• J. Natl. Cancer Inst. · Feb 2010

    Review

    Review of oncology and hematology drug product approvals at the US Food and Drug Administration between July 2005 and December 2007.

    • Rajeshwari Sridhara, John R Johnson, Robert Justice, Patricia Keegan, Aloka Chakravarty, and Richard Pazdur.
    • Division of Biometrics V, Office of Translational Sciences, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA. rajeshwari.sridhara@fda.hhs.gov
    • J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2010 Feb 24;102(4):230-43.

    BackgroundThe Office of Oncology Drug Products (OODP) in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the US Food and Drug Administration began reviewing marketing applications for oncological and hematologic indications in July 2005. We conducted an overview of products that were reviewed by the OODP for marketing approval and the regulatory actions taken during July 2005 to December 2007.MethodsWe identified all applications that were reviewed by the OODP from July 1, 2005, through December 31, 2007, and reviewed the actions that OODP took. We also sought the basis for the actions taken, including the clinical trial design, endpoints used, patient accrual in the trial(s) supporting approval, and the type of regulatory approval.ResultsDuring the study period, the OODP reviewed marketing applications for 60 new indications and took regulatory action on 58 indications. Regulatory action was based on a risk-benefit evaluation of the data submitted with each application. Products that demonstrated efficacy and had an acceptable risk-benefit ratio were granted either regular or accelerated marketing approval for use in the specific indication that was studied. Regular approval was based on endpoints that demonstrated that the drug provided clinical benefit as evidenced by a longer or better life or a favorable effect on an established surrogate for a longer or better life. Accelerated approval was based on a less well-established surrogate endpoint that was reasonably likely to predict a longer or better life. Of the 53 new indications that were approved during the study period, 39 received regular approval, nine received accelerated approval, and five were converted from accelerated to regular approval. Five applications were not approved, and two applications were withdrawn before any regulatory action was taken. Eighteen of the 53 indications that were approved were for new molecular entities.ConclusionDuring the study period, regulatory action was taken on 58 of the 60 marketing applications. Fifty-three applications were approved. A variety of clinical trial endpoints were used in the approval trials.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…