不同批准与中国临床肿瘤学会实体肿瘤药物推荐水平的关联:一项横断面分析。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Lirong Zhang, Hongbin Yi, Liping Kuai, Sheng Han, Hong Sun, Jiaqin Cai, Xiaoxia Wei
{"title":"不同批准与中国临床肿瘤学会实体肿瘤药物推荐水平的关联:一项横断面分析。","authors":"Lirong Zhang, Hongbin Yi, Liping Kuai, Sheng Han, Hong Sun, Jiaqin Cai, Xiaoxia Wei","doi":"10.1007/s10637-025-01584-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In China, many solid tumor drugs have been approved via the accelerated approval (AA) pathway. We extracted data regarding indications for solid tumor-treating drugs approved by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) between 2015 and 2023, along with their corresponding Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) guideline recommendation levels and inclusion data. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact tests, and t-tests were used to examine associations between NMPA approval pathways and CSCO guideline recommendation levels. The study included 92 solid tumor drugs comprising 191 indications. Sixty-three indications were approved via the regular approval (RA), and 128 were approved via the AA. One hundred fifty-seven indications obtained CSCO guideline recommendation level I, 28 obtained level II, and 6 obtained level III. No significant difference in the recommendation level was observed between the approval pathways. The average time for the indications approved via the RA to obtain the recommendation level was 2.03 months before NMPA approval. The average time for the indications approved via the AA to obtain the level was 6.66 months after NMPA approval. Compared with initial levels, 57 indications had their recommendation levels upgraded. Most indications obtain the CSCO guideline recommendation level I, with similar likelihoods across obtaining different approval pathways. Indications approved via the RA tended to obtain the CSCO guideline recommendation earlier than those via the AA. Given the limitations in data completeness and CSCO guideline coverage, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Clearer criteria for evaluating recommendation levels and standardizing rating procedures will enable CSCO guidelines to better support clinicians and patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":14513,"journal":{"name":"Investigational New Drugs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Association of different approvals with Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology recommendation levels for solid tumor drugs: a cross-sectional analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Lirong Zhang, Hongbin Yi, Liping Kuai, Sheng Han, Hong Sun, Jiaqin Cai, Xiaoxia Wei\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10637-025-01584-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In China, many solid tumor drugs have been approved via the accelerated approval (AA) pathway. We extracted data regarding indications for solid tumor-treating drugs approved by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) between 2015 and 2023, along with their corresponding Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) guideline recommendation levels and inclusion data. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact tests, and t-tests were used to examine associations between NMPA approval pathways and CSCO guideline recommendation levels. The study included 92 solid tumor drugs comprising 191 indications. Sixty-three indications were approved via the regular approval (RA), and 128 were approved via the AA. One hundred fifty-seven indications obtained CSCO guideline recommendation level I, 28 obtained level II, and 6 obtained level III. No significant difference in the recommendation level was observed between the approval pathways. The average time for the indications approved via the RA to obtain the recommendation level was 2.03 months before NMPA approval. The average time for the indications approved via the AA to obtain the level was 6.66 months after NMPA approval. Compared with initial levels, 57 indications had their recommendation levels upgraded. Most indications obtain the CSCO guideline recommendation level I, with similar likelihoods across obtaining different approval pathways. Indications approved via the RA tended to obtain the CSCO guideline recommendation earlier than those via the AA. Given the limitations in data completeness and CSCO guideline coverage, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Clearer criteria for evaluating recommendation levels and standardizing rating procedures will enable CSCO guidelines to better support clinicians and patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14513,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Investigational New Drugs\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Investigational New Drugs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10637-025-01584-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Investigational New Drugs","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10637-025-01584-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在中国,许多实体瘤药物已通过加速审批(AA)途径获得批准。我们提取了2015年至2023年间国家药品监督管理局(NMPA)批准的实体肿瘤治疗药物的适应症数据,以及相应的中国临床肿瘤学会(CSCO)指南推荐水平和纳入数据。描述性统计、Fisher精确检验和t检验用于检验NMPA批准途径与CSCO指南推荐水平之间的关系。该研究包括92种实体瘤药物,包括191种适应症。63个适应症通过常规审批(RA)获得批准,128个通过AA获得批准。157个适应症达到CSCO指南推荐的I级,28个达到II级,6个达到III级。两种批准途径在推荐水平上没有显著差异。从RA批准的适应症到获得推荐水平的平均时间为2.03个月,再到NMPA批准。在NMPA批准后,AA批准的适应症获得该级别的平均时间为6.66个月。与初始水平相比,57种适应症的推荐水平得到了提升。大多数适应症获得CSCO指南推荐等级I,获得不同批准途径的可能性相似。通过RA批准的适应症往往比通过AA批准的适应症更早获得CSCO指南推荐。考虑到数据完整性和CSCO指南覆盖范围的局限性,这些发现应谨慎解释。更明确的推荐水平评估标准和标准化的评级程序将使CSCO指南更好地支持临床医生和患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Association of different approvals with Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology recommendation levels for solid tumor drugs: a cross-sectional analysis.

In China, many solid tumor drugs have been approved via the accelerated approval (AA) pathway. We extracted data regarding indications for solid tumor-treating drugs approved by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) between 2015 and 2023, along with their corresponding Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) guideline recommendation levels and inclusion data. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact tests, and t-tests were used to examine associations between NMPA approval pathways and CSCO guideline recommendation levels. The study included 92 solid tumor drugs comprising 191 indications. Sixty-three indications were approved via the regular approval (RA), and 128 were approved via the AA. One hundred fifty-seven indications obtained CSCO guideline recommendation level I, 28 obtained level II, and 6 obtained level III. No significant difference in the recommendation level was observed between the approval pathways. The average time for the indications approved via the RA to obtain the recommendation level was 2.03 months before NMPA approval. The average time for the indications approved via the AA to obtain the level was 6.66 months after NMPA approval. Compared with initial levels, 57 indications had their recommendation levels upgraded. Most indications obtain the CSCO guideline recommendation level I, with similar likelihoods across obtaining different approval pathways. Indications approved via the RA tended to obtain the CSCO guideline recommendation earlier than those via the AA. Given the limitations in data completeness and CSCO guideline coverage, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Clearer criteria for evaluating recommendation levels and standardizing rating procedures will enable CSCO guidelines to better support clinicians and patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
121
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The development of new anticancer agents is one of the most rapidly changing aspects of cancer research. Investigational New Drugs provides a forum for the rapid dissemination of information on new anticancer agents. The papers published are of interest to the medical chemist, toxicologist, pharmacist, pharmacologist, biostatistician and clinical oncologist. Investigational New Drugs provides the fastest possible publication of new discoveries and results for the whole community of scientists developing anticancer agents.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信