The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval
Open accessAbstract
Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) accelerated approval pathway allows investigational cancer drugs to be approved by demonstrating a beneficial effect on a surrogate measure (eg, progression-free survival) that is expected to predict a real clinical benefit (eg, overall survival). However, these drugs must undergo postapproval confirmatory studies to evaluate their actual clinical benefits. In an assessment of the accelerated approval pathway published in 2018, the FDA concluded that this pathway was successful because only 5 (5%) of 93 accelerated drug approvals had been withdrawn or revoked over the last 25 years. Objective: To compare the end points used in preapproval trials leading to accelerated approval with the end points used in the required confirmatory trials that verified clinical benefit and to update the outcomes of accelerated approvals with confirmatory trials that were ongoing at the time of FDA's review. Design, Setting, and Participants: A review of the literature on end points used in preapproval and confirmatory trials of cancer drugs that received accelerated approval and a review of the FDA's database of postmarketing requirements and commitments focused on the outcomes of confirmatory trials that were ongoing at the time of FDA's review of cancer drug approvals published in 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points used as confirmation of clinical benefit in cancer drugs that received accelerated approval, updated status of the confirmatory trials, and regulatory outcomes for cancer drugs that did not meet expectations in the confirmatory trials. Results: The FDA published a review of 93 cancer drug indications for which accelerated approval was granted from December 11, 1992, through May 31, 2017. Of these approvals, the FDA reported that clinical benefit was adequately confirmed in 51 and confirmatory trials for 15 of these indications (16% of the main sample) accelerated approvals reported improvement in overall survival. For 19 approvals (37%), the confirmatory trials used surrogate measures that were the same as those used in the preapproval trials. In this updated review, confirmatory trials for 19 of 93 (20%) cancer drug approvals reported an improvement in overall survival, 19 (20%) reported improvement in the same surrogate used in the preapproval trial, and 20 (21%) reported improvement in a different surrogate. Five confirmatory trials were delayed, 10 were pending, and 9 were ongoing. For 3 recent approvals, the primary end points were not met in the confirmatory trials; however, 1 cancer drug indication still received full approval. Conclusions and Relevance: Confirmatory trials for one-fifth (n = 19 of 93) of cancer drug indications approved via the FDA's accelerated approval pathway demonstrated improvements in overall patient survival. Reassessment of the requirements for confirmatory trials may be necessary to obtain more clinically meaningful information.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer
Gandhi, L., Rodríguez-Abreu, D., Gadgeel, S., Esteban, E., Felip, E., De Angelis, F., Domine, M., Clingan, P., Hochmair, M. J., Powell, S. F., et al. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1801005 · Cited by 6,607
Sunitinib versus Interferon Alfa in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma
Motzer, R. J., Hutson, T. E., Tomczak, P., Michaelson, M. D., Bukowski, R. M., Rixe, O., Oudard, S., Negrier, S., Szczylik, C., Kim, S. T., et al. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa065044 · Cited by 5,775
Overall Survival with Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma
Wolchok, J. D., Chiarion-Sileni, V., Gonzalez, R., Rutkowski, P., Grob, J.-J., Cowey, C. L., Lao, C. D., Wagstaff, J., Schadendorf, D., Ferrucci, P. F., et al. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1709684 · Cited by 5,357 · cited 1×
“+Surrogate outcome, same as preapproval trialb 19 (20)”
BackgroundPalbociclib and letrozole in advanced breast cancer
Finn, R. S., Martin, M., Rugo, H. S., Jones, S., Im, S.-A., Gelmon, K., Harbeck, N., Lipatov, O. N., Walshe, J. M., Moulder, S., et al. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1607303 · Cited by 3,007
Bevacizumab Alone and in Combination With Irinotecan in Recurrent Glioblastoma
Friedman, H. S., Prados, M. D., Wen, P. Y., Mikkelsen, T., Schiff, D., Abrey, L. E., Yung, W. K. A., Paleologos, N., Nicholas, M. K., Jensen, R., et al. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2008.19.8721 · Cited by 2,466
Blinatumomab versus Chemotherapy for Advanced Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
Kantarjian, H., Stein, A., Gökbuget, N., Fielding, A. K., Schuh, A. C., Ribera, J.-M., Wei, A., Dombret, H., Foà, R., Bassan, R., et al. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1609783 · Cited by 2,143
Finn, R. S., Crown, J. P., Lang, I., Boer, K., Bondarenko, I. M., Kulyk, S. O., Ettl, J., Patel, R., Pinter, T., Schmidt, M., et al. (2015) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(14)71159-3 · Cited by 1,900
Cohen, E. E. W., Soulières, D., Le Tourneau, C., Dinis, J., Licitra, L., Ahn, M.-J., Soria, A., Machiels, J.-P., Mach, N., Mehra, R., et al. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31999-8 · Cited by 1,709
Adjuvant Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab in Early HER2-Positive Breast Cancer
von Minckwitz, G., Procter, M., de Azambuja, E., Zardavas, D., Benyunes, M., Viale, G., Suter, T., Arahmani, A., Rouchet, N., Clark, E., et al. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1703643 · Cited by 1,411
Powles, T., Durán, I., van der Heijden, M. S., Loriot, Y., Vogelzang, N. J., De Giorgi, U., Oudard, S., Retz, M. M., Castellano, D., Bamias, A., et al. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)33297-x · Cited by 1,408
Cited by
Systemic treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: An EASL position paper
Bruix, J., Chan, S. L., Galle, P. R., Rimassa, L., & Sangro, B. (2021) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2021.07.004 · Cited by 380
Can we learn lessons from the FDA's approval of aducanumab?
Liu, K. Y., & Howard, R. (2021) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/s41582-021-00557-x · Cited by 104
Harnessing Real-World Evidence to Advance Cancer Research
Tang, M., Pearson, S.-A., Simes, R. J., & Chua, B. H. (2023) · Current Oncology · doi:10.3390/curroncol30020143 · Cited by 88
The Problem of Aducanumab for the Treatment of Alzheimer Disease
Alexander, G. C., & Karlawish, J. (2021) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m21-2603 · Cited by 47
Hey, S. P., Gyawali, B., D’Andrea, E., Kanagaraj, M., Franklin, J. M., & Kesselheim, A. S. (2020) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djz211 · Cited by 29
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Gyawali, B., Hey, S. P., & Kesselheim, A. S.
- Venue
- JAMA Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2019-07-01
- Volume
- 179
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 906
- ISSN
- 2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2947583588
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 34
- FWCI
- 49.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessment of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0462
- The paper
- Gyawali, B., Hey, S. P., & Kesselheim, A. S. (2019). Assessment of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval. JAMA Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0462
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.