Exploring the discrepancies between clinical trials and real‐world data: A small‐cell lung cancer study

Author:

Marzano Luca1ORCID,Darwich Adam S.1,Dan Asaf2,Tendler Salomon23,Lewensohn Rolf2,De Petris Luigi2,Raghothama Jayanth1,Meijer Sebastiaan1

Affiliation:

1. Division of Health Informatics and Logistics, School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health (CBH) KTH Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm Sweden

2. Department of Oncology‐Pathology, Karolinska Institutet and the Thoracic Oncology Center Karolinska University Hospital Stockholm Sweden

3. Department of Medicine Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York New York USA

Abstract

AbstractThe potential of real‐world data to inform clinical trial design and supplement control arms has gained much interest in recent years. The most common approach relies on reproducing control arm outcomes by matching real‐world patient cohorts to clinical trial baseline populations. However, recent studies pointed out that there is a lack of replicability, generalisability, and consensus. In this article, we propose a novel approach that aims to explore and examine these discrepancies by concomitantly investigating the impact of selection criteria and operations on the measurements of outcomes from the patient data. We tested the approach on a dataset consisting of small‐cell lung cancer patients receiving platinum‐based chemotherapy regimens from a real‐world data cohort (n = 223) and six clinical trial control arms (n = 1224). The results showed that the discrepancy between real‐world and clinical trial data potentially depends on differences in both patient populations and operational conditions (e.g., frequency of assessments, and censoring), for which further investigation is required. Discovering and accounting for confounders, including hidden effects of differences in operations related to the treatment process and clinical trial study protocol, would potentially allow for improved translation between clinical trials and real‐world data. Continued development of the method presented here to systematically explore and account for these differences could pave the way for transferring learning across clinical studies and developing mutual translation between the real‐world and clinical trials to inform clinical study design.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3