Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41794953›Full record

ReviewTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2026

Challenges and Potential Solutions to Advance Global Cancer Drug Development.

Axel Glasmacher, Kim Lyerly, Birgit Wolf, Pio Zapella, Lidia Zielinska, Emma Clark, Murielle Mauer, Bruno Paiva, Anja Schiel, Fergus Sweeney and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

13 authors.

Axel GlasmacherDepartment of Internal Medicine III, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Germany. glasmacher@uni-bonn.de.
Kim LyerlyCenter for Applied Therapeutics, Duke University School of Medicine, 203 Research Drive, Medical Sciences Research Building, Suite 433,, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Birgit WolfRegulatory Policy & Science, Bayer AG, Research & Development Pharmaceuticals, Müllerstrasse 178, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Pio ZapellaDebiopharm International S.A., Chemin Messidor 5, 1006, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Lidia ZielinskaMelanoma Patient Network Europe (MPNE), Fjallbo Selkna 152, 75597, Uppsala, Sweden.
Emma ClarkProduct Development Data and Statistical Sciences, Roche Products Ltd, 6 Falcon Way, Shire Park, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, AL7 1TW, UK.
Murielle MauerStatistics Department, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Headquarters, Av E. Mounier 83, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Bruno PaivaClínica Universidad de Navarra, Cima Universidad de Navarra, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IDISNA), CIBER-ONC Numbers CB16/12/00369, Pamplona, Spain.
Anja SchielRegulatory and Pharmacoeconomic Statistics, Norwegian Medical Products Agency (NOMA: HTA and General Reimbursement), Grensesvingen 26, 0663, Oslo, Norway.
Fergus SweeneyCancer Drug Development Forum, Clos Chapelle-Aux-Champs 30, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Carin A Uyl-de GrootErasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Bayle (J) Building, Room J8-37, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062, PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marie von Lilienfeld-ToalInstitute for Diversity Medicine, Ruhr-University Bochum, MA-Süd, Level 1, Room 52, 44780, Bochum, Germany.
Jaap VerweijCancer Drug Development Forum, Clos Chapelle-Aux-Champs 30, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite recent advancements in oncology drug development, patient access to innovative cancer therapies remains inadequate. There is an urgent need for more patient-centric approaches, with meaningful patient input from trial design through to health technology assessment (HTA) consultation. Multi-stakeholder consensus calls for better representation of the diversity of the target population and integration of patients' preferences in clinical cancer research by systematically collecting patient-reported outcomes using standardized methods, and acknowledging trade-offs between survival and long-term wellbeing. Furthermore, the generation of insufficiently robust data for regulatory and HTA decision-making continue to delay patient access to innovation. This could be mitigated through smarter study designs, including smaller, fit-for-purpose randomized studies and prospectively designed trials. Finally, concerted efforts are required to develop and validate novel intermediate/surrogate endpoints that enable earlier assessment of treatment outcomes to facilitate timely, evidence-based decisions that improve the patient experience across the cancer care continuum.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsDrug DevelopmentNeoplasmsHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresResearch DesignTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalAntineoplastic AgentsHealth technology assessment (HTA)Innovative trial designPatient accessPatient diversityPatient-reported outcomes (PROs)Precision oncology

Identifiers

PMID41794953
PMCPMC13110204

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.