CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 88

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Harnessing Real-World Evidence to Advance Cancer Research

Tang, Monica, Pearson, Sallie-Anne, Simes, Robert J., Chua, Boon H.·2023·Current Oncology
DOI 10.3390/curroncol30020143PMC PMC9955401
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) form a cornerstone of oncology research by generating evidence about the efficacy of therapies in selected patient populations. However, their implementation is often resource- and cost-intensive, and their generalisability to patients treated in routine practice may be limited. Real-world evidence leverages data collected about patients receiving clinical care in routine practice outside of clinical trial settings and provides opportunities to identify and address gaps in clinical trial evidence. This review outlines the strengths and limitations of real-world and RCT evidence and proposes a framework for the complementary use of the two bodies of evidence to advance cancer research. There are challenges to the implementation of real-world research in oncology, including heterogeneity of data sources, timely access to high-quality data, and concerns about the quality of methods leveraging real-world data, particularly causal inference. Improved understanding of the strengths and limitations of real-world data and ongoing efforts to optimise the conduct of real-world evidence research will improve its reliability, understanding and acceptance, and enable the full potential of real-world evidence to be realised in oncology practice.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/curroncol30020143

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The study findings of observational studies are susceptible to confounding and selection biases, which could result in biased estimates of intervention effects compared with smaller RCTs.

    “Thus, the study findings are susceptible to confounding and selection biases, which could result in biased estimates of intervention effects compared with smaller RCTs [5,6].”

    From RoBANS 2: A Revised Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (2023) · cites this paper as [5]

  • A crucial limitation of observational studies on intervention effects and adverse reactions is that the intervention of interest is not randomly assigned, blinding is lacking, and there is often no comparison.

    “However, a crucial limitation of observational studies on intervention effects and adverse reactions is that the intervention of interest is not randomly assigned, blinding is lacking, and there is often no comparison.”

    From RoBANS 2: A Revised Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (2023) · cites this paper as [5]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 89

  1. Elkin, 2010, Cancer’s next frontier: Addressing high and increasing costs, JAMA, 303, 1086, 10.1001/jama.2010.283 · DOI
  2. Hofmarcher, 2020, The cost of cancer in Europe 2018, Eur. J. Cancer, 129, 41, 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.01.011 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Collins, 2020, The magic of randomization versus the myth of real-world evidence, N. Engl. J. Med., 382, 674, 10.1056/NEJMsb1901642 · DOI
  4. Booth, 2014, Randomised controlled trials and population-based observational research: Partners in the evolution of medical evidence, Br. J. Cancer, 110, 551, 10.1038/bjc.2013.725 · DOI
  5. Meyer, 2009, Generalizing the Results of Cancer Clinical Trials, J. Clin. Oncol., 28, 187, 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.8608 · DOI
  6. Friedman, 1990, National cancer institute sponsored cooperative clinical trials, Cancer, 65, 2376, 10.1002/1097-0142(19900515)65:10+<2376::AID-CNCR2820651504>3.0.CO;2-A · DOI
  7. Murthy, 2004, Participation in cancer clinical trials: Race-, sex-, and age-based disparities, JAMA, 291, 2720, 10.1001/jama.291.22.2720 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Hutchins, 1999, Underrepresentation of Patients 65 Years of Age or Older in Cancer-Treatment Trials, N. Engl. J. Med., 341, 2061, 10.1056/NEJM199912303412706 · DOI
  9. Lewis, 2003, Participation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer clinical trials, J. Clin. Oncol., 21, 1383, 10.1200/JCO.2003.08.010 · DOI
  10. Trimble, 1994, Representation of older patients in cancer treatment trials, Cancer, 74, 2208, 10.1002/1097-0142(19941001)74:7+<2208::AID-CNCR2820741737>3.0.CO;2-# · DOI
  11. Talarico, 2004, Enrollment of elderly patients in clinical trials for cancer drug registration: A 7-year experience by the US Food and Drug Administration, J. Clin. Oncol., 22, 4626, 10.1200/JCO.2004.02.175 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Singh, 2017, FDA analysis of enrollment of older adults in clinical trials for cancer drug registration: A 10-year experience by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, J. Clin. Oncol., 35, 10009, 10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.10009 · DOI
  13. Gross, 2005, The impact of socioeconomic status and race on trial participation for older women with breast cancer, Cancer, 103, 483, 10.1002/cncr.20792 · DOI
  14. Unger, 2016, Patient income level and cancer clinical trial participation: A prospective survey study, JAMA Oncol., 2, 137, 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3924 · DOI
  15. Elting, 2006, Generalizability of cancer clinical trial results, Cancer, 106, 2452, 10.1002/cncr.21907 · DOI
  16. Sarfati, 2016, The impact of comorbidity on cancer and its treatment, CA Cancer J. Clin., 66, 337, 10.3322/caac.21342 · DOI
  17. Black, 1996, Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care, Br. Med. J., 312, 1215, 10.1136/bmj.312.7040.1215 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Braunholtz, 2001, Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in the short term)? Evidence for a “trial effect”, J. Clin. Epidemiol., 54, 217, 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00305-X · DOI
  19. McCarney, R., Warner, J., Iliffe, S., van Haselen, R., Griffin, M., and Fisher, P. (2007). The Hawthorne Effect: A randomised, controlled trial. BMC Med. Res. Methodol., 7. · DOI
  20. Stiller, 1994, Centralised treatment, entry to trials and survival, Br. J. Cancer, 70, 352, 10.1038/bjc.1994.306 · DOI
  21. Schwentner, 2013, Participation in adjuvant clinical breast cancer trials: Does study participation improve survival compared to guideline adherent adjuvant treatment? A retrospective multi-centre cohort study of 9433 patients, Eur. J. Cancer, 49, 553, 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.08.011 · DOI
  22. Kim, 2016, Strength of validation for surrogate end points used in the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of oncology drugs, Mayo. Clin. Proc., 91, 713, 10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.02.012 · DOI
  23. Kemp, R., and Prasad, V. (2017). Surrogate endpoints in oncology: When are they acceptable for regulatory and clinical decisions, and are they currently overused?. BMC Med., 15. · DOI
  24. Garrison, 2007, Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: The ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report, Value Health, 10, 326, 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00186.x · DOI
  25. Sherman, 2016, Real-world evidence—What is it and what can it tell us?, N. Engl. J. Med., 375, 2293, 10.1056/NEJMsb1609216 · DOI
  26. Jarow, 2017, Multidimensional evidence generation and FDA regulatory decision making: Defining and using “real-world” data, JAMA, 318, 703, 10.1001/jama.2017.9991 · DOI
  27. Bellows, 2014, Real-world evidence in pain research: A review of data sources, J. Pain Palliat. Care Pharmacother., 28, 294, 10.3109/15360288.2014.941131 · DOI
  28. Parkin, 2006, The evolution of the population-based cancer registry, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 6, 603, 10.1038/nrc1948 · DOI
  29. Nabhan, 2019, Real-world evidence—What does it really mean?, JAMA Oncol., 5, 781, 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0450 · DOI
  30. Booth, 2019, Real-world data: Towards achieving the achievable in cancer care, Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol., 16, 312, 10.1038/s41571-019-0167-7 · DOI
  31. Hurria, 2015, Improving the evidence base for treating older adults with cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology statement, J. Clin. Oncol., 33, 3826, 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0319 · DOI
  32. Templeton, 2013, Translating clinical trials to clinical practice: Outcomes of men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer treated with docetaxel and prednisone in and out of clinical trials, Ann. Oncol., 24, 2972, 10.1093/annonc/mdt397 · DOI
  33. Green, 2021, Assessment of outcomes associated with the use of newly approved oncology drugs in Medicare beneficiaries, JAMA Netw. Open, 4, e210030, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.0030 · DOI
  34. Templeton, 2020, Informing patients about expected outcomes: The efficacy-effectiveness gap, J. Clin. Oncol., 38, 1651, 10.1200/JCO.19.02035 · DOI
  35. Sargent, 2010, What constitutes reasonable evidence of efficacy and effectiveness to guide oncology treatment decisions?, Oncologist, 15, 19, 10.1634/theoncologist.2010-S1-19 · DOI
  36. Billingham, 2016, Research methods to change clinical practice for patients with rare cancers, Lancet Oncol., 17, e70, 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00396-4 · DOI
  37. Casali, 2015, Rare Cancers Europe (RCE) methodological recommendations for clinical studies in rare cancers: A European consensus position paper, Ann. Oncol., 26, 300, 10.1093/annonc/mdu459 · DOI
  38. Karim, 2019, Effectiveness in the absence of efficacy: Cautionary tales from real-world evidence, J. Clin. Oncol., 37, 1047, 10.1200/JCO.18.02105 · DOI
  39. Pencina, 2018, Deriving real-world insights from real-world data: Biostatistics to the rescue, Ann. Intern. Med., 169, 401, 10.7326/M18-1093 · DOI
  40. Bosco, 2010, A most stubborn bias: No adjustment method fully resolves confounding by indication in observational studies, J. Clin. Epidemiol., 63, 64, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.001 · DOI
  41. Austin, 2011, An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies, Multivariate Behav. Res., 46, 399, 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Banerjee, 2020, Are observational, real-world studies suitable to make cancer treatment recommendations?, JAMA Netw. Open, 3, e2012119, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.12119 · DOI
  43. Tannock, 2016, Relevance of randomised controlled trials in oncology, Lancet Oncol., 17, e560, 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30572-1 · DOI
  44. Seruga, 2011, Reporting of serious adverse drug reactions of targeted anticancer agents in pivotal phase III clinical trials, J. Clin. Oncol., 29, 174, 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.9624 · DOI
  45. Hodson, 2020, Precision oncology, Nature, 585, S1, 10.1038/d41586-020-02673-y · DOI
  46. Agarwala, 2018, Real-world evidence in support of precision medicine: Clinico-genomic cancer data as a case study, Health Aff., 37, 765, 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1579 · DOI
  47. Pugh, 2022, AACR Project GENIE: 100,000 cases and beyond, Cancer Discov., 12, 2044, 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-1547 · DOI
  48. Kohno, 2022, C-CAT: The National Datacenter for Cancer Genomic Medicine in Japan, Cancer Discov., 12, 2509, 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-22-0417 · DOI
  49. Schilsky, 2017, Finding the evidence in real-world evidence: Moving from data to information to knowledge, J. Am. Coll. Surg., 224, 1, 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.10.025 · DOI
  50. Gyawali, 2017, Real-world evidence and randomized studies in the precision oncology era: The right balance, JCO Precis. Oncol., 1, 1, 10.1200/PO.17.00132 · DOI
  51. Faridi, 2020, Use of administrative claims data to estimate treatment effects for 30 versus 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention, Circulation, 142, 306, 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047729 · DOI
  52. Konstam, 2020, Real world data as trial end points, Circulation, 142, 214, 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048019 · DOI
  53. Ramsberg, 2017, Register or electronic health records enriched randomized pragmatic trials: The future of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness trials?, Nord. J. Health Econ., 5, 62, 10.5617/njhe.1386 · DOI
  54. Sacks, 2018, Real-world evidence and real-world data for evaluating drug safety and effectiveness, JAMA, 320, 867, 10.1001/jama.2018.10136 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Karanatsios, 2020, Defining key design elements of registry-based randomised controlled trials: A scoping review, Trials, 21, 552, 10.1186/s13063-020-04459-z · DOI
  56. Erlinge, 2017, Bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy in myocardial infarction, N. Engl. J. Med., 377, 1132, 10.1056/NEJMoa1706443 · DOI
  57. Mathes, 2018, Registry-based randomized controlled trials merged the strength of randomized controlled trails and observational studies and give rise to more pragmatic trials, J. Clin. Epidemiol., 93, 120, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.09.017 · DOI
  58. Lauer, 2013, The randomized registry trial—The next disruptive technology in clinical research?, N. Engl. J. Med., 369, 1579, 10.1056/NEJMp1310102 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Walsh, 2014, The statistical significance of randomized controlled trial results is frequently fragile: A case for a Fragility Index, J. Clin. Epidemiol., 67, 622, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.019 · DOI
  60. Desnoyers, 2021, Fragility index of trials supporting approval of anti-cancer drugs in common solid tumours, Cancer Treat Rev., 94, 102167, 10.1016/j.ctrv.2021.102167 · DOI
  61. Finlayson, 2019, Examining the use of real-world evidence in the regulatory process, Clin. Pharmacol. Ther., 107, 843
  62. Ladanie, 2020, Clinical trial evidence supporting US Food and Drug Administration approval of novel cancer therapies between 2000 and 2016, JAMA Netw. Open, 3, e2024406, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.24406 · DOI
  63. Beaver, 2018, A 25-year experience of US Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of malignant hematology and oncology drugs and biologics: A review, JAMA Oncol., 4, 849, 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.5618 · DOI
  64. Fu, 2021, Real-world use of and spending on new oral targeted cancer drugs in the US, 2011–2018, JAMA Intern. Med., 181, 1596, 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.5983 · DOI
  65. Cipriani, 2020, Generating comparative evidence on new drugs and devices after approval, Lancet, 395, 998, 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)33177-0 · DOI
  66. Gyawali, 2019, Assessment of the clinical benefit of cancer drugs receiving accelerated approval, JAMA Intern. Med., 179, 906, 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0462 · DOI
  67. Hall, 2017, Real-world data for efficient health technology assessment, Eur. J. Cancer, 79, 235, 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.04.003 · DOI
  68. Tadrous, 2020, Developing a Canadian real-world evidence action plan across the drug life cycle, Healthc. Policy, 15, 41
  69. Makady, 2017, Policies for use of real-world data in health technology assessment (HTA): A comparative study of six HTA Agencies, Value Health, 20, 520, 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.003 · DOI
  70. Berger, 2017, Good practices for real-world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: Recommendations from the joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on real-world evidence in health care decision making, Value Health, 20, 1003, 10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.3019 · DOI
  71. Gill, 2018, Improving observational studies in the era of big data, Lancet, 392, 716, 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31619-2 · DOI
  72. Goodman, 2017, Using design thinking to differentiate useful from misleading evidence in observational research, JAMA, 317, 705, 10.1001/jama.2016.19970 · DOI
  73. Oehrlein, 2019, Patient-community perspectives on real-world evidence: Enhancing engagement, understanding, and trust, Patient-Patient-Cent. Outcomes Res., 12, 375, 10.1007/s40271-019-00356-z · DOI
  74. Girman, C.J. (2021, January 23). Real world evidence components that drive credibility and believability. Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Pharmacoepidemiology & Therapeutic Risk Management, Virtual.
  75. Miksad, 2018, Harnessing the power of real-world evidence (RWE): A checklist to ensure regulatory-grade data quality, Clin. Pharmacol. Ther., 103, 202, 10.1002/cpt.946 · DOI
  76. Khozin, 2017, Real-world data for clinical evidence generation in oncology, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 109, djx187, 10.1093/jnci/djx187 · DOI
  77. Panagiotou, 2021, Inferential challenges for real-world evidence in the era of routinely collected health data: Many researchers, many more hypotheses, a single database, JAMA Oncol., 7, 1605, 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.3537 · DOI
  78. Wang, 2021, STaRT-RWE: Structured template for planning and reporting on the implementation of real world evidence studies, Br. Med. J., 372, m4856, 10.1136/bmj.m4856 · DOI
  79. Breckenridge, 2019, Report on the current status of the use of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) in drug development and regulation, Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 85, 1874, 10.1111/bcp.14026 · DOI
  80. Birkett, 2001, A cost-effectiveness approach to drug subsidy and pricing in Australia, Health Aff., 20, 104, 10.1377/hlthaff.20.3.104 · DOI
  81. Henry, 2018, Access to routinely collected data for population health research: Experiences in Canada and Australia, Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health, 42, 430, 10.1111/1753-6405.12813 · DOI
  82. Mues, 2017, Use of the Medicare database in epidemiologic and health services research: A valuable source of real-world evidence on the older and disabled populations in the US, Clin. Epidemiol., 9, 267, 10.2147/CLEP.S105613 · DOI
  83. Ma, X., Long, L., Moon, S., Adamson, B.J.S., and Baxi, S.S. (2020). Comparison of population characteristics in real-world clinical oncology databases in the US: Flatiron Health, SEER, and NPCR. Medrxiv. · DOI
  84. Guttmann, 2019, The SPOR Canadian Data Platform: Opportunity for multi-provincial research, Can. Med. Assoc. J., 191, E1091, 10.1503/cmaj.191040 · DOI
  85. Suissa, 2012, CNODES: The Canadian network for observational drug effect studies, Open Med., 6, e134
  86. Wettermark, 2013, The Nordic prescription databases as a resource for pharmacoepidemiological research—A literature review, Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf., 22, 691, 10.1002/pds.3457 · DOI
  87. Bright, 2019, Data resource profile: The Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy (SACT) dataset, Int. J. Epidemiol., 49, 15, 10.1093/ije/dyz137 · DOI
  88. Enerly, 2021, INSPIRE: A new opportunity for cancer pharmacoepidemiology research, Norsk Epidemiol., 29, 29, 10.5324/nje.v29i1-2.4043 · DOI
  89. Enewold, 2020, Updated overview of the SEER-Medicare data: Enhanced content and applications, J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr., 2020, 3

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Tang, M., Pearson, S.-A., Simes, R. J., & Chua, B. H.
Venue
Current Oncology
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-02-02
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
1844-1859
ISSN
1718-7729
DOI
10.3390/curroncol30020143
PMC
PMC9955401
Cited by
88
References
5
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1151479, DS-18-01)
  • National Breast Cancer Foundation (1151479, DS-18-01)
  • Translational Cancer Research Network (1151479, DS-18-01)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review