Factors in Time to Full Approval or Withdrawal for Anticancer Medicines Granted Accelerated Approval by the FDA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: The accelerated approval pathway was developed to expedite US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approval for life-threatening conditions based on changes to unvalidated surrogate measures, with conversion to regular approval then based on a required confirmatory trial. However, confirmatory trials may not be completed in a timely fashion. Objective: To analyze factors associated with time to conversion to regular approval. Design, setting, and participants: This cohort study of cancer drugs FDA-approved from 1992 to 2022 extracted pivotal and confirmatory trial characteristics, outcomes, safety data, and confirmatory study status at approval from drug labels and published reports. Clinical benefit was assessed using the European Society of Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) for pivotal and confirmatory studies. High benefit was defined as grade A or B (for trials of curative intent) and 4 or 5 (palliative intent) and low benefit as grade C and 2 or below. Data were analyzed between August 2023 and August 2024. Main Outcome and Measure: Time to full approval or withdrawal. Results: This cohort study analyzed 102 cancer drug indications granted accelerated approval by the FDA between 1992 and 2022 and converted to regular approval by August 31, 2024. The median (IQR) time to conversion was 3.1 (1.9-4.8) years. Of these, 83 (81%) received priority review, and 27 (26%) carried boxed warnings. On the ESMO-MCBS scale, 12 of 101 pivotal trials that were scorable showed high benefit (12%), 27 intermediate benefit (27%), and 62 low benefit (61%). Twenty-one confirmatory trials (21%) were initiated after accelerated approval. Factors at the time of accelerated approval that were associated with shorter times to full approval included priority review designation, absence of boxed warnings, initiation of confirmatory studies before approval, and pivotal trials showing intermediate or high benefit on the ESMO-MCBS framework. Among the 102 confirmatory trials, 34 (33%) demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival, and 14 of 35 trials (40%) reporting on quality of life showed significant benefits. The ESMO-MCBS scale was applicable to 98 trials, with 46 (47%) scoring high clinical benefit, 29 (30%) intermediate, and 23 (23%) low. Indications with benefits in overall survival (median [IQR], 2.15 [1.40-3.38] vs 3.70 [2.33-5.78] years), quality of life (median [IQR], 2.29 [1.85-3.53] vs 4.22 [2.52-5.72] years), and high clinical benefit in confirmatory trials (median [IQR], 2.34 [1.52-3.39] vs 3.91 [2.59-6.42] years) were associated with faster conversion to full approval. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, drugs with low clinical benefit or safety concerns at accelerated approval were linked to delayed confirmatory studies, while high clinical benefit in confirmatory trials correlated with faster conversion. These associations can help guide patient decision-making around accelerated approval drugs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".