The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 78 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13
Open accessAbstract
Objective To determine the availability of data on overall survival and quality of life benefits of cancer drugs approved in Europe. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Publicly accessible regulatory and scientific reports on cancer approvals by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2009 to 2013. Main outcome measures Pivotal and postmarketing trials of cancer drugs according to their design features (randomisation, crossover, blinding), comparators, and endpoints. Availability and magnitude of benefit on overall survival or quality of life determined at time of approval and after market entry. Validated European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) used to assess the clinical value of the reported gains in published studies of cancer drugs. Results From 2009 to 2013, the EMA approved the use of 48 cancer drugs for 68 indications. Of these, eight indications (12%) were approved on the basis of a single arm study. At the time of market approval, there was significant prolongation of survival in 24 of the 68 (35%). The magnitude of the benefit on overall survival ranged from 1.0 to 5.8 months (median 2.7 months). At the time of market approval, there was an improvement in quality of life in seven of 68 indications (10%). Out of 44 indications for which there was no evidence of a survival gain at the time of market authorisation, in the subsequent postmarketing period there was evidence for extension of life in three (7%) and reported benefit on quality of life in five (11%). Of the 68 cancer indications with EMA approval, and with a median of 5.4 years’ follow-up (minimum 3.3 years, maximum 8.1 years), only 35 (51%) had shown a significant improvement in survival or quality of life, while 33 (49%) remained uncertain. Of 23 indications associated with a survival benefit that could be scored with the ESMO-MCBS tool, the benefit was judged to be clinically meaningful in less than half (11/23, 48%). Conclusions This systematic evaluation of oncology approvals by the EMA in 2009-13 shows that most drugs entered the market without evidence of benefit on survival or quality of life. At a minimum of 3.3 years after market entry, there was still no conclusive evidence that these drugs either extended or improved life for most cancer indications. When there were survival gains over existing treatment options or placebo, they were often marginal.
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
Improved Survival with Ipilimumab in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma
Hodi, F. S., O'Day, S. J., McDermott, D. F., Weber, R. W., Sosman, J. A., Haanen, J. B., Gonzalez, R., Robert, C., Schadendorf, D., Hassel, J. C., et al. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1003466 · Cited by 15,155
Correspondence - Tranexamic acid for traumatic brain injury
(2005) · London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736 · Cited by 11,894
Bang, Y.-J., Van Cutsem, E., Feyereislova, A., Chung, H. C., Shen, L., Sawaki, A., Lordick, F., Ohtsu, A., Omuro, Y., Satoh, T., et al. (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)61121-x · Cited by 7,302
Increased Survival with Enzalutamide in Prostate Cancer after Chemotherapy
Scher, H. I., Fizazi, K., Saad, F., Taplin, M.-E., Sternberg, C. N., Miller, K., de Wit, R., Mulders, P., Chi, K. N., Shore, N. D., et al. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1207506 · Cited by 4,586
Ipilimumab plus Dacarbazine for Previously Untreated Metastatic Melanoma
Robert, C., Thomas, L., Bondarenko, I., O'Day, S., Weber, J., Garbe, C., Lebbe, C., Baurain, J.-F., Testori, A., Grob, J.-J., et al. (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1104621 · Cited by 4,496
Trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer
Verma, S., Miles, D., Gianni, L., Krop, I. E., Welslau, M., Baselga, J., Pegram, M., Oh, D.-Y., Diéras, V., Guardino, E., et al. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1209124 · Cited by 3,834
Crizotinib versus Chemotherapy in Advanced ALK -Positive Lung Cancer
Shaw, A. T., Kim, D.-W., Nakagawa, K., Seto, T., Crinó, L., Ahn, M.-J., De Pas, T., Besse, B., Solomon, B. J., Blackhall, F., et al. (2013) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1214886 · Cited by 3,381
de Bono, J. S., Oudard, S., Ozguroglu, M., Hansen, S., Machiels, J.-P., Kocak, I., Gravis, G., Bodrogi, I., Mackenzie, M. J., Shen, L., et al. (2010) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)61389-x · Cited by 3,318
Paclitaxel plus Bevacizumab versus Paclitaxel Alone for Metastatic Breast Cancer
Miller, K., Wang, M., Gralow, J., Dickler, M., Cobleigh, M., Perez, E. A., Shenkier, T., Cella, D., & Davidson, N. E. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa072113 · Cited by 3,081
Grothey, A., Cutsem, E. V., Sobrero, A., Siena, S., Falcone, A., Ychou, M., Humblet, Y., Bouché, O., Mineur, L., Barone, C., et al. (2013) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61900-x · Cited by 2,895
Cited by
Mortality due to cancer treatment delay: systematic review and meta-analysis
Hanna, T. P., King, W. D., Thibodeau, S., Jalink, M., Paulin, G. A., Harvey-Jones, E., O’Sullivan, D. E., Booth, C. M., Sullivan, R., & Aggarwal, A. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.m4087 · Cited by 1,742
Self-citationPerioperative events influence cancer recurrence risk after surgery
Hiller, J. G., Perry, N. J., Poulogiannis, G., Riedel, B., & Sloan, E. K. (2018) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.194 · Cited by 556
Assessment of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval
Gyawali, B., Hey, S. P., & Kesselheim, A. S. (2019) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0462 · Cited by 300
Costa, S., Bentley, C., Regier, D. A., McTaggart-Cowan, H., Mitton, C., Burgess, M. M., & Peacock, S. J. (2019) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-019-7303-2 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Davis, C., Naci, H., Gurpinar, E., Poplavska, E., Pinto, A., & Aggarwal, A.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2017-10-04
- Volume
- 359
- Pages
- j4530
- ISSN
- 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- OpenAlex
- W2761792472
- Cited by
- 599
- References
- 78
- FWCI
- 139.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.j4530
- The paper
- Davis, C., Naci, H., Gurpinar, E., Poplavska, E., Pinto, A., & Aggarwal, A. (2017). Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4530
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.