The idea of a breakthrough therapy was promoted to speed approvals of medicines that held promise for treating a life-threatening disease and demonstrated substantial improvement over existing drugs. However, a new study finds that while cancer drugs considered to be breakthroughs were approved more quickly, they were not safer, more novel, or more effective than drugs not given this designation.

The study examined 58 new cancer medicines that were approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 2012 and 2017. Of these, 25 — or 43 percent — received breakthrough therapy designation. The median time to a first FDA approval was 5.2 years for drugs that given a breakthrough designation versus 7.1 years for cancer medicines that were not considered to be breakthroughs.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!


What is it?

STAT Plus is a premium subscription that delivers daily market-moving biopharma coverage and in-depth science reporting from a team with decades of industry experience.

What's included?

  • Authoritative biopharma coverage and analysis, interviews with industry pioneers, policy analysis, and first looks at cutting edge laboratories and early stage research
  • Subscriber-only networking events and panel discussions across the country
  • Monthly subscriber-only live chats with our reporters and experts in the field
  • Discounted tickets to industry events and early-bird access to industry reports

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • What nonsense is this, insisting “for real world evidence” rather than simply accepting the outcome$ of a defined process? How’s a pharma unicorn supposed to make a billion or two?
    Meanwhile, among other items in shortage, sterile water is an on-going problem according to FDA – I wonder if it’s because there are “no billions in that?”

Sign up for our Daily Recap newsletter

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy