The use of real-world data in cancer drug development

Calibration of transition probabilities to model survival of adjuvant trastuzumab for early breast cancer in Indonesia

OBJECTIVES

Cost-effectiveness models fully informed by real-world epidemiological parameters yield the best results, but they are costly to obtain. Model calibration using real-world data/evidence (RWD/E) on routine health indicators can provide an alternative to improve the validity and acceptability of the results. We calibrated the transition probabilities of the reference chemotherapy treatment using RWE on patient overall survival (OS) to model the survival benefit of adjuvant trastuzumab in Indonesia.

METHODS

A Markov model comprising four health states was initially parameterized using the reference-treatment transition probabilities, obtained from published international evidence. We then calibrated these probabilities, targeting a 2-year OS of 86.11 percent from the RWE sourced from hospital registries. We compared projected OS duration and life-years gained (LYG) before and after calibration for the Nelder-Mead, Bound Optimization BY Quadratic Approximation, and generalized reduced gradient (GRG) nonlinear optimization methods.

RESULTS

The pre-calibrated transition probabilities overestimated the 2-year OS (92.25 percent). GRG nonlinear performed best and had the smallest difference with the RWD/E OS. After calibration, the projected OS duration was significantly lower than their pre-calibrated estimates across all optimization methods for both standard chemotherapy (~7.50 vs. 11.00 years) and adjuvant trastuzumab (~9.50 vs. 12.94 years). LYG measures were, however, similar (~2 years) for the pre-calibrated and calibrated models.

CONCLUSIONS

RWD/E calibration resulted in realistically lower survival estimates. Despite the little difference in LYG, calibration is useful to adapt external evidence commonly used to derive transition probabilities to the policy context, thereby enhancing the validity and acceptability of the modeling results.

Examining the Effect of Missing Data and Unmeasured Confounding on External Comparator Studies: Case Studies and Simulations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Missing data and unmeasured confounding are key challenges for external comparator studies. This work evaluates bias and other performance characteristics depending on missingness and unmeasured confounding by means of two case studies and simulations.

METHODS

Two case studies were constructed by taking the treatment arms from two randomised controlled trials and an external real-world data source that exhibited substantial missingness. The indications of the randomised controlled trials were multiple myeloma and metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Overall survival was taken as the main endpoint. The effects of missing data and unmeasured confounding were assessed for the case studies by reporting estimated external comparator versus randomised controlled trial treatment effects. Based on the two case studies, simulations were performed broadening the settings by varying the underlying hazard ratio, the sample size, the sample size ratio between the experimental arm and the external comparator, the number of missing covariates and the percentage of missingness. Thereby, bias and other performance metrics could be quantified dependent on these factors.

RESULTS

For the multiple myeloma external comparator study, results were in line with the randomised controlled trial, despite missingness and potential unmeasured confounding, while for the metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer case study missing data led to a low sample size, leading overall to inconclusive results. Furthermore, for the metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer study, missing data in important eligibility criteria led to further limitations. Simulations were successfully applied to gain a quantitative understanding of the effects of missing data and unmeasured confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study confirmed external comparator strengths and limitations by quantifying the impact of missing data and unmeasured confounding using case studies and simulations. In particular, missing data in key eligibility criteria were seen to limit the ability to derive the external comparator target analysis population accurately, while simulations demonstrated the magnitude of bias to expect for various settings.

Clinical relevance of reports on early access programs for checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients: a French retrospective nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

To accelerate access to new drugs, France operated an early access program known as Temporary Authorizations for Use (ATUs) until 2021. We analyzed clinical reports submitted under ATUs for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and assessed their clinical relevance regarding the approval of ICIs in oncology.

METHODS

We included all ICIs granted an ATU by the French drug safety agency, Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM; French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products), for patients with cancer between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020. We collected patients' clinical and pharmacovigilance data from ATU reports submitted by pharmaceutical companies and compared these data with those from corresponding pivotal clinical trials (CTs).

RESULTS

The ATUs provided early access to 5807 patients with seven ICIs across 11 cancer indications, 1 of which had no corresponding ATU report. Of the 10 available ATU reports, only 1 included all required data. Clinical follow-up forms were available for 40.5% of patients. Differences in data reporting prevented us from comparing serious adverse events between the CTs and ATU reports. Clinicians and pharmaceutical companies often disagreed on whether ICIs caused 163 permanent treatment discontinuations, with Cohen's bias- and prevalence-adjusted κ = 0.52, 95% CI 0.33-0.68. Although agreement was almost perfect for 93 nonprogressive tumor deaths (κ = 0.88, 95% CI 0.66-0.97), 29% of ATU patient deaths remained unexplained and were reported as unrelated to treatment by the pharmaceutical companies.

CONCLUSION

French ATUs facilitated early access to new ICIs for many patients with cancer. However, data attrition hindered effective real-world monitoring.

Generating and using real-world data: A worthwhile uphill battle

The precision oncology paradigm challenges the feasibility and data generalizability of traditional clinical trials. Consequently, an unmet need exists for practical approaches to test many subgroups, evaluate real-world drug value, and gather comprehensive, accessible datasets to validate novel biomarkers. Real-world data (RWD) are increasingly recognized to have the potential to fill this gap in research methodology. Established applications of RWD include informing disease epidemiology, pharmacovigilance, and healthcare quality assessment. Currently, concerns regarding RWD quality and comprehensiveness, privacy, and biases hamper their broader application. Nonetheless, RWD may play a pivotal role in supplementing clinical trials, enabling conditional reimbursement and accelerated drug access, and innovating trial conduct. Moreover, purpose-built RWD repositories may support the extension or refinement of drug indications and facilitate the discovery and validation of new biomarkers. This perspective explores the potential of leveraging RWD to advance oncology, highlights its benefits and challenges, and suggests a path forward in this evolving field.

The Acceptance of Indirect Treatment Comparison Methods in Oncology by Health Technology Assessment Agencies in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain

INTRODUCTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard when comparing treatment effectiveness, and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies state a clear preference for such direct comparisons. When these are not available, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) is an alternative option. The objective of this study was to assess the acceptance of ITC methods by HTA agencies across England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, using oncology cases for a homogeneous sample of HTA evaluations.

METHODS

The study was conducted on the PrismAccess database in May 2021 to retrieve HTA evaluation reports for oncology treatments for solid tumors, in which an ITC was presented. The analysis was restricted to HTA evaluation reports published between April 2018 and April 2021 in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Identified HTA evaluation reports were screened and reviewed by two independent reviewers. For each ITC presented, the methodology and its acceptance by the HTA agency were analyzed.

RESULTS

Five hundred and forty-three HTA evaluation reports were identified, of which 120 (22%) presented an ITC. This proportion was the highest in England (51%) and lowest in France (6%). The overall acceptance rate of ITC methods was 30%, with the highest in England (47%) and lowest in France (0%). Network meta-analysis (NMA; 23%) was the most commonly used ITC technique, with a 39% acceptance rate overall, followed by Bucher ITC (19%; 43% acceptance rate) and matching-adjusted indirect comparison (13%; 33% acceptance rate). The most common criticisms of the ITC methods from HTA agencies related to data limitations (heterogeneity and lack of data; 48% and 43%, respectively) and the statistical methods used (41%).

CONCLUSIONS

The generally low acceptance rate of ITC methods by HTA agencies in oncology suggests that, whilst in the absence of a direct comparison ITCs may provide relevant evidence, this evidence is not widely considered sufficient for the purpose of HTA evaluations. The perception of ITC methods for the purpose of HTA evaluations varies substantially between countries. There is a need for further clarity on the properties of ITC techniques and the assessment of their results as ITC methods continue to evolve quickly and further techniques may become available in the future.

Real-world outcomes of 18,186 metastatic solid tumor outpatients: Baseline blood cell counts correlate with survival after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy

BACKGROUND

Patient survival in advanced/metastatic melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has improved with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Biomarkers' role in prognosis and treatment has been limited by conflicting trial results.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational study analyzed baseline demographic, clinical, laboratory, and treatment data versus outcomes of The US Oncology Network adult outpatients. Patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma, NSCLC, or RCC treated between January 1, 2015 and November 30, 2020 were given ICI monotherapy or combination therapy with ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or atezolizumab. Treatment outcomes (overall survival [OS], time to treatment discontinuation, time to next treatment) were followed longitudinally until May 31, 2021, last patient record, or date of death. Baseline blood cell counts, including absolute monocyte count (AMC), absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), absolute neutrophil count (ANC), and eosinophil count, were subdivided into quintiles for univariate and multivariable Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

Data from 18,186 patients with advanced/metastatic melanoma (n = 3314), NSCLC (n = 12,416), and RCC (n = 2456) were analyzed. Better OS correlated with increased baseline serum albumin concentration, increased eosinophil and lymphocyte counts, and Western United States physician practice location. Decreased OS correlated with increased AMC, MLR, ANC, age, and worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this study is the largest to date to associate baseline survival indicators and outcomes in outpatients with advanced/metastatic melanoma, NSCLC, or RCC and receiving ICIs. Results may inform disease-specific prognostic models and help providers identify patients most likely to benefit from ICI therapy.

Real World Data Studies of Antineoplastic Drugs: How Can They Be Improved to Steer Everyday Use in the Clinic?

There is a growing interest in real world evidence when developing antineoplastic drugs owing to the shorter length of time and low costs compared to randomised controlled trials. External validity of studies in the regulatory phase can be enhanced by complementing randomised controlled trials with real world evidence. Furthermore, the use of real world evidence ensures the inclusion of patients often excluded from randomised controlled trials such as the elderly, certain ethnicities or those from certain geographical areas. This review explores approaches in which real world data may be integrated with randomised controlled trials. One approach is by using big data, especially when investigating drugs in the antineoplastic setting. This can even inform artificial intelligence thus ensuring faster and more precise diagnosis and treatment decisions. Pragmatic trials also offer an approach to examine the effectiveness of novel antineoplastic drugs without evading the benefits of randomised controlled trials. A well-designed pragmatic trial would yield results with high external validity by employing a simple study design with a large sample size and diverse settings. Although randomised controlled trials can determine efficacy of antineoplastic drugs, effectiveness in the real world may differ. The need for pragmatic trials to help guide healthcare decision-making led to the development of trials within cohorts (TWICs). TWICs make use of cohorts to conduct multiple randomised controlled trials while maintaining characteristics of real world data in routine clinical practice. Although real world data is often affected by incomplete data and biases such as selection and unmeasured biases, the use of big data and pragmatic approaches can improve the use of real world data in the development of antineoplastic drugs that can in turn steer decision-making in clinical practice.

Effects of Acetaminophen Exposure on Outcomes of Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

(1) Background: Several studies have investigated potential interactions between immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and commonly prescribed medications. Although acetaminophen (APAP) has not been considered susceptible to interaction with ICIs, recent research has shown that detectable plasma levels of this drug can hinder the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade therapies. A reliable assessment of the potential interaction between APAP and ICIs in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients would be worthwhile since it is often prescribed in this condition. We sought to evaluate the impact of the concomitant use of APAP in patients with advanced NSCLC on PD-1/PD-L1 blockade using real-world evidence. (2) Methods: This study included consecutive patients with histologically proven stage IV NSCLC who underwent first-line therapy with pembrolizumab as a single agent or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, or second-line therapy with pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or atezolizumab. The intensity of APAP exposure was classified as low (therapeutic intake lasting less than 24 h or a cumulative intake lower than 60 doses of 1000 mg) or high (therapeutic intake lasting more than 24 h or a total intake exceeding 60 doses of 1000 mg). The favorable outcome of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies was defined by durable clinical benefit (DCB). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were relevant to our efficacy analysis. Propensity score matching (PSM) methods were applied to adjust for differences between the APAP exposure subgroups. (3) Results: Over the course of April 2018 to October 2022, 80 patients were treated with first-line pembrolizumab either as single-agent therapy or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy. During the period from June 2015 to November 2022, 145 patients were given anti-PD-1/PD-L1 blockade therapy as second-line treatment. Subsequent efficacy analyses relied on adjusted PSM populations in both treatment settings. Multivariate testing revealed that only the level of APAP and corticosteroid intake had an independent effect on DCB in both treatment lines. Multivariate Cox regression analysis confirmed high exposure to APAP and immunosuppressive corticosteroid therapy as independent predictors of shorter PFS and OS in both treatment settings. (4) Conclusions: Our findings would strengthen the available evidence that concomitant intake of APAP blunts the efficacy of ICIs in patients with advanced NSCLC. The detrimental effects appear to depend on the cumulative dose and duration of exposure to APAP. The inherent shortcomings of the current research warrant confirmation in larger independent series.

Pathologic response and survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without pertuzumab in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer: the Neopearl nationwide collaborative study

Purpose

Clinical trials have shown a significant increase in pathologic complete response (pCR) with the addition of pertuzumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with early-stage HER-2 positive breast cancer. To date, limited studies have examined comparative outcomes of neoadjuvant pertuzumab in real-world setting. The Neopearl study aimed to assess comparative real-life efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab for these patients.

Methods

We conducted a nationwide retrospective analysis involving 17 oncology facilities with a certified multidisciplinary breast cancer treatment committee. We identified patients with HER-2 positive stage II-III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on trastuzumab and taxanes with or without pertuzumab. All patients underwent breast surgery and received a comprehensive cardiologic evaluation at baseline and after neoadjuvant treatment. Patients who received the combination of pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and chemotherapy constituted case cohort (PTCT), whereas those treated with trastuzumab and chemotherapy accounted for control cohort (TCT). The pCR rate and 5-year event free survival (EFS) were the primary outcomes. Secondary end-points were rates of conversion from planned modified radical mastectomy (MRM) to breast conservation surgery (BCS) and cardiotoxicities.

Results

From March 2014 to April 2021, we included 271 patients, 134 (49%) and 137 (51%) in TCT and PTCT cohort, respectively. Positive axillary lymph nodes and stage III were more frequent in PTCT cohort. The pCR rate was significantly increased in patients who received pertuzumab (49% vs 62%; OR 1.74, 95%CI 1.04-2.89) and with HER-2 enriched subtypes (16% vs 85%; OR 2.94, 95%CI 1.60-5.41). After a median follow-up of 5 years, the 5-year EFS was significantly prolonged only in patients treated with pertuzumab (81% vs 93%; HR 2.22, 95%CI 1.03-4.79). The same analysis performed on propensity score matched population showed concordant results. On univariate analysis, only patients with positive lymph nodes were found to benefit from pertuzumab for both pCR and 5-year EFS. The rates of conversion from MRM to BCS and cardiologic toxicities did not differ between the cohorts.

Conclusion

Our findings support previous data on improved outcomes with the addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This benefit seems to be more significant in patients with clinically positive lymph nodes.

Analysis of the characteristics and the degree of pragmatism exhibited by pragmatic-labelled trials of antineoplastic treatments

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are designed to reflect how an investigational treatment would be applied in clinical practice. As such, unlike their explanatory counterparts, they measure therapeutic effectiveness and are capable of generating high-quality real-world evidence. However, the conduct of PCTs remains extremely rare. The scarcity of such studies has contributed to the emergence of the efficacy-effectiveness gap and has led to calls for launching more of them, including in the field of oncology. This analysis aimed to identify self-labelled pragmatic trials of antineoplastic interventions and to evaluate whether their use of this label was justified.

METHODS

We searched PubMed® and Embase® for publications corresponding with studies that investigated antitumor therapies and that were tagged as pragmatic in their titles, abstracts and/or index terms. Subsequently, we consulted all available source documents for the included trials and extracted relevant information from them. The data collected were then used to appraise the degree of pragmatism displayed by the PCTs with the help of the validated PRECIS-2 tool.

RESULTS

The literature search returned 803 unique records, of which 46 were retained upon conclusion of the screening process. This ultimately resulted in the identification of 42 distinct trials that carried the 'pragmatic' label. These studies examined eight different categories of neoplasms and were mostly randomized, open-label, multicentric, single-country trials sponsored by non-commercial parties. On a scale of one (very explanatory) to five (very pragmatic), the median PCT had a PRECIS-2 score per domain of 3.13 (interquartile range: 2.57-3.53). The most and least pragmatic studies in the sample had a score of 4.44 and 1.57, respectively. Only a minority of trials were described in sufficient detail to allow them to be graded across all domains of the PRECIS-2 instrument. Many of the studies examined also had features that arguably precluded them from being pragmatic altogether, such as being monocentric or placebo-controlled in nature.

CONCLUSION

PCTs of antineoplastic treatments are generally no more pragmatic than they are explanatory.

Representing and utilizing clinical textual data for real world studies: An OHDSI approach

Clinical documentation in electronic health records contains crucial narratives and details about patients and their care. Natural language processing (NLP) can unlock the information conveyed in clinical notes and reports, and thus plays a critical role in real-world studies. The NLP Working Group at the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) consortium was established to develop methods and tools to promote the use of textual data and NLP in real-world observational studies. In this paper, we describe a framework for representing and utilizing textual data in real-world evidence generation, including representations of information from clinical text in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM), the workflow and tools that were developed to extract, transform and load (ETL) data from clinical notes into tables in OMOP CDM, as well as current applications and specific use cases of the proposed OHDSI NLP solution at large consortia and individual institutions with English textual data. Challenges faced and lessons learned during the process are also discussed to provide valuable insights for researchers who are planning to implement NLP solutions in real-world studies.

Defining the role of real-world data in cancer clinical research: The position of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

The emergence of the precision medicine paradigm in oncology has led to increasing interest in the integration of real-world data (RWD) into cancer clinical research. As sources of real-world evidence (RWE), such data could potentially help address the uncertainties that surround the adoption of novel anticancer therapies into the clinic following their investigation in clinical trials. At present, RWE-generating studies which investigate antitumour interventions seem to primarily focus on collecting and analysing observational RWD, typically forgoing the use of randomisation despite its methodological benefits. This is appropriate in situations where randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not feasible and non-randomised RWD analyses can offer valuable insights. Nevertheless, depending on how they are designed, RCTs have the potential to produce strong and actionable RWE themselves. The choice of which methodology to employ for RWD studies should be guided by the nature of the research question they are intended to answer. Here, we attempt to define some of the questions that do not necessarily require the conduct of RCTs. Moreover, we outline the strategy of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) to contribute to the generation of robust and high-quality RWE by prioritising the execution of pragmatic trials and studies set up according to the trials-within-cohorts approach. If treatment allocation cannot be left up to random chance due to practical or ethical concerns, the EORTC will consider undertaking observational RWD research based on the target trial principle. New EORTC-sponsored RCTs may also feature concurrent prospective cohorts composed of off-trial patients.

The Role of Real-World Data and Evidence in Oncology Medicines Approved in EU in 2018-2019

Use of Real-World data (RWD) has gained the interest of different stakeholders in cancer care. The aim of this study was to identify and describe the use of RWD/RWE during the pre-authorisation phase of products authorised by the EMA in 2018 and 2019 (n=111), with the focus on oncology medicines (n=24). Information was extracted from the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summaries and recorded for 5 stages (11 categories) of the drug development lifecycle (discovery, early development, clinical development, registration/market launch, lifecycle management). Specific chapters of full EPAR were reviewed to substantiate the findings on RWD/RWE use in clinical trial design, efficacy, safety, and effectiveness evaluation. RWD/RWE is present in all stages of the oncology drug development; 100.0% in discovery, 37.5% early development, 58.3% in clinical development, 62.5% in registration decision and 100.0% in post-authorization lifecycle management. Examples showed that trial design supported by RWD/RWE included use of open label/single arm studies; efficacy was about using either comparison of results to historical controls, supplying survey data obtained outside the clinical trial or utilizing expert panel advice; safety about including literature findings in evidence; and effectiveness on comparison of trial results of the given product to historical data or existing standard of care. The findings of this study provide specific insights into how RWD/RWE is used in development of cancer therapeutics, how it contributes to regulatory decision making and can guide further policy developments in this field.

Challenges to Using Big Data in Cancer

Big data in healthcare can enable unprecedented understanding of diseases and their treatment, particularly in oncology. These data may include electronic health records, medical imaging, genomic sequencing, payor records, and data from pharmaceutical research, wearables, and medical devices. The ability to combine datasets and use data across many analyses is critical to the successful use of big data and is a concern for those who generate and use the data. Interoperability and data quality continue to be major challenges when working with different healthcare datasets. Mapping terminology across datasets, missing and incorrect data, and varying data structures make combining data an onerous and largely manual undertaking. Data privacy is another concern addressed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Common Rule, and the General Data Protection Regulation. The use of big data is now included in the planning and activities of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency. The willingness of organizations to share data in a precompetitive fashion, agreements on data quality standards, and institution of universal and practical tenets on data privacy will be crucial to fully realizing the potential for big data in medicine.

Current perspectives for external control arms in oncology clinical trials: Analysis of EMA approvals 2016-2021

Leveraging external control data, especially real-world data (RWD), has drawn particular attention in recent years for facilitating oncology clinical development and regulatory decision-making. Medical regulators have published guidance on accelerating the use of RWD and external controls. However, few systematic discussions have been conducted on external controls in cancer drug submissions and regulatory feedback. This study aimed to identify European oncology drug approvals using external control data to demonstrate clinical efficacy. We included 18 eligible submissions employing 24 external controls and then discussed the use of external control, data sources, analysis methods, and regulators' feedback. The external controls have been actively submitted to the European Medical Agency (EMA) recently. We found that 17 % of the EMA-approved cancer drugs in 2016-2021 used external controls, among which 37 % of the cases leveraged RWD. However, nearly one-third of the external controls were not considered supportive evidence by EMA due to limitations regarding heterogeneous patient populations, missing outcome assessment in RWD, and inappropriate statistical analysis. This study highlighted that proper use of external controls requires a careful assessment of clinical settings, data availability, and statistical methodology. For better use of external controls in oncology clinical trials, we recommend: prospective study designs to avoid selection bias, sufficient baseline data to ensure the comparability of study populations, consistent endpoint measurements to enable outcome comparison, robust statistical methodology for comparative analysis, and collaborative efforts of sponsors and regulators to establish regulatory frameworks.

Real-world data for precision cancer medicine-A European perspective

Leveraging real-world data (RWD) for drug access is necessary to overcome a key challenge of modern precision oncology: tackling numerous low-prevalence oncogenic mutations across cancers. Withholding a potentially active medication in patients with rare mutations for the sake of control chemotherapy or "best" supportive care is neither practicable nor ethically justifiable anymore, particularly as RWD could meanwhile be used instead, according to scientific principles outlined by the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and other stakeholders. However, practical implementation varies, with occasionally opposite recommendations based on the same evidence in different countries. In the face of growing need for precision drugs, more transparency of evaluation, a priori availability of guidance for the academia and industry, as well as a harmonized framework for health technology assessment across the European Union (EU) are imperative. These could in turn trigger infrastructural changes in national and pan-European registries, cancer management guidelines (e.g., frequency of routine radiologic restaging, inclusion of patient-reported outcomes), and the health data space, to ensure conformity with declared standards and facilitate extraction of RWD sets (including patient-level data) suitable for approval and pricing with minimal effort. For an EU-wide unification of precision cancer medicine, collective negotiation of drug supply contracts and funding solidarity would additionally be required to handle the financial burden. According to experience from pivotal European programs, off-label use could potentially also be harmonized across EU-states to accelerate availability of novel drugs, streamline collection of valuable RWD, and mitigate related costs through wider partnerships with pharmaceutical companies.

Real-world data in oncology: a questionnaire-based analysis of the academic research landscape examining the policies and experiences of the cancer cooperative groups

BACKGROUND

Real-world data (RWD) have quickly emerged as an important source of information to address uncertainties about new treatments, including novel anticancer therapies. Many stakeholders are using such data and the evidence derived therefrom to answer the questions that remain about the safety and effectiveness of antitumor medicines after their approval by regulators. Our objective was to investigate the academic RWD study landscape and explore to what extent RWD are being integrated into investigator-initiated clinical research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We designed an online survey that was distributed between May and August 2022 to representatives of cancer cooperative groups active in Europe, North America, South America, Asia, and/or Oceania.

RESULTS

In total, 125 cooperative groups operating in 58 different countries and conducting research across 13 distinct cancer domains participated in the survey. While most of the responders (67.2%) did not have a formal policy in place to gather and utilize RWD, a majority (68.0%) had carried out studies involving the analysis of such data before, both for exploratory and confirmatory purposes. The groups that were experienced in capturing and interpreting RWD had mainly worked with observational RWD that were not predominantly prospective or retrospective in nature and which originated from disease registries, electronic health records, and patient questionnaires. They perceived the low costs and the large scale of RWD research to be its most significant benefits, and viewed the accompanying methodological and operational challenges as its biggest constraints. However, they did not have a common understanding of what RWD were. Despite their experience with analyzing RWD, their research portfolio still primarily comprised traditional clinical trials; 62.5% of the groups that had never undertaken any RWD studies were nonetheless planning to initiate them in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer cooperative groups are already incorporating RWD studies into their research agendas, but still lack knowledge and expertise in this regard, and do not agree on what RWD are. The conduct of conventional clinical trials continues to be their priority.

Promise of Real-World Evidence for Patient Centricity in Gulf Cooperation Council Countries: Call to Action

Presently, Gulf Cooperation Council countries are lagging in the generation of real-world data and use of real-world evidence for patient-centered care compared with the global average. In a collaborative effort, experts from multiple domains of the healthcare environment from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries came together to present their views and recommended key action points for the generation of robust real-world data and leveraging real-world evidence in the countries. The opinions of the experts are presented, along with existing barriers to the effective generation of real-world evidence in the countries. The Gulf Cooperation Council countries are undergoing transformative changes paving the way for improved healthcare measures; however, the challenges in generating reliable, robust, accessible, and secure real-world evidence are persistent. Hence, ongoing public-private engagements, as well as collaborations between regulators, policymakers, healthcare professionals, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and patients, are warranted. A few notable examples of real-world evidence studies highlighting the benefits of real-world evidence for gaining valuable insights into patient-centric decision making are also discussed. The actionable steps identified for successful real-world evidence generation would provide long-term, real-world evidence-based patient-centric benefits for the countries.

Pembrolizumab-combination therapy for previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC: Real-world outcomes at US oncology practices

Objectives

The availability of immunotherapies has expanded the options for treating metastatic NSCLC, but information is needed regarding outcomes of immunotherapy for patients treated outside of clinical trials. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the outcomes of therapy with first-line pembrolizumab plus pemetrexed and carboplatin (pembrolizumab-combination) for patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC in the real-world setting of oncology clinics in the United States (US).

Methods

Using deidentified, longitudinal patient records from a nationwide, electronic health record-derived US database, we identified patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, without EGFR/ALK/ROS1 genomic alterations, who had received no previous systemic anticancer therapy. Eligible patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 and initiated first-line pembrolizumab-combination therapy from 11-May-2017 to 31-January-2019; data cutoff was 31-August-2020. Patients treated in a clinical trial were excluded. Manual chart review supplemented technology-enabled abstraction to identify disease progression and tumor response. Time-to-event endpoints from initiation of pembrolizumab-combination therapy were determined using Kaplan-Meier.

Results

Of 377 patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, 105 (28%), 104 (28%), and 103 (27%) had programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥50%, 1–49%, and <1%, respectively; PD-L1 expression was not documented for 65 patients (17%). Median age was 66 years, and 227 patients (60%) were men. Median follow-up time from first-line therapy initiation to data cutoff was 31.2 months (range, 19.0-39.6 months). Median pembrolizumab real-world time on treatment (rwToT) was 5.8 months (95% CI, 5.0-6.7); 12- and 24-month on-treatment rates for pembrolizumab were 28.0% and 14.9%, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was 17.2 months (95% CI, 13.6-19.9). For patients in PD-L1 expression ≥50%, 1-49%, <1%, and unknown cohorts, the 12-month survival rates were 66.0%, 58.5%, 54.5%, and 58.3%, respectively, and 24-month survival rates were 43.1%, 37.2%, 35.6%, and 42.0%, respectively. Median real-world progression-free survival was 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.5-7.1); and the real-world response rate was 39.3%, with median duration of response of 13.1 months (95% CI, 10.5-16.8).

Conclusions

These findings demonstrate the benefits of first-line pembrolizumab-combination therapy for patients with EGFR/ALK-wild-type, metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC and good performance status who are treated at US community oncology clinics.

Real-world experience in treating pediatric relapsed/refractory or therapy-related myeloid malignancies with decitabine, vorinostat, and FLAG therapy based on a phase 1 study run by the TACL consortium

Current therapies for relapsed/refractory (R/R) pediatric myeloid neoplasms are inadequately effective. Real-world data (RWD) can improve care by augmenting traditional studies and include individuals not eligible for clinical trials. The Therapeutic Advances in Childhood Leukemia and Lymphoma (TACL) consortium recently completed T2016-003, a phase 1 study of decitabine, vorinostat, fludarabine, cytarabine, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in R/R acute myeloid leukemia (AML), which added epigenetic drugs to a cytotoxic backbone. We report results of RWD from six centers that treated 28 pediatric patients (26 with AML, two with other myeloid neoplasms) identically to the TACL study but who were not enrolled. This allowed unique analyses and the ability to compare data with the 35 TACL study patients. The overall response rate (ORR) (complete response [CR] plus CR with incomplete count recovery) among 26 RWD evaluable patients was 65%. The ORR of 13 patients with relapsed AML with epigenetic alterations was 69% (T2016-003 + RWD: 68%, n = 25), of eight patients with refractory AML was 38% (T2016-003 + RWD: 41%, n = 17) and of five patients with therapy-related AML (t-AML) was 80% (T2016-003 + RWD: 75%, n = 8). The mean number of Grade 3/4 toxicities experienced by the T2016-003-eligible RWD population (n = 22) (one per patient-cycle) was not meaningfully different than those (n = 6) who would have been TACL study-ineligible secondary to comorbidities (two per patient-cycle). Overall, this therapy was well tolerated and effective in pediatric patients with R/R myeloid neoplasms, particularly those with epigenetic alterations, t-AML, and refractory disease.

How do cancer clinicians perceive real-world data and the evidence derived therefrom? Findings from an international survey of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

Background: The role of real-world evidence (RWE) in the development of anticancer therapies has been gradually growing over time. Regulators, payers and health technology assessment agencies, spurred by the rise of the precision medicine model, are increasingly incorporating RWE into their decision-making regarding the authorization and reimbursement of novel antineoplastic treatments. However, it remains unclear how this trend is viewed by clinicians in the field. This study aimed to investigate the opinions of these stakeholders with respect to RWE and its suitability for informing regulatory, reimbursement-related and clinical decisions in oncology.

Methods: An online survey was disseminated to clinicians belonging to the network of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer between May and July 2021.

Results: In total, 557 clinicians across 30 different countries participated in the survey, representing 13 distinct cancer domains. Despite seeing the methodological challenges associated with its interpretation as difficult to overcome, the respondents mostly (75.0%) perceived RWE positively, and believed such evidence could be relatively strong, depending on the designs and data sources of the studies from which it is produced. Few (4.6%) saw a future expansion of its influence on decision-makers as a negative evolution. Furthermore, nearly all (94.0%) participants were open to the idea of sharing anonymized or pseudonymized electronic health data of their patients with external parties for research purposes. Nevertheless, most clinicians (77.0%) still considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to be the gold standard for generating clinical evidence in oncology, and a plurality (49.2%) thought that RWE cannot fully address the knowledge gaps that remain after a new antitumor intervention has entered the market. Moreover, a majority of respondents (50.7%) expressed that they relied more heavily on RCT-derived evidence than on RWE for their own decision-making.

Conclusion: While cancer clinicians have positive opinions about RWE and want to contribute to its generation, they also continue to hold RCTs in high regard as sources of actionable evidence.

A Review of Causal Inference for External Comparator Arm Studies

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard design to establish the efficacy of new drugs and to support regulatory decision making. However, a marked increase in the submission of single-arm trials (SATs) has been observed in recent years, especially in the field of oncology due to the trend towards precision medicine contributing to the rise of new therapeutic interventions for rare diseases. SATs lack results for control patients, and information from external sources can be compiled to provide context for better interpretability of study results. External comparator arm (ECA) studies are defined as a clinical trial (most commonly a SAT) and an ECA of a comparable cohort of patients-commonly derived from real-world settings including registries, natural history studies, or medical records of routine care. This publication aims to provide a methodological overview, to sketch emergent best practice recommendations and to identify future methodological research topics. Specifically, existing scientific and regulatory guidance for ECA studies is reviewed and appropriate causal inference methods are discussed. Further topics include sample size considerations, use of estimands, handling of different data sources regarding differential baseline covariate definitions, differential endpoint measurements and timings. In addition, unique features of ECA studies are highlighted, specifically the opportunity to address bias caused by unmeasured ECA covariates, which are available in the SAT.

Real-World Treatment with Nivolumab or Cabozantinib for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC) in the Veneto Region of Italy: Results of AMOUR Study

Background

Second- or third-line treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) have dramatically changed in the last few years. There are no criteria for the choice between nivolumab and cabozantinib, which both demonstrated overall survival (OS) gain in pivotal trials.

Objective

We conducted an analysis of oncological outcomes in patients treated in the Veneto Region (Italy), studying different sequences of TKI-nivolumab-cabozantinib or TKI-cabozantinib-nivolumab in a publicly funded healthcare system.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a retrospective, real-world analysis of all consecutive patients with mRCC treated with nivolumab or cabozantinib in 2017–2018 at 19 Oncology Units in the Veneto Region.

Results

We identified 170 patients, 73 % males, median age 68.4 years. All patients started second-line treatment, 59 % received a third-line therapy. Patients with NLR > 3 had a shorter OS (p < 0.0001). In the second-line treatment, nivolumab was administered to 108 patients (63 %), cabozantinib to 29 (17 %); in the third-line treatment nivolumab was administered to 42 patients (25 %), cabozantinib to 49 (29 %). Median OS and PFS in second line treatment were 28.4 and 6.6 months for nivolumab, 16.8 and 6.6 months for cabozantinib. Median OS and PFS in third-line treatment were 27 and 5.2 months for nivolumab, 16.6 and 7.5 months for cabozantinib. Median OS for nivolumab>cabozantinib sequence versus cabozantinib > nivolumab was 28.8 versus 19.9 months (p = 0.2); median PFS for both the sequences were similar at 5.7 months. A cost effectiveness per month of survival of the two sequences analysis was performed: the cost per month for the nivolumab > cabozantinib sequence was 1738.60whereas the cost for the other one was €1624.80.

Conclusions

In our real-world cohort, most patients received nivolumab as second-line treatment. Outcomes of single drugs are superimposable with those in the published literature. Both the sequences of nivolumab and cabozantinib appear to be viable, effective strategies from an OS and cost-effective perspective.

Beyond standard data collection – the promise and potential of BRAIN (Brain tumour Registry Australia INnovation and translation registry)

Background

Real-world data (RWD) is increasingly being embraced as an invaluable source of information to address clinical and policy-relevant questions that are unlikely to ever be answered by clinical trials. However, the largely unrealised potential of RWD is the value to be gained by supporting prospective studies and translational research. Here we describe the design and implementation of an Australian brain cancer registry, BRAIN, which is pursuing these opportunities.

Methods

BRAIN was designed by a panel of clinicians in conjunction with BIOGRID to capture comprehensive clinical data on patients diagnosed with brain tumours from diagnosis through treatment to recurrence or death. Extensive internal and external testing was undertaken, followed by implementation at multiple sites across Victoria and Tasmania.

Results

Between February 2021 and December 2021, a total of 350 new patients from 10 sites, including one private and two regional, were entered into BRAIN. Additionally, BRAIN supports the world’s first registry trial in neuro-oncology, EX-TEM, addressing the optimal duration of post-radiation temozolomide; and BioBRAIN, a dedicated brain tumour translational program providing a pipeline for biospecimen collection matched with linked clinical data.

Conclusions

Here we report on the first data collection effort in brain tumours for Australia, which we believe to be unique worldwide given the number of sites and patients involved and the extent to which the registry resource is being leveraged to support clinical and translational research. Further directions such as passive data flow and data linkages, use of artificial intelligence and inclusion of patient-entered data are being explored.

Real-World Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in The Netherlands

The number of treatment options for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has significantly grown in the last 15 years. Although randomized controlled trials are fundamental in investigating mRCC treatment efficacy, their external validity can be limited. Therefore, the efficacy of the different treatment options should also be evaluated in clinical practice. We performed a chart review of electronic health records using text mining software to study the current treatment patterns and outcomes. mRCC patients from two large hospitals in the Netherlands, starting treatment between January 2015 and May 2020, were included. Data were collected from electronic health records using a validated text mining tool. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Statistical analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Most frequent first-line treatments were pazopanib (n = 70), sunitinib (n = 34), and nivolumab with ipilimumab (n = 28). The overall median PFS values for first-line treatment were 15.7 months (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 8.8-20.7), 16.3 months (95%CI, 9.3-not estimable [NE]) for pazopanib, and 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.4-NE) for sunitinib. The overall median OS values were 33.4 months (95%CI, 28.1-50.9 months), 39.3 months (95%CI, 29.5-NE) for pazopanib, and 28.1 months (95%CI, 7.0-NE) for sunitinib. For nivolumab with ipilimumab, median PFS and median OS were not reached. Of the patients who finished first- and second-line treatments, 64 and 62% received follow-up treatments, respectively. With most patients starting on pazopanib and sunitinib, these real-world treatment outcomes were most likely better than in pivotal trials, which may be due to extensive follow-up treatments.

First-Line Osimertinib in Patients with EGFR-Mutant Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Outcome and Safety in the Real World: FLOWER Study

BACKGROUND

Osimertinib became the standard treatment for patients with untreated EGFR-mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) following results reported in the phase III randomized FLAURA trial. Because of strict exclusion criteria, patient populations included in pivotal trials are only partially representative of real-world patients.

METHODS

We designed an observational, prospective, multicenter study enrolling patients with EGFR-mutant aNSCLC receiving first-line osimertinib to evaluate effectiveness, safety, and progression patterns in the real-world.

RESULTS

At data cutoff, 126 White patients from nine oncology centers were included. At diagnosis, 16 patients (12.7%) had a performance status (PS) ≥2 and 38 (30.2%) had brain metastases. Overall response rate (ORR) was 73%, disease control rate (DCR) 96.0%. After a median follow-up of 12.3 months, median time to treatment discontinuation (mTTD) was 25.3 months, median progression-free-survival (mPFS) was 18.9 months and median overall survival (mOS) was not reached (NR). One hundred and ten patients (87%) experienced adverse events (AEs), 42 (33%) of grade 3-4, with venous thromboembolism (VTE) as the most common (n = 10, 7.9%). No difference in rates of VTE was reported according to age, PS, comorbidity, and tumor load. We observed longer mTTD in patients without symptoms (NR vs. 18.8 months) and with fewer than three metastatic sites at diagnosis (NR vs. 21.4 months). Patients without brain metastases experienced longer mPFS (NR vs. 13.3 months). No difference in survival outcome was observed according to age, comorbidity, and type of EGFR mutation. Isolated progression and progression in fewer than three sites were associated with longer time to treatment discontinuation (TTD).

CONCLUSION

Osimertinib confirmed effectiveness and safety in the real world, although thromboembolism was more frequent than previously reported.

Application of Real-World Data to External Control Groups in Oncology Clinical Trial Drug Development

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assess overall survival are considered the "gold standard" when evaluating the efficacy and safety of a new oncology intervention. However, single-arm trials that use surrogate endpoints (e.g., objective response rate or duration of response) to evaluate clinical benefit have become the basis for accelerated or breakthrough regulatory approval of precision oncology drugs for cases where the target and research populations are relatively small. Interpretation of efficacy in single-arm trials can be challenging because such studies lack a standard-of-care comparator arm. Although an external control group can be based on data from other clinical trials, using an external control group based on data collected outside of a trial may not only offer an alternative to both RCTs and uncontrolled single-arm trials, but it may also help improve decision-making by study sponsors or regulatory authorities. Hence, leveraging real-world data (RWD) to construct external control arms in clinical trials that investigate the efficacy and safety of drug interventions in oncology has become a topic of interest. Herein, we review the benefits and challenges associated with the use of RWD to construct external control groups, and the relevance of RWD to early oncology drug development.

Marketing Authorization Applications Made to the European Medicines Agency in 2018-2019: What was the Contribution of Real-World Evidence?

Information derived from routinely collected real‐world data has for a long time been used to support regulatory decision making on the safety of drugs and has more recently been used to support marketing authorization submissions to regulators. There is a lack of detailed information on the use and types of this real‐world evidence (RWE) as submitted to regulators. We used resources held by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to describe the characteristics of RWE included in new marketing authorization applications (MAAs) and extensions of indication (EOIs) for already authorized products submitted to the EMA in 2018 and 2019. For MAAs, 63 of 158 products (39.9%) contained RWE with a total of 117 studies. For 31.7% of these products, the RWE submitted was derived from data collected before the planned authorization. The most common data sources were registries (60.3%) followed by hospital data (31.7%). RWE was mainly included to support safety (87.3%) and efficacy (49.2%) with cohort studies being the most frequently used study design (88.9%). For EOIs, 28 of 153 products (18.3%) contained RWE with a total of 36 studies. For 57.1% of these products, studies were conducted prior to the EOIs. RWE sources were mainly registries (35.6%) and hospital data (27.0%). RWE was typically used to support safety (82.1%) and efficacy (53.6%). Cohort studies were the most commonly used study design (87.6%). We conclude that there is widespread use of RWE to support evaluation of MAAs and EOIs submitted to the EMA and identify areas where further research is required.

Measuring the Effectiveness of Real-World Evidence to Ensure Appropriate Impact

The value of real-world evidence (RWE) in medicines regulation and health technology assessment has been increasingly emphasized. Nevertheless, although RWE is increasingly used, there has been limited systematic evidence of its value. A recent study that examined the role and impact of RWE in regulatory assessments conducted through the European Medicines Agency provided such evidence. Results of the study demonstrated RWE was important to decision making, particularly for certain questions such as the quantification of adverse events, the evaluation of risk minimization measures, and the assessment of product usage. The study suggested, however, that in many of the assessments further RWE would have been valuable and concluded that RWE has, as yet, played a limited role in hypothesis generation and in the assessment of medication effectiveness. This study had been possible only because of the transparency of the European Medicines Agency decision making. Ensuring transparency of RWE evidence collection, study design and conduct, and of decision making based on this evidence will facilitate further development of the uses and value of RWE. Keywords: benefit-risk assessment; medicines regulation; real-world evidence; regulatory decision making.

Lenvatinib: an investigational agent for the treatment of differentiated thyroid cancer

INTRODUCTION

Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC; >90% of all TCs) derives from follicular cells. Surgery is the main therapeutic strategy, and radioiodine (RAI) is administered after thyroidectomy. When DTC progresses, it does not respond to RAI and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH)-suppressive thyroid hormone treatment, and other therapies (i.e. surgery, external beam radiation therapy and chemotherapy) do not lead to a better survival. Thanks to the understanding of the molecular pathways involved in TC progression, important advances have been done. Lenvatinib is a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR1-3, FGFR1-4, PDGFRα, RET, and KIT signaling networks implicated in tumor angiogenesis, approved in locally recurrent or metastatic, progressive, RAI-refractory DTC. Unmet needs regarding the patient clinical therapy responsiveness in aggressive RAI-refractory DTC still remain.

AREAS COVERED

We provide an overview from the literature of in vitro, in vivo and real-life studies regarding lenvatinib as an investigational agent for the treatment of aggressive TC.

EXPERT OPINION

According to the SELECT trial, the treatment should be initiated with a dosage of 24 mg/day, subsequently decreasing it in relation to the side effects. The decision making process in patients with aggressive RAI-refractory DTC should be personalized and the potential toxicity should be properly managed.

Real-world outcomes associated with new cancer medicines approved by the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency: A retrospective cohort study

Purpose

Real-World Data (RWD) studies are increasingly used to support regulatory approvals, reimbursement decisions, and changes in clinical practice for novel cancer drugs. However, few studies have systematically appraised their quality or compared outcomes to pivotal trials.

Methods

All RWD studies (2010–2019) for drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2010 to 2015 for solid organ tumours in the non-curative setting were identified. Quality assessment was undertaken using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Survival differences between each RWD study and the pivotal trial were determined using a related sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

293 RWD studies for 45 of the 57 drug indications approved by the FDA/EMA were identified. The most common tumour types were prostate cancer (29%, n = 86) and melanoma (15%, n = 43). A quarter of the studies had industry funding. No high-quality studies were identified, and 78% were low quality. Comparative survival analysis between RWD and pivotal trials was possible for 224 studies (37 drug indications). Differences in median survival between the RWD studies and their corresponding trial ranged from −32 months to 21 months (IQR –4·2 months to 1·6 months). Low-quality studies were more likely to report superior survival outcomes (23%) compared to higher quality studies (8%) (p = 0.02).

Conclusion

RWD study quality for novel cancer drugs is low and of insufficient rigour to inform reimbursement decisions and clinical practice. RWD studies seeking publication should provide a completed quality assessment tool on submission. Greater investment in properly designed RWD studies is required.

•

Study provides a systematic appraisal of FDA/EMA approved drugs in real-world practice.

•

Most novel FDA/EMA cancer drugs have real-world data (RWD) studies, but the quality is low.

•

Variability in survival outcomes exists, and findings should be applied cautiously.

•

Most RWD studies reported inferior survival outcomes compared to the pivotal trial.

•

Pre-publication critical appraisal checklists should be used for RWD studies.

Multikinase inhibitors for the treatment of radioiodine refractory thyroid cancer: what have we learned from the 'real-world' experience?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Several molecularly targeted drugs for treating radioiodine resistant differentiated thyroid carcinomas (RAIR-DTC) have been identified. Among these, sorafenib and lenvatinib have been approved for clinical use in many countries. The present review will analyze efficacy and safety 'real-world' data (RWD) emerging after their commercialization.

RECENT FINDINGS

RWDs confirmed sorafenib and lenvatinib efficacy in terms of progression-free survival and, perhaps, overall survival improvement in patients with RAIR-DTC. Lenvatinib performance in RWDs appeared somehow lower than in randomized clinical trials (RCT), probably because the decision to start treatment in 'real life' was made when patients were in worse clinical conditions than in RCTs. Concerning safety, RWD studies corroborated RCT evidence of elevated overall and serious adverse event incidence. Notably, adverse events were manageable in most cases with appropriate treatment or dose reduction/interruption, so that the need for definitive withdrawal was limited. The suitability of multikinase inhibitors (MKI) as salvage therapy in RAIR-DTCs was also confirmed by RWD experience, at least for lenvatinib in the second-line setting.

SUMMARY

RWD analysis has corroborated RCT results in terms of MKI efficacy for both first-line and salvage treatment in patients with RAIR-DTC. The safety profiles emerging from RWDs seem to justify the caution recommended by most scientific guidelines.

Real-world Evidence of Diagnostic Testing and Treatment Patterns in US Patients With Breast Cancer With Implications for Treatment Biomarkers From RNA Sequencing Data

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

We performed a retrospective analysis of longitudinal real-world data (RWD) from patients with breast cancer to replicate results from clinical studies and demonstrate the feasibility of generating real-world evidence. We also assessed the value of transcriptome profiling as a complementary tool for determining molecular subtypes.

METHODS

De-identified, longitudinal data were analyzed after abstraction from records of patients with breast cancer in the United States (US) structured and stored in the Tempus database. Demographics, clinical characteristics, molecular subtype, treatment history, and survival outcomes were assessed according to strict qualitative criteria. RNA sequencing and clinical data were used to predict molecular subtypes and signaling pathway enrichment.

RESULTS

The clinical abstraction cohort (n = 4000) mirrored the demographics and clinical characteristics of patients with breast cancer in the US, indicating feasibility for RWE generation. Among patients who were human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+), 74.2% received anti-HER2 therapy, with ∼70% starting within 3 months of a positive test result. Most non-treated patients were early stage. In this RWD set, 31.7% of patients with HER2+ immunohistochemistry (IHC) had discordant fluorescence in situ hybridization results recorded. Among patients with multiple HER2 IHC results at diagnosis, 18.6% exhibited intra-test discordance. Through development of a whole-transcriptome model to predict IHC receptor status in the molecular sequenced cohort (n = 400), molecular subtypes were resolved for all patients (n = 36) with equivocal HER2 statuses from abstracted test results. Receptor-related signaling pathways were differentially enriched between clinical molecular subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

RWD in the Tempus database mirrors the overall population of patients with breast cancer in the US. These results suggest that real-time, RWD analyses are feasible in a large, highly heterogeneous database. Furthermore, molecular data may aid deficiencies and discrepancies observed from breast cancer RWD.

Lenvatinib as first-line treatment for advanced thyroid cancer: long progression-free survival

PURPOSE

Lenvatinib (LEN) has been approved for the treatment of patients with progressive radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RAI-R DTC). Real-life studies reported a lower progression-free survival (PFS) than the registration study, likely due to the more advanced stage of tumors, the more frequent pretreatment with other TKIs, the limited follow-up, and the worse clinical condition of the patients included.

METHODS

We evaluated the clinical data of our cohort of 13 consecutive patients, all receiving LEN as a first-line TKI treatment, and followed-up in a single tertiary Center.

RESULTS

All patients had an ECOG of 0-1 and regional or distant metastases were documented in 61.5% and 77% of patients, respectively. Median PFS was 22 months (95% CI 14-35) with partial response in 69% and stable disease in 31% of patients. All patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE), the most frequent being fatigue, anorexia, diarrhea, and hypertension. The daily dose was reduced in 70% of patients and only one patient (7.7%) discontinued the drug for AEs.

CONCLUSION

In this series of RAI-R DTC patients, with the unique features to have an ECOG 0 or 1 and to be naive for TKI treatments, PFS was the longest among all real-life published so far, with the highest rate of patients with partial response and one of the lowest drug discontinuation rate for AEs. The correct timing of treatment start, the tailoring of the dose, and a proper management of the AEs may have a significant impact on the treatment response to LEN.

Survival of advanced melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy and targeted therapy: A real-world study

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to examine the survival outcomes plus patient and treatment characteristics of advanced melanoma patients treated with first-line immunotherapy (IT), targeted therapy (TT), and chemotherapy (CTH) and compare findings with information from pivotal trials for each therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the use of systematic IT, TT and CTH therapies in melanoma patients in four Queensland public hospitals. We estimated median duration of overall survival (OS) and survival rates (6 months, 1, and 2 years) using Kaplan-Meier methods. We compared our findings to those of clinical trials.

RESULTS

Five hundred three patients who met the inclusion criteria were divided into three groups based on the first-line treatment: IT 232; TT 157; and CTH 114. OS was 18 months with IT (95% CI 13, 22); 12 months with TT (95% CI 8, 15); and 5 months with CTH (95% CI 5, 6). The demographic characteristics, treatment protocols, and durations for IT and TT were generally consistent with trials but fewer patients in our study had subsequent therapy than in the trials. The OS in our study was slightly lower than the OS reported in trials.

CONCLUSION

The OS of novel cancer therapy in the real world was lower than seen in trials but is expected given these are patients who have a poorer prognosis. A future study could investigate the impact of prognostic factors on survival in the longer term. This study provides evidence that we can use routinely collected real-world data to evaluate the effectiveness of checkpoint and kinase inhibitors in patients with advanced melanoma.

Safety and Treatment Outcomes of Nivolumab for the Treatment of Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study

Nivolumab is an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody currently used as immunotherapy for patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) with evidence of disease progression after platinum-based chemotherapy. This study evaluates real-world safety and treatment outcomes of non-trial nivolumab use. A retrospective multicenter cohort study of patients with recurrent/metastatic HNSCC treated with nivolumab between January 2017 and March 2020 was performed. Overall, 123 patients were included. The median age was 64 years, the majority of patients were male (80.5%) and had a smoking history (69.9%). Primary outcomes included overall response rate (ORR) of 19.3%, median progression-free survival (PFS) of 3.9 months, 1-year PFS rate of 16.8%, a median overall survival (OS) of 6.5 months and 1-year OS rate of 28.6%. These results are comparable to the CHECKMATE-141 study. Of 27 patients who had PD-L1 status tested, positive PD-L1 status did not significantly affect PFS (p = 0.86) or OS (p = 0.84). Nivolumab was well tolerated with only 15.1% experiencing immune-related toxicities (IRT) and only 6.7% of patients stopping due to toxicity. The occurrence of IRT appeared to significantly affect PFS (p = 0.01) but not OS (p = 0.07). Nivolumab in recurrent/metastatic HNSCC is well tolerated and may be more efficacious in patients who develop IRT.

Overall Survival With Second-Line Pembrolizumab in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Randomized Phase III Clinical Trial Versus Propensity-Adjusted Real-World Data

PURPOSE

To compare and characterize overall survival (OS) differences between clinical trial data from the KEYNOTE-010 trial and real-world data (RWD) from the Flatiron Health database in patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-expressing advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received second-line pembrolizumab monotherapy.

METHODS

Clinical trial data were from the randomized phase II/III KEYNOTE-010 trial that enrolled patients from August 28, 2013, to February 27, 2015. At data cutoff for KEYNOTE-010, the median survival follow-up time for pembrolizumab patients was 11.2 months. RWD were from Flatiron Health advanced NSCLC database and included patients who initiated second-line pembrolizumab from January 26, 2015, to February 28, 2019. At data cutoff for Flatiron, the median survival follow-up time for pembrolizumab-treated patients was 6.1 months. Clinical trial data from KEYNOTE-010 and RWD from Flatiron were analyzed without adjustment, with propensity adjustment, and filtered per the main KEYNOTE-010 eligibility criteria (EC) of histologically/cytologically confirmed PD-L1-positive NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0/1, no prior therapy with docetaxel for NSCLC, and laboratory values indicative of adequate organ function in addition to prior line of therapy requirements.

RESULTS

Among 243 patients from KEYNOTE-010 and 782 from Flatiron, median age was 63 v 68 years, and 64% v 54% were male, respectively. OS data from KEYNOTE-010 and Flatiron were similar without any adjustment (n = 782; hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.15) and after both filtering and propensity adjustment (n = 221; HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.34).

CONCLUSION

Without any adjustment, as well as after applying similar EC and appropriate statistical methods, RWD demonstrated similar effectiveness for pembrolizumab in second-line NSCLC as observed in randomized clinical trials.

The Evidence REVEAL Study: Exploring the Use of Real-World Evidence and Complex Clinical Trial Design by the European Pharmaceutical Industry

The rapid evolution of science and technology allows innovative approaches to generate new types of evidence about the effectiveness of medical product development so as to speed up patients’ access to better diagnostics and treatment. Our study explored how two emerging approaches, the use of real‐world evidence (RWE) and complex clinical trial (CCT) design, are currently being used by the pharmaceutical industry to support premarketing authorization of medical product development and reviewed the international landscape for regulatory acceptance of such novel approaches. Combining evidence from a literature review, company survey, and interviews with international regulators and experts, we found that 80% of Europe‐based pharmaceutical companies have used RWE and 50% have used CCTs, in some capacity. Further, we present case examples of how companies are using these approaches and how international regulators are preparing for such developments. To conclude, we provide a set of recommendations for European industry and regulators to consider so that these novel approaches achieve their full potential within the EU regulatory system.

Different Strategies to Execute Multi-Database Studies for Medicines Surveillance in Real-World Setting: A Reflection on the European Model

Although postmarketing studies conducted in population-based databases often contain information on patients in the order of millions, they can still be underpowered if outcomes or exposure of interest is rare, or the interest is in subgroup effects. Combining several databases might provide the statistical power needed. A multi-database study (MDS) uses at least two healthcare databases, which are not linked with each other at an individual person level, with analyses carried out in parallel across each database applying a common study protocol. Although many MDSs have been performed in Europe in the past 10 years, there is a lack of clarity on the peculiarities and implications of the existing strategies to conduct them. In this review, we identify four strategies to execute MDSs, classified according to specific choices in the execution: (A) local analyses, where data are extracted and analyzed locally, with programs developed by each site; (B) sharing of raw data, where raw data are locally extracted and transferred without analysis to a central partner, where all the data are pooled and analyzed; (C) use of a common data model with study-specific data, where study-specific data are locally extracted, loaded into a common data model, and processed locally with centrally developed programs; and (D) use of general common data model, where all local data are extracted and loaded into a common data model, prior to and independent of any study protocol, and protocols are incorporated in centrally developed programs that run locally. We illustrate differences between strategies and analyze potential implications.

An Electronic Health Record Text Mining Tool to Collect Real-World Drug Treatment Outcomes: A Validation Study in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Real‐world evidence can close the inferential gap between marketing authorization studies and clinical practice. However, the current standard for real‐world data extraction from electronic health records (EHRs) for treatment evaluation is manual review (MR), which is time‐consuming and laborious. Clinical Data Collector (CDC) is a novel natural language processing and text mining software tool for both structured and unstructured EHR data and only shows relevant EHR sections improving efficiency. We investigated CDC as a real‐world data (RWD) collection method, through application of CDC queries for patient inclusion and information extraction on a cohort of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) receiving systemic drug treatment. Baseline patient characteristics, disease characteristics, and treatment outcomes were extracted and these were compared with MR for validation. One hundred patients receiving 175 treatments were included using CDC, which corresponded to 99% with MR. Calculated median overall survival was 21.7 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.7–24.8) vs. 21.7 months (95% CI 18.6–24.8) and progression‐free survival 8.9 months (95% CI 5.4–12.4) vs. 7.6 months (95% CI 5.7–9.4) for CDC vs. MR, respectively. Highest F1‐score was found for cancer‐related variables (88.1–100), followed by comorbidities (71.5–90.4) and adverse drug events (53.3–74.5), with most diverse scores on international metastatic RCC database criteria (51.4–100). Mean data collection time was 12 minutes (CDC) vs. 86 minutes (MR). In conclusion, CDC is a promising tool for retrieving RWD from EHRs because the correct patient population can be identified as well as relevant outcome data, such as overall survival and progression‐free survival.

Real world data in the era of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs): Increasing evidence and future applications in lung cancer

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1) and PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) quickly subverted the standard of treatment in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), where they were first introduced in all comers previously treated advanced/metastatic NSCLC patients and subsequently in the first line of PD-L1 selected cases of metastatic and locally advanced disease. Treatment algorithm is an evolving landscape, where the introduction of front-line ICIs, with or without chemotherapy, unavoidably influences the following treatment lines. In this context, medical oncologists are currently facing many unclear issues, which have been not clarified so far by available data. Effectiveness and safety in special populations underrepresented in clinical trials - such as elderly, poor PS, hepatitis or human immunodeficiency virus-affected patients - are only a part of the unexplored side of ICIs in the real world. Indeed, pivotal randomized clinical trials (RCTs) often lack of external validity because eligibility criteria exclude some patient subgroups commonly treated in real-world clinical practice. Similarly, cost-effectiveness and sustainability of these innovative agents are important issues to be considered in the real-world. Though affected by several limitations, real-world evidence (RWE) studies allow to collect data regarding overall treated patients in clinical practice according to local authority regulations, overcoming the intrinsic limits of RCTs. The present review focuses on RWE about ICIs in lung cancer treatment, with particular reference to special patient populations, and discusses potential application of real-world data in a potential innovative drug development model.

Contemporary outcomes of metastatic breast cancer among 22,000 women from the multicentre ESME cohort 2008-2016

AIM

Real-world data inform the outcome comparisons and help the development of new therapeutic strategies. To this end, we aimed to describe the full characteristics and outcomes in the Epidemiological Strategy and Medical Economics (ESME) cohort, a large national contemporary observational database of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

METHODS

Women aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed MBC and who initiated MBC treatment between January 2008 and December 2016 in one of the 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centers (N = 22,109) were included. We assessed the full patients' characteristics, first-line treatments, overall survival (OS) and first-line progression-free survival, as well as updated prognostic factors in the whole cohort and among the 3 major subtypes: hormone receptor positive and HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-, n = 13,656), HER2-positive (HER2+, n = 4017) and triple-negative (n = 2963) tumours.

RESULTS

The median OS of the whole cohort was 39.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 38.7-40.3). Five-year OS was 33.8%. OS differed significantly between the 3 subtypes (p < 0.0001) with a median OS of 43.3 (95% CI, 42.5-44.5) in HR+/HER2-; 50.1 (95% CI, 47.6-53.1) in HER2+; and 14.8 months (95% CI, 14.1-15.5) in triple-negative subgroups, respectively. Beyond performance status, the following variables had a constant significant negative prognostic impact on OS in the whole cohort and among subtypes: older age at diagnosis of metastases (except for the triple-negative subtype), metastasis-free interval between 6 and 24 months, presence of visceral metastases and number of metastatic sites ≥ 3.

CONCLUSIONS

The ESME program represents a unique large-scale real-life cohort on MBC. This study highlights important situations of high medical need within MBC patients. DATABASE REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT032753.

Augmenting the randomized controlled trial with real-world data to aid clinical decision making in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: To evaluate how efficacy outcomes from real-world data (RWD) can support those from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in the context of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Patients & methods: PubMed, Ovid, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for RCTs and RWD studies with ≥50 adult patients per arm published in 2000–2017. Outcome measures were median progression-free survival, median overall survival and objective response rate. Results: A total of 13 RCTs and 22 RWD studies met eligibility criteria; 31, 28 and 25 studies, respectively, reported median progression-free survival, median overall survival and objective response rate. Summary outcome measures were similar in RWD and RCTs. Conclusion: RWD validates efficacy-based outcomes from RCTs and may provide supportive evidence to inform clinical decisions.

Individualization of Treatment Improves the Survival of Children With High-Risk Solid Tumors: Comparative Patient Series Analysis in a Real-Life Scenario

Introduction: The individualization of treatment is attractive, especially in children with high-risk cancer. In such a rare and very heterogeneous group of diseases, large population-based clinical randomized trials are not feasible without international collaboration. We therefore propose comparative patient series analysis in a real-life scenario.

Methods: Open cohort observational study, comparative analysis. Seventy patients with high-risk solid tumors diagnosed between 2003 and 2015 and in whom the treatment was individualized either empirically or based on biomarkers were analyzed. The heterogeneity of the cohort and repeated measurements were advantageously utilized to increase effective sample size using appropriate statistical tools.

Results: We demonstrated a beneficial effect of empirically given low-dose metronomic chemotherapy (HR 0.46 for relapses, p = 0.017) as well as various repurposed or targeted agents (HR 0.15 for deaths, p = 0.004) in a real-life scenario. However, targeted agents given on the basis of limited biological information were not beneficial.

Conclusions: Comparative patient series analysis provides institutional-level evidence for treatment individualization in high-risk pediatric malignancies. Our findings emphasize the need for a comprehensive, multi omics assessment of the tumor and the host as well whenever molecularly driven targeted therapies are being considered. Low-dose metronomic chemotherapy or local control of the disease may be a more rational option in situations where targeted treatment cannot be justified by robust evidence and comprehensive biological information. “Targeted drugs” may be given empirically with a realistic benefit expectation when based on robust rationale.

Real-world efficacy and safety of lenvatinib: data from a compassionate use in the treatment of radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer patients in Italy

BACKGROUND

Lenvatinib is a multi-kinase inhibitor approved for patients with radioactive iodine (RAI)-resistant differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). Before the drug approval from the Italian National Regulatory Agency, a compassionate use programme has been run in Italy. This retrospective study aimed to analyse data from the first series of patients treated with lenvatinib in Italy.

METHODS

The primary aim was to assess the response rate (RR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points include overall survival (OS) and toxicity data.

RESULTS

From November 2014 to September 2016, 94 patients were treated in 16 Italian sites. Seventeen percent of patients had one or more comorbidities, hypertension being the most common (60%). Ninety-eight percent of patients were treated by surgery, followed by RAI in 98% of cases. Sixty-four percent of patients received a previous systemic treatment. Lenvatinib was started at 24 mg in 64 subjects. Partial response and stable disease were observed in 36% and in 41% of subjects, respectively; progression was recorded in 14% of patients. Drug-related side-effects were common; the most common were fatigue (13.6%) and hypertension (11.6%). Overall, median PFS and OS were 10.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.7-12.6) and 23.8 months (95% CI, 19.7-25.0) respectively.

CONCLUSION

Lenvatinib is active and safe in unselected, RAI-refractory, progressive DTC patients in real-life setting. RR and PFS seem to be less favourable than those observed in the SELECT trial, likely due to a negative selection that included heavily pretreated patients or with poor performance status.