↓ Skip to main content

Breakthrough Therapy Designation Criteria Identify Drugs that Improve Clinical Outcomes for Patients: A Case for More Streamlined Coverage of Promising Therapies

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Cancer Research, June 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 tweeters
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Breakthrough Therapy Designation Criteria Identify Drugs that Improve Clinical Outcomes for Patients: A Case for More Streamlined Coverage of Promising Therapies
Published in
Clinical Cancer Research, June 2022
DOI 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-22-0983
Pubmed ID
Authors

Grace Collins, Mark Stewart, Brittany McKelvey, Hillary Stires, Jeff Allen

Abstract

Breakthrough therapy designation (BTD) is a valuable tool for expediting approval of promising therapies in oncology. Expediting drug development and review is time and resource intensive, so it is imperative to assess the performance of BTD and determine whether the criteria identify promising drugs that lead to improved outcomes for patients. This perspective provides a comparison of clinical outcomes data and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical guidelines for drugs indicated to treat non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) approved with BTD or without BTD between January 2013 and October 2021. Across the 31 approvals supported by data from randomized controlled trials, with the primary or co-primary endpoints of progression-free survival and/or overall survival, BTD drugs reduced the risk of death by a median of 31% and progression by a median of 48%, while drugs never receiving BTD ("Never BTD") reduced the risk of death and progression by a median of 15% and 41.9%, respectively. More BTD drugs received a NCCN recommendation in the highest category of evidence (Category 1) than Never BTD drugs, and a greater proportion of BTD drugs were considered "preferred" compared to Never BTD drugs. In the context of this improved value, we provide considerations for establishing an expedited pathway for coverage decisions on BTD drugs to support timely access for patients. These results suggest the qualifying criteria for BTD identify drugs that improve outcomes for patients with cancer, and thus, may benefit from mechanisms that expedite processes to ensure timely coverage decisions and access for patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,411,158
of 21,431,229 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Cancer Research
#1,038
of 12,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,487
of 273,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Cancer Research
#30
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,431,229 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,198 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,668 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.