Search

Purpose The aim of this study is to assess how clinical outcomes in real-world (effectiveness) correspond to the outcomes in clinical trials (efficacy) of systemic treatments for extensive disease small cell lung cancer (ED SCLC).Methods All patients diagnosed with ED SCLC between 2008 and 2014 in six Dutch large teaching hospitals (Santeon network) were identified and followed-up from date of diagnosis until death or end of data collection. For every patient, an efficacy-effectiveness factor (EE factor) was calculated by dividing individual patients' overall survival (OS) by the pooled median OS assessed from clinical trials with the respective treatment.Results From 792 diagnosed patients, 568 (72%) started with first-line treatment. Overall, the median EE factor was 0.79 (P = 2) and a higher age at diagnosis (age >= 65 years) were independent predictors for a lower EE factor. The EE gap was 43% in patients with both age >= 65 years and ECOG >= 2 (EE factor 0.57). The mean age and the proportion of patients with ECOG >= 2 in real-world were different from those in clinical trials (mean age of 66 versus 62 years, and ECOG >= 2 25% versus 17%; both P Conclusion OS of patients with ED SCLC treated with systemic therapy in real-world practice is 21% shorter than for patients included in trials. Age at diagnosis and performance status partly explain this gap.

This retrospective study was performed to evaluate real-world oncological outcomes of patients treated with chemo-based therapy for muscle-invasive or metastatic bladder cancer (MIBC/mBC) and compare results to data from RCTs and other cohorts. Among 1578 patients diagnosed, 470 (30%) had MIBC/mBC. Median overall survival (mOS) for RC alone (47 months), first-line (13 months) and second-line (7 months) chemotherapy, and chemotherapy for recurrent disease (8 months) were similar to literature. Treatment with neoadjuvant and induction chemotherapy (NAIC) was only utilized in 9% of patients, and often in patients with poor disease status, resulting in a lower mOS compared to literature (35 and 20 months, respectively). Patients treated with chemotherapy had many adversities to treatment, with only 50%, 13%, 18% and 7% of patients in NAIC, first-line, salvage after RC, and second-line setting completing the full pre-planned chemotherapy treatment. Real-world data shows NAIC before RC is underutilized. Adversities during chemotherapy treatment are frequent, with many patients requiring dose reduction or early treatment termination, resulting in poor treatment response. Although treatment efficacy between RCTs and real-world patients is quite similar, there are large differences in baseline characteristics and treatment patterns. Possibly, results from retrospective studies on real-world data can deliver missing evidence on efficacy of chemotherapy treatment on older and ‘unfit’ patients.

The divergence between clinical trial results and real-world outcomes is largely unknown for many cancer types. The present study aims overall to assess the efficacy–effectiveness gap (difference between outcomes in clinical trials and the real world) in systemic treatment for metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). All patients diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC between 2008 and 2014 within a network of seven Dutch large teaching hospitals (Santeon) were studied. For every patient, an efficacy–effectiveness (EE) factor was calculated by dividing individual patients' overall survival (OS) by the pooled median OS assessed from clinical trials with the respective treatment. From 2989 diagnosed patients, 1214 (41%) started with first-line treatment. For all studied regimens, real-world OS was shorter than OS reported in clinical trials. Overall, the EE factor was 0.77 (95% CI 0.70–0.85; p, Survival of patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with chemotherapy or targeted therapy in real-world practice is nearly one quarter shorter than for patients included in clinical trials. These real-world data provide useful information for clinicians. http://ow.ly/Khd230minFF

BACKGROUND: The present study aims to give a detailed overview of day-to-day practice in the systemic treatment of NSCLC stage IIIB/IV and its clinical outcomes in six large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands in the period 2008-2012. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted in the Care for Outcome registry. Patients diagnosed with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were included and drug data were collected. Outcomes included percentage of patients treated with systemic treatment, percentage of different first line treatment options, survival, and number and percentage of switches, dose reductions (

Introduction The growing interest in comparative effectiveness research (CER) based on data from routine clinical practice also extends towards lung oncology. Although CER studies using real world data (RWD) have the potential to assist clinical decision-making, concerns about the quality and validity of studies with observational data subsist. The primary objective of the present study is to assess the current status of observational CER in the field of lung oncology, both quantitatively as qualitatively. Methods We performed a systematic electronic literature database search in MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to 1 July 2015). The quality of all selected studies was assessed according to the Good ReseArch for Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) checklist. Results The first selection included 657 publications. After screening the corresponding abstracts and full-text papers, 38 studies remained. A total of 36 studies included patients with advanced NSCLC. The comparison of the effectiveness of gefitinib versus erlotinib was the main objective in 22% of the studies. The median number of patients per study was 202 (range 21–10064). The number of publications increased over the years whereas the quality score remained stable over the years with several common shortcomings (checklist items M5, D1, D4, D6). Discussion The growing interest in clinical oncology CER studies using RWD is reflected in an increasing number of publications in the recent years. The studies have several common methodological shortcomings possibly limiting their applicability in clinical decision-making. To fulfil the promise of RWD CER in lung oncology effort should be continued to overcome these shortcomings.