Skip to main content

Abstract

Aim: Single-arm trials with external control arms (ECAs) have gained popularity in oncology. ECAs may consist of primary data from previous trials, electronic health records (EHRs) or aggregate data from the literature. We sought to provide a description of how such studies achieve similarity of patients, comparability of data quality and outcome assessment. Materials & methods: In a stratified convenience sample of 15 studies, five used primary data from trials as ECAs, five used secondary data from EHRs and five used aggregate data from the literature. Data were collected from the published literature and public web resources, blinded to the eventual approval decision. Results: Studies using ECAs from primary data and EHR data displayed methods to achieve comparability of information, including matched baseline characteristics. Aggregate data from published studies did not attempt to match covariates. The EHR controls often showed calendar time overlap for collecting information while trial data were mostly historic. Outcome data were not consistently reported across studies. US FDA approval was only seen when primary data from trials or EHR data were used as the ECA, however no ECA in this sample directly contributed to approval. Discussion: In this nonsystematic review of ECAs for single-arm trials, the ECAs derived from primary data collected by other trials or EHRs show patterns of patient comparability, time overlap, and realistic methodological approaches to achieving balance between treatment arms. They are often submitted to regulators while literature-derived aggregate findings as ECA may serve as benchmarks for pipeline decisions.

Supplementary Material

File (suppl_file.docx)

References

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Carrigan G, Whipple S, Capra WB et al. Using electronic health records to derive control arms for early phase single-arm lung cancer trials: proof-of-concept in randomized controlled trials. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 107(2), 369–377 (2019).
• Presents a proof of concept for the implementation of a single-arm trial with an external control arm using contemporaneous electronic health record data.
2.
Davies J, Martinec M, Delmar P et al. Comparative effectiveness from a single-srm trial and real-world data: alectinib versus ceritinib. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 7(9), 855–865 (2018).
•• Prepares a proof of concept for the generation of a comparator arm using real world date (RWD) in a rare population for which an randomized controlled trial would not be feasible, by comparing alectinib and ceritinib.
3.
Sasinowski FJ, Panico EB, Valentine JE. Quantum of effectiveness evidence in FDA's approval of orphan drugs: update, July 2010 to June 2014. Ther. Innov. Regul. Sci. 49(5), 680–697 (2015).
4.
Thorlund K, Dron L, Park JJH, Mills EJ. Synthetic and external controls in clinical trials – a primer for researchers. Clin. Epidemiol. 12, 457–467 (2020).
• Provides an assessment and critique of the utilization of synthetic control methods in the published literature.
5.
Tan DSW, Araújo A, Zhang J et al. Comparative efficacy of ceritinib and crizotinib as initial ALK-targeted therapies in previously treated advanced NSCLC: an adjusted comparison with external controls. J. Thorac. Oncol. 11(9), 1550–1557 (2016).
•• Utilizes an external control group using primary data from trials to compare efficacy outcomes between ceritinib and crizotinib for patients with ALP-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.
6.
Rambaldi Am Ribera JM, Kantarjian HM et al. Blinatumomab compared with standard of care for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed/refractory Philadelphia chromosome–positive B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer 126(2), 304–310 (2019).
•• Creates an external control cohort using existing primary data from clinical databases in order to compare blinatumomab and standard of care treatments.
7.
Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Betts KA et al. Comparative efficacy of nilotinib and dasatinib in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison of randomized trials. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 27(6), 1263–1271 (2011).
8.
Melichar B, Bracarda S, Matveev V et al. A multinational Phase II trial of bevacizumab with low-dose interferon-α2a as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: BEVLiN. Ann. Oncol. 24(9), 2396–2402 (2013).
9.
Germonpré P, Wyngaert TVD. Second-line erlotinib after failure of pemetrexed-containing chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): real-world effectiveness, safety and tolerability. PLoS ONE 14(4), e0215135 (2019).
10.
Patel K, Ouwens M, Shire N, Kholsa S. The application of electronic medical records (EMRs) as a virtual comparator arm in a lung cancer clinical trial: a case study. J. Clin. Oncol. 35(15), e18098 (2017).
•• Illustratesthe importance of time point for electronic health record data used as an external control when comparing overall survival data between treatments.
11.
Doebele RC, Perez L, Trinh H et al. Time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) as endpoints for comparative efficacy analysis between entrectinib trial and crizotinib real-world ROS1 fusion-positive (ROS1+) NSCLC patients. J. Clin. Oncol. 9070–9070 (2019).
12.
Richardson PG, Jagannath S, Chari A et al. Overall survival (OS) with oral selinexor plus low dose dexamethasone (Sd) in patients with triple class refractory-multiple myeloma (TCR-MM). J. Clin. Oncol. 37(15), 8014 (2019).
13.
Chau I, Ayers D, Goring S et al. Comparative effectiveness of nivolumab (NIVO) relative to standard of care (SOC) for advanced/metastatic (adv/met) gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC): a simulated treatment comparison (STC). J. Clin. Onco. 37(4), 128 (2019).
14.
Shah AN, Flaum LE, Rademaker A et al. A Phase II study of pembrolizumab and capecitabine for triple-negative (TN) and hormone receptor-positive, HER2−negative endocrine-refractory metastatic breast cancer (MBC). J. Clin. Oncol. 8(1), 1096 (2019).
•• Produces an example of a single-arm trial utilizing an external control from aggregate data from the literature comparing pembrolizumab and capecitabine to capecitabine alone.
15.
Lieberman FS, Wang M, Robins HI et al. Phase II study of radiation therapy plus low-dose temozolomide followed by temozolomide and irinotecan for glioblastoma: NRG Oncology RTOG trial 0420. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Bio. Phys. 103(4), 878–886 (2019).
•• Formulates a comparison between two treatments for glioblastoma using an external control from aggregate data from the literature.
16.
Shroff RT, Javle MM, Xiao L et al. Gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel for the treatment of advanced biliary tract cancers: a Phase II clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 5(6), 824–830 (2019).
17.
Parikh AB, Kozuch P, Rohs N, Becker DJ, Levy BP. Metformin as a repurposed therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): results of a Phase II trial. Invest. New Drugs 35(6), 813–819 (2017).
18.
Spigel DR, Waterhouse DM, Lane S, Legenne P, Bhatt K. Efficacy and safety of oral topotecan and bevacizumab combination as second-line treatment for relapsed small-cell lung cancer: an open-label multicenter single-arm Phase II study. Clin. Lung Cancer. 14(4), 356–363 (2013).
19.
Eichler HG, Oye K, Baird LG et al. Adaptive licensing: taking the next step in the evolution of drug approval. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 91(3), 426–437 (2012).