133 pivotal trials, 112 (84%) used response rate as the primary endpoint, and 66% (86/130) offered low clinical benefit on the ESMO-MCBS. In multivariable analysis, Breakthrough Therapy designations (OR 0.26; 95% CI, 0.10-0.75; p = 0.01) and indications for genome-targeted therapies (OR 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08-0.80; p = 0.02) were associated with lower withdrawal rates. Higher withdrawal rates were associated with low ESMO-MCBS scores (OR, 4.63; 95% CI, 1.50-14.33; p = 0.008). Interpretation: Accelerated approvals based on early data suggesting limited clinical benefit tend to have higher withdrawal rates, whereas therapies with Breakthrough Therapy designation and genome-targeted mechanisms are more likely to validate clinical benefits and achieve regular approval. Patients and healthcare providers should consider these factors when evaluating whether to use therapies granted accelerated approval. Funding: Alfonso Martín Escudero Foundation (to AT) and Arnold Ventures, the Commonwealth Fund, and Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy Research (to ASK).

Indexed as

Accelerated approvalCancer therapyDrug withdrawalEuropean Society of Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS)Food and drug administration (FDA)

Identifiers

PMID40687736
PMCPMC12273735

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.