Search

Introduction: While randomized controlled trials remain the reference standard for evaluating treatment efficacy, there is an increased interest in the use of external control arms (ECA), namely in oncology, using real-world data (RWD). Challenges related to measurement of real-world oncology endpoints, like progression-free survival (PFS), are one factor limiting the use and acceptance of ECAs as comparators to trial populations. Differences in how and when disease assessments occur in the real-world may introduce measurement error and limit the comparability of real-world PFS (rwPFS) to trial progression-free survival. While measurement error is a known challenge when conducting an externally-controlled trial with real-world data, there is limited literature describing key contributing factors, particularly in the context of multiple myeloma (MM). Methods: We distinguish between biases attributed to how endpoints are derived or ascertained (misclassification bias) and when outcomes are observed or assessed (surveillance bias). We further describe how misclassification of progression events (i.e., false positives, false negatives) and irregular assessment frequencies in multiple myeloma RWD can contribute to these biases, respectively. We conduct a simulation study to illustrate how these biases may behave, both individually and together. Results: We observe in simulation that certain types of measurement error may have more substantial impacts on comparability between mismeasured median PFS (mPFS) and true mPFS than others. For instance, when the observed progression events are misclassified as either false positives or false negatives, mismeasured mPFS may be biased towards earlier (mPFS bias = -6.4 months) or later times (mPFS bias = 13 months), respectively. However, when events are correctly classified but assessment frequencies are irregular, mismeasured mPFS is more similar to the true mPFS (mPFS bias = 0.67 months). Discussion: When misclassified progression events and irregular assessment times occur simultaneously, they may generate bias that is greater than the sum of their parts. Improved understanding of endpoint measurement error and how resulting biases manifest in RWD is important to the robust construction of ECAs in oncology and beyond. Simulations that quantify the impact of measurement error can help when planning for ECA studies and can contextualize results in the presence of endpoint measurement differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Real‐world data derived from electronic health records often exhibit high levels of missingness in variables, such as laboratory results, presenting a challenge for statistical analyses. We developed a systematic workflow for gathering evidence of different missingness mechanisms and performing subsequent statistical analyses. We quantify evidence for missing completely at random (MCAR) or missing at random (MAR), mechanisms using Hotelling's multivariate t‐test, and random forest classifiers, respectively. We further illustrate how to apply sensitivity analyses using the not at random fully conditional specification procedure to examine changes in parameter estimates under missing not at random (MNAR) mechanisms. In simulation studies, we validated these diagnostics and compared analytic bias under different mechanisms. To demonstrate the application of this workflow, we applied it to two exemplary case studies with an advanced non‐small cell lung cancer and a multiple myeloma cohort derived from a real‐world oncology database. Here, we found strong evidence against MCAR, and some evidence of MAR, implying that imputation approaches that attempt to predict missing values by fitting a model to observed data may be suitable for use. Sensitivity analyses did not suggest meaningful departures of our analytic results under potential MNAR mechanisms; these results were also in line with results reported in clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hepatobiliary tract cancers (HBTCs) are a heterogeneous group of cancers with high mortality. Because most of these cancers, with the exception of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), are rare, few data are available concerning the population level survival expectations of patients with HBTC. Here, we describe survival of patients with HBTC in Germany with comparison to survival in the US. Therefore, data were extracted from 12 databases in Germany and the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER13) database in the US. Period analysis and modeled period analysis were used to calculate 5‐year relative survival estimates for patients with HBTC diagnosed from 1997 to 2013. HCC was the most common HBTC in each database, accounting for over 1/3 of HBTC in Germany and about half of cases in the US. Overall age adjusted 5‐year relative survival for HBTC in 2006‐2013 was 19.1% in Germany and 20.6% in the US. Five‐year relative survival increased by 3.8% units in Germany and 4.5% units in the US between 2002–2005 and 2010–2013. Five‐year relative survival for individual types of HBTC ranged from 9.8% in Germany and 2.9% in the US for not otherwise specified biliary tract cancers to 44.4% and 50.1%, respectively, in Germany and the US for duodenal cancers. In conclusion, survival for HBTC remains poor in both Germany and the US, although a small increase in survival in the past decade was observed. Further work to find better treatment options for HBTC is needed to improve survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regulators increasingly rely on real-world evidence generated from routine-care health data to evaluate novel therapies. Particularly, external control arms are increasingly used to supplement and contextualize efficacy and safety claims of single arm clinical trials for rare disease therapies. However, there are a number of methodological issues that may affect the validity of results derived from such comparisons. In this mini-review, we briefly summarize frequently used approaches and outline some of the most important criticisms and paths forward., (© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2024 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background: Unmeasured confounding is often raised as a source of potential bias during the design of non-randomized studies but quantifying such concerns is challenging., Methods: We developed a simulation-based approach to assess the potential impact of unmeasured confounding during the study design stage. The approach involved generation of hypothetical individual-level cohorts using realistic parameters including a binary treatment (prevalence 25%), a time-to-event outcome (incidence 5%), 13 measured covariates, a binary unmeasured confounder (u1, 10%), and a binary measured 'proxy' variable (p1) correlated with u1. Strength of unmeasured confounding and correlations between u1 and p1 were varied in simulation scenarios. Treatment effects were estimated with, a) no adjustment, b) adjustment for measured confounders (Level 1), c) adjustment for measured confounders and their proxy (Level 2). We computed absolute standardized mean differences in u1 and p1 and relative bias with each level of adjustment., Results: Across all scenarios, Level 2 adjustment led to improvement in balance of u1, but this improvement was highly dependent on the correlation between u1 and p1. Level 2 adjustments also had lower relative bias than Level 1 adjustments (in strong u1 scenarios: relative bias of 9.2%, 12.2%, 13.5% at correlations 0.7, 0.5, and 0.3, respectively versus 16.4%, 15.8%, 15.0% for Level 1, respectively)., Conclusion: An approach using simulated individual-level data was useful to explicitly convey the potential for bias due to unmeasured confounding while designing non-randomized studies and can be helpful in informing design choices., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)