Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Med.

Sec. Regulatory Science

Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1589578

This article is part of the Research TopicRegulatory Science: Addressing Uncertainties in Medicines Development, Evaluation and UseView all 9 articles

A Model Structure for Describing Uncertainties in the Benefit Risk Assessment of Oncology Drug Applications

Provisionally accepted
  • 1European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • 2Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et Des Produits de Santé (ANSM), Paris, France
  • 3Finnish Medicines Agency, Helsinki, Uusimaa, Finland
  • 4KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
  • 5Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands, Netherlands
  • 6Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Vienna, Austria

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Abstract Introduction The European Medicines Agency (EMA) uses structured reports to communicate the scientific review of drug applications. A European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) is published at the end of the review detailing the scientific assessment, which includes benefit-risk analysis and uncertainties in the favorable and unfavorable effects. Currently, there is no detailed guidance on how to communicate uncertainties in the EPAR. The aim of this study was to identify uncertainties described in the benefit-risk section a series of EPARs and derive a possible model structure for communicating them. Methods A series of approved oncology drug applications that had used the latest EPAR template by the time of analysis was selected. The model structure was adapted iteratively, aiming to identify a small number of key elements, with input from the study team. Finally, the model structure was discussed with two experienced clinical assessors to determine clarity and potential usefulness.. Results From 64 oncology EPARs published between 2011 and 2017 (26 related to products with orphan designation), 263 uncertainties in the benefit-risk assessment were identified. The final model structure included Cause (what caused the uncertainty), Aspect (what is the uncertainty about, further described as high-level domain and specific component), Type (what is the kind of the uncertainty, like not enough information or conflicting information); and Strategy (how is the uncertainty addressed). This four-element structure (Cause, Aspect, Type, Strategy; CATS) was discussed with expert assessors and found generally understandable and relevant. Discussion The CATS-model structure has been derived as a starting point for communicating uncertainties in benefit-risk assessment of drug applications. To increase relevance, it was derived based on issues raised during actual reviews and discussed with expert reviewers. Limitations include the narrow focus of the current series, and the need for validation. If useful, eventually this structure could be used to further enhance assessment report templates. Conclusion The proposed CATS-model structure may facilitate communicating uncertainties in the benefit-risk assessment of drug applications. Further refinements depending on the purpose and validation, aiming for broader applicability, are needed.

Keywords: Benefit risk assessment, Uncerainty, Oncology medicines, European Medicine Agency (EMA), Regulatory decision making

Received: 07 Mar 2025; Accepted: 17 Sep 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Zafiropoulos, Pignatti, Kouroumalis, Guizzaro, Karres, Demolis, Tenhunen, Janssens, Taams, Bloem, Koenig and Posch. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Nikolaos Zafiropoulos, nikolaos.zafiropoulos@ema.europa.eu

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.