Bridging the gap between oncology clinical trials and real-world data: evidence on replicability of efficacy results using German claims data
Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Abstract
Aims: Using German claims, the authors replicated the CHAARTED trial in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Methods: The authors identified metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients replicating the inclusion/exclusion criteria of CHAARTED. Patients treated with docetaxel in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) at first line (docetaxel group) were compared with patients treated with ADT monotherapy (ADT mono group). After propensity score matching, overall survival was compared between the matched cohorts. Results: The authors included 441 patients. After propensity score matching, two equally sized matched cohorts of 74 patients each were compared in terms of overall survival. The hazard ratio (HR) was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.42–1.19), comparable to the HR in CHAARTED (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.59–0.89). Conclusions: Using early comparative evidence from real-world data for regulatory and health technology assessment decisions is useful.
Supplementary Material
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Franklin JM, Schneeweiss S. When and how can real world data analyses substitute for randomized controlled trials? Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 102(6), 924–933 (2017).
• Addresses the issue of bridging the gap between real-world data and randomized controlled trials and provides a valuable overview to frame the efforts of the present manuscript.
2.
Oortwijn W, Sampietro-Colom L, Trowman R. How to deal with the inevitable: generating real-world data and using real-world evidence for HTA purposes – from theory to action. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 35(4), 346–350 (2019).
3.
Sheffield KM, Dreyer NA, Murray JF, Faries DE, Klopchin MN. Replication of randomized clinical trial results using real-world data: paving the way for effectiveness decisions. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 9(15), 1043–1050 (2020).
4.
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1), 41–55 (1983).
5.
Hernán MA, Robins JM. Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. Am. J. Epidemiol. 183(8), 758–764 (2016).
•• The theoretical framework for trial emulation.
6.
Schneeweiss S. Real-world evidence of treatment effects: the useful and the misleading. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 106(1), 43–44 (2019).
7.
Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 342(25), 1878–1886 (2000).
8.
Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N. Engl. J. Med. 342(25), 1887–1892 (2000).
9.
Kumar A, Guss ZD, Courtney PT et al. Evaluation of the use of cancer registry data for comparative effectiveness research. JAMA Netw. Open 3(7), e2011985 (2020).
•• A prior attempt to investigate the replicability of oncology randomized controlled trial results using real-world data.
10.
Soni PD, Hartman HE, Dess RT et al. Comparison of population-based observational studies with randomized trials in oncology. J. Clin. Oncol. 37(14), 1209–1216 (2019).
•• Evidence on the replicability of oncology randomized controlled trial results using real-world data.
11.
Banerjee R, Prasad V. Are observational, real-world studies suitable to make cancer treatment recommendations? JAMA Netw. Open 3(7), e2012119 (2020).
12.
Spoendlin J, Desai RJ, Franklin JM, Glynn RJ, Payne E, Schneeweiss S. Using healthcare databases to replicate trial findings for supplemental indications: adalimumab in patients with ulcerative colitis. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 108(4), 874–884 (2020).
13.
Sweeney CJ, Chen Y-H, Carducci M et al. Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 373(8), 737–746 (2015).
14.
Kyriakopoulos CE, Chen YH, Carducci MA et al. Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: long-term survival analysis of the randomized phase III E3805 CHAARTED trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 36(11), 1080–1087 (2018).
15.
Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm. Stat. 10(2), 150–161 (2011).
16.
Bonamici S. H.R.34-21st Century Cures Act. 114th Congress (2015-2016) [Internet] (2016).
17.
US Food and Drug Administration. Framework for FDA's Real-World Evidence Program (2018). www.fda.gov/media/120060/download
18.
Heads of Medicines Agencies. HMA/EMA Joint Big Data Steering Group (2020). www.hma.eu/509.html
19.
King G, Nielsen R. Why propensity scores should not be used for matching. Polit. Anal. 27(4), 435–454 (2019).
20.
Allan V, Ramagopalan SV, Mardekian J et al. Propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting to address confounding by indication in comparative effectiveness research of oral anticoagulants. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 9(9), 603–614 (2020).
21.
Elze MC, Gregson J, Baber U et al. Comparison of propensity score methods and covariate adjustment: evaluation in 4 cardiovascular studies. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 69(3), 345–357 (2017).
22.
Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat. Med. 28(25), 3083–3107 (2009).
23.
Soni PD, Hartman HE, Dess RT et al. Comparison of population-based observational studies with randomized trials in oncology. J. Clin. Oncol. 37(14), 1209–1216 (2019).
24.
Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N. Engl. J. Med. 342(25), 1887–1892 (2000).
25.
Ioannidis JPA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Haidich AB et al. Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 286(7), 821–830 (2001).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Pages: 513 - 521
PubMed: 35315280
Copyright
© 2022 Future Medicine Ltd.
History
Received: 22 September 2021
Accepted: 18 February 2022
Published online: 22 March 2022
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
Bridging the gap between oncology clinical trials and real-world data: evidence on replicability of efficacy results using German claims data. (2022) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2021-0224
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.
Citing Literature
- Canlong Wang, Dongfeng Tang, Peter von Dadelszen, Chengsheng Ju, Lu Liu, Yanzhong Wang, Laura A Magee, Concordance between target trial emulation and randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analysis, BMJ, 10.1136/bmj-2025-086810, 393, (e086810), (2026).
- Sonish Sivarajkumar, Subhash Edupuganti, David Lazris, Manisha Bhattacharya, Michael Davis, Devin Dressman, Roby Thomas, Yan Hu, Yang Ren, Hua Xu, Ping Yang, Yufei Huang, Yanshan Wang, Extraction of Treatments and Responses From Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Clinical Notes Using Natural Language Processing, JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, 10.1200/CCI-25-00138, 10, (2026).
- Jennifer R Rider, Asher Wasserman, Lukas Slipski, Gillis Carrigan, Raymond Harvey, Xiaolong Jiao, Lynn McRoy, Nelson D Pace, Lauren Becnel, Amanda Bruno, Joy C Eckert, Priscilla Hodgkins, Purva Jain, David Merola, Osayi E Ovbiosa, Yanina Natanzon, Simone Pinheiro, Jameson Quinn, Carla Rodriguez-Watson, Ulka Campbell, Emulations of oncology trials using real-world data: a systematic literature review, American Journal of Epidemiology, 10.1093/aje/kwae346, 194, 6, (1783-1793), (2024).
- Shivani Srivastava, Anuradha Tyagi, Vishakha Pawar, Nawaid Khan, Kavita Arora, Chaitenya Verma, Vinay Kumar, Revolutionizing Immunotherapy: Unveiling New Horizons, Confronting Challenges, and Navigating Therapeutic Frontiers in CAR-T Cell-Based Gene Therapies, ImmunoTargets and Therapy, 10.2147/ITT.S474659, Volume 13, (413-433), (2024).
- Harrison J. Hansford, Aidan G. Cashin, Matthew D. Jones, Sonja A. Swanson, Nazrul Islam, Susan R. G. Douglas, Rodrigo R. N. Rizzo, Jack J. Devonshire, Sam A. Williams, Issa J. Dahabreh, Barbra A. Dickerman, Matthias Egger, Xabier Garcia-Albeniz, Robert M. Golub, Sara Lodi, Margarita Moreno-Betancur, Sallie-Anne Pearson, Sebastian Schneeweiss, Jonathan A. C. Sterne, Melissa K. Sharp, Elizabeth A. Stuart, Miguel A. Hernán, Hopin Lee, James H. McAuley, Reporting of Observational Studies Explicitly Aiming to Emulate Randomized Trials, JAMA Network Open, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.36023, 6, 9, (e2336023), (2023).
- David Merola, Ulka Campbell, Nileesa Gautam, Alexa Rubens, Sebastian Schneeweiss, Shirley V. Wang, Gillis Carrigan, Victoria Chia, Osayi E. Ovbiosa, Simone Pinheiro, Amanda Bruno, Xiaolong Jiao, Mark Stewart, Rachele Hendricks‐Sturrup, Carla Rodriguez‐Watson, Sajan Khosla, Yiduo Zhang, Mothaffar Rimawi, Jenny Huang, Aliki Taylor, Lauren Becnel, Lynn McRoy, Joy Eckert, Benjamin Taylor, The Aetion Coalition to Advance Real‐World Evidence through Randomized Controlled Trial Emulation Initiative: Oncology, Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 10.1002/cpt.2800, 113, 6, (1217-1222), (2022).