Literature DB >> 23739536

Clinical approval success rates for investigational cancer drugs.

J A DiMasi1, J M Reichert, L Feldman, A Malins.   

Abstract

We examined development risks for new cancer drugs. For the full study period, the estimated clinical approval success rate for cancer compounds was 13.4% (9.9% for the first half of the study period, 19.8% for the second half). Small molecules had a somewhat higher clinical approval success rate than did large molecules (14.3 vs. 11.5%). Compounds studied solely in hematologic indications had markedly higher estimated clinical approval success rates than did compounds studied only in solid tumor indications (36.0 vs. 9.8%). The first, second, and third cancer indications pursued had estimated clinical approval success rates of 9.0, 8.2, and 6.9%, respectively. Success rates of second and third indications were found to be highly dependent on the success or failure of the first indication pursued (54.9 and 42.4%, respectively, for second and third indications if the first indication is a success, but 2.5 and 1.8%, respectively, if the first indication is a failure).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23739536     DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2013.117

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther        ISSN: 0009-9236            Impact factor:   6.875


  58 in total

1.  Will clinical trial data disclosure reduce incentives to develop new uses of drugs?

Authors:  W Nicholson Price; Timo Minssen
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 54.908

Review 2.  Virotherapy: cancer gene therapy at last?

Authors:  Alan E Bilsland; Pavlina Spiliopoulou; T R Jeffry Evans
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2016-08-30

3.  Druggability and Binding Site Interaction Studies of Potential Metabolites Isolated from Marine Sponge Aurora globostellata against Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-2.

Authors:  M Sugappriya; D Sudarsanam; Raj Bhaskaran; Jerrine Joseph; Arumugam Suresh
Journal:  Bioinformation       Date:  2017-08-31

4.  Failed PET Application Attempts in the Past, Can We Avoid Them in the Future?

Authors:  Gang Cheng; Thomas J Werner; Andrew Newberg; Abass Alavi
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.488

5.  Resampling the N9741 trial to compare tumor dynamic versus conventional end points in randomized phase II trials.

Authors:  Manish R Sharma; Elizabeth Gray; Richard M Goldberg; Daniel J Sargent; Theodore G Karrison
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-10-27       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 6.  Patient-derived xenografts as in vivo models for research in urological malignancies.

Authors:  Takahiro Inoue; Naoki Terada; Takashi Kobayashi; Osamu Ogawa
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 14.432

7.  The DIONESUS algorithm provides scalable and accurate reconstruction of dynamic phosphoproteomic networks to reveal new drug targets.

Authors:  Mark F Ciaccio; Vincent C Chen; Richard B Jones; Neda Bagheri
Journal:  Integr Biol (Camb)       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 2.192

8.  The Impact of Early-Phase Trial Design in the Drug Development Process.

Authors:  Mark R Conaway; Gina R Petroni
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 9.  Personalized Cancer Models for Target Discovery and Precision Medicine.

Authors:  Carla Grandori; Christopher J Kemp
Journal:  Trends Cancer       Date:  2018-08-08

Review 10.  Choosing The Right Animal Model for Renal Cancer Research.

Authors:  Paweł Sobczuk; Anna Brodziak; Mohammed Imran Khan; Stuti Chhabra; Michał Fiedorowicz; Marlena Wełniak-Kamińska; Kamil Synoradzki; Ewa Bartnik; Agnieszka Cudnoch-Jędrzejewska; Anna M Czarnecka
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2020-02-22       Impact factor: 4.243

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.