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

References

• National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Antineoplastic (Chemotherapy) drugs – reproductive health [Internet]; 2022. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/repro/antineoplastic.html#:~:text=Antineoplasticdrugsaremedicationsused,forms%2Cincludingliquidsorpills. Accessed August 29, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Skovlund E, Leufkens HGM, Smyth JF. The use of real-world data in cancer drug development. Eur J Cancer. 2018;101:69–76. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2018.06.036
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villines TC, Cziraky MJ, Amin AN. Awareness, knowledge, and utility of RCT data vs RWE: results from a survey of US cardiologists: real-world evidence in clinical decision making. Clin Med Insights Cardiol. 2020;14:1179546820953410. doi:10.1177/1179546820953410
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saesen R, Lacombe D, Huys I. Real-world data in oncology: a questionnaire-based analysis of the academic research landscape examining the policies and experiences of the cancer cooperative groups. ESMO Open. 2023;8(2):100878. doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2023.100878
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saesen R, Kantidakis G, Marinus A, et al. 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. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:1–19. doi:10.3389/fphar.2022.969778
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delgado A, Guddati AK. Clinical endpoints in oncology - a primer. Am J Cancer Res. 2021;11(4):1121–1131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khambholja K, Gehani M. Use of structured template and reporting tool for real-world evidence for critical appraisal of the quality of reporting of real-world evidence studies: a systematic review. Value Heal. 2023;26(3):427–434. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2022.09.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webbe J, Sinha I, Gale C. Core outcome sets. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed. 2018;103(3):163–166. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2016-312117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13(1):1–8. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-132
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Initiative C. COMET initiative - core outcome measures in effectiveness trials [Internet]. Available from: https://www.comet-initiative.org/. Accessed August 29, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• PIONEER - European Network of Excellence for big data in prostate cancer [Internet]; 2019. Available from: https://prostate-pioneer.eu/. Accessed August 29, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• OHDSI. Standardized data: the OMOP common data model [Internet]; 2023. Available from: https://www.ohdsi.org/data-standardization/. Accessed August 29, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Cockrell C, An G. Utilizing the heterogeneity of clinical data for model refinement and rule discovery through the application of genetic algorithms to calibrate a high-dimensional agent-based model of systemic inflammation. Front Physiol. 2021;12:662845. doi:10.3389/fphys.2021.662845
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basic local alignment search tool [Internet]. Available from: https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi. Accessed August 29, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Jongeneel CV. Searching the expressed sequence tag (EST) databases: panning for genes. Brief Bioinform. 2000;1(1):76–92. doi:10.1093/bib/1.1.76
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leinonen R, Sugawara H, Shumway M. The sequence read archive. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(Database issue):D19–D21. doi:10.1093/nar/gkq1019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulkarni S, Seneviratne N, Baig MS, et al. Artificial intelligence in medicine: where are we now? Acad Radiol. 2020;27(1):62–70. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2019.10.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coolen ACC, Sheikh M, Mozeika A, Aguirre-Lopez F, Antenucci F. Replica analysis of overfitting in generalized linear models. J Phys a Math Theor. 2020;53(365001):365001. doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aba028
   Google Scholar
• Sheikh M, Coolen ACC. Analysis of overfitting in the regularized Cox model. J Phys a Math Theor. 2019;52(38):384002. doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab375c
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coolen ACC, Barrett JE, Paga P, Perez-Vicente CJ. Replica analysis of overfitting in regression models for time-to-event data. J Phys a Math Theor. 2017;50(375001):38. doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aa812f
   Google Scholar
• Häggström C, Van Hemelrijck M, Garmo H, et al. Heterogeneity in risk of prostate cancer: a Swedish population-based cohort study of competing risks and Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Int J Cancer. 2018;143(8):1868–1875. doi:10.1002/ijc.31587
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bleyer A. In and out, good and bad news, of generalizability of SWOG treatment trial results. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(3):dju027. doi:10.1093/jnci/dju027
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Administration USF& D. FDA takes important steps to increase racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trials; 2022. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-important-steps-increase-racial-and-ethnic-diversity-clinical-trials. Accessed August 29, 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Galsky MD, Oh WK. Mind the gap: efficacy versus effectiveness and pivotal prostate cancer clinical trial demographics. Cancer. 2014;120(19):2944–2945. doi:10.1002/cncr.28808
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson MP, Winter C, Kristoffersson U, et al. Efficacy versus effectiveness of clinical genetic testing criteria for BRCA1 and BRCA2 hereditary mutations in incident breast cancer. Fam Cancer. 2017;16(2):187–193. doi:10.1007/s10689-016-9953-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patsopoulos NA. A pragmatic view on pragmatic trials. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13(2):217–224. doi:10.31887/DCNS.2011.13.2/npatsopoulos
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(5):464–475. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Relton C, Torgerson D, O’Cathain A, et al. Rethinking pragmatic randomised controlled trials: introducing the “cohort multiple randomised controlled trial” design. BMJ. 2010;340(7753):963–967. doi:10.1136/bmj.c1066
   Google Scholar
• Wylie H, Cahill F, Santaolalla A, et al. Graham Roberts Study protocol: first “trials within cohort study” for bladder cancer. BMJ Open. 2019;9(9):1–5. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029468
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gal R, Monninkhof EM, van Gils CH, et al. Effects of exercise in breast cancer patients: implications of the trials within cohorts (TwiCs) design in the UMBRELLA Fit trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;190(1):89–101. doi:10.1007/s10549-021-06363-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gal R, Monninkhof EM, van Gils CH, et al. The Trials within Cohorts design faced methodological advantages and disadvantages in the exercise oncology setting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;113:137–146. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blais L, Ernst P, Suissa S. Confounding by indication and channeling over time: the risks of beta 2-agonists. Am J Epidemiol. 1996;144(12):1161–1169. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a008895
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cinelli C, Forney A, Pearl J. A crash course in good and bad controls. Sociol Methods Res. 2020. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3689437
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bosco C, Bosnyak Z, Malmberg A, et al. Quantifying observational evidence for risk of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular disease following androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):386–396. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.039
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen PL, Je Y, Schutz FAB, et al. Association of androgen deprivation therapy with cardiovascular death in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA. 2011;306(21):2359–2366. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1745
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franklin JM, Patorno E, Desai RJ, et al. Emulating randomized clinical trials with nonrandomized real-world evidence studies. Circulation. 2021;143(10):1002–1013. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.051718
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar