Harnessing the Potential of Real-World Evidence in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Where Do We Stand?

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY Current Treatment Options in Oncology Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-17 DOI:10.1007/s11864-024-01186-4
Sietske C M W van Nassau, Guus M Bol, Frederieke H van der Baan, Jeanine M L Roodhart, Geraldine R Vink, Cornelis J A Punt, Anne M May, Miriam Koopman, Jeroen W G Derksen
{"title":"Harnessing the Potential of Real-World Evidence in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Where Do We Stand?","authors":"Sietske C M W van Nassau, Guus M Bol, Frederieke H van der Baan, Jeanine M L Roodhart, Geraldine R Vink, Cornelis J A Punt, Anne M May, Miriam Koopman, Jeroen W G Derksen","doi":"10.1007/s11864-024-01186-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Opinion statement: </strong>Treatment guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) are primarily based on the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), the gold standard methodology to evaluate safety and efficacy of oncological treatments. However, generalizability of trial results is often limited due to stringent eligibility criteria, underrepresentation of specific populations, and more heterogeneity in clinical practice. This may result in an efficacy-effectiveness gap and uncertainty regarding meaningful benefit versus treatment harm. Meanwhile, conduct of traditional RCTs has become increasingly challenging due to identification of a growing number of (small) molecular subtypes. These challenges-combined with the digitalization of health records-have led to growing interest in use of real-world data (RWD) to complement evidence from RCTs. RWD is used to evaluate epidemiological trends, quality of care, treatment effectiveness, long-term (rare) safety, and quality of life (QoL) measures. In addition, RWD is increasingly considered in decision-making by clinicians, regulators, and payers. In this narrative review, we elaborate on these applications in CRC, and provide illustrative examples. As long as the quality of RWD is safeguarded, ongoing developments, such as common data models, federated learning, and predictive modelling, will further unfold its potential. First, whenever possible, we recommend conducting pragmatic trials, such as registry-based RCTs, to optimize generalizability and answer clinical questions that are not addressed in registrational trials. Second, we argue that marketing approval should be conditional for patients who would have been ineligible for the registrational trial, awaiting planned (non) randomized evaluation of outcomes in the real world. Third, high-quality effectiveness results should be incorporated in treatment guidelines to aid in patient counseling. We believe that a coordinated effort from all stakeholders is essential to improve the quality of RWD, create a learning healthcare system with optimal use of trials and real-world evidence (RWE), and ultimately ensure personalized care for every CRC patient.</p>","PeriodicalId":50600,"journal":{"name":"Current Treatment Options in Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"405-426"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10997699/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Treatment Options in Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-024-01186-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Opinion statement: Treatment guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) are primarily based on the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), the gold standard methodology to evaluate safety and efficacy of oncological treatments. However, generalizability of trial results is often limited due to stringent eligibility criteria, underrepresentation of specific populations, and more heterogeneity in clinical practice. This may result in an efficacy-effectiveness gap and uncertainty regarding meaningful benefit versus treatment harm. Meanwhile, conduct of traditional RCTs has become increasingly challenging due to identification of a growing number of (small) molecular subtypes. These challenges-combined with the digitalization of health records-have led to growing interest in use of real-world data (RWD) to complement evidence from RCTs. RWD is used to evaluate epidemiological trends, quality of care, treatment effectiveness, long-term (rare) safety, and quality of life (QoL) measures. In addition, RWD is increasingly considered in decision-making by clinicians, regulators, and payers. In this narrative review, we elaborate on these applications in CRC, and provide illustrative examples. As long as the quality of RWD is safeguarded, ongoing developments, such as common data models, federated learning, and predictive modelling, will further unfold its potential. First, whenever possible, we recommend conducting pragmatic trials, such as registry-based RCTs, to optimize generalizability and answer clinical questions that are not addressed in registrational trials. Second, we argue that marketing approval should be conditional for patients who would have been ineligible for the registrational trial, awaiting planned (non) randomized evaluation of outcomes in the real world. Third, high-quality effectiveness results should be incorporated in treatment guidelines to aid in patient counseling. We believe that a coordinated effort from all stakeholders is essential to improve the quality of RWD, create a learning healthcare system with optimal use of trials and real-world evidence (RWE), and ultimately ensure personalized care for every CRC patient.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用真实世界证据的潜力治疗结直肠癌:我们的现状如何?
意见陈述:结直肠癌 (CRC) 的治疗指南主要基于随机临床试验 (RCT) 的结果,而随机临床试验是评估肿瘤治疗安全性和有效性的金标准方法。然而,由于资格标准严格、特定人群代表性不足以及临床实践中的异质性较多,试验结果的推广性往往受到限制。这可能会导致疗效差距,并使有意义的获益与治疗伤害之间存在不确定性。同时,由于识别出越来越多(小)的分子亚型,进行传统的 RCT 研究变得越来越具有挑战性。这些挑战加上健康记录的数字化,使得人们越来越关注使用真实世界数据(RWD)来补充 RCT 的证据。真实世界数据用于评估流行病学趋势、护理质量、治疗效果、长期(罕见)安全性和生活质量(QoL)指标。此外,临床医生、监管机构和付款人在决策时也越来越多地考虑到 RWD。在这篇叙述性综述中,我们将详细阐述这些在 CRC 中的应用,并提供一些说明性实例。只要 RWD 的质量得到保障,通用数据模型、联合学习和预测建模等持续发展将进一步发挥其潜力。首先,我们建议在可能的情况下开展务实性试验,如基于登记处的 RCT,以优化可推广性并回答注册性试验未涉及的临床问题。其次,我们认为,对于那些不符合注册试验条件的患者,应该有条件地批准其上市,以等待对现实世界中的结果进行有计划的(非)随机评估。第三,应将高质量的疗效结果纳入治疗指南,以帮助为患者提供咨询。我们相信,所有利益相关者的共同努力对于提高 RWD 的质量、创建一个优化使用试验和真实世界证据 (RWE) 的学习型医疗保健系统以及最终确保为每位 CRC 患者提供个性化治疗至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
113
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: This journal aims to review the most important, recently published treatment option advances in the field of oncology. By providing clear, insightful, balanced contributions by international experts, the journal intends to facilitate worldwide approaches to cancer treatment. We accomplish this aim by appointing international authorities to serve as Section Editors in key subject areas, such as endocrine tumors, lymphomas, neuro-oncology, and cancers of the breast, head and neck, lung, skin, gastrointestinal tract, and genitourinary region. Section Editors, in turn, select topics for which leading experts contribute comprehensive review articles that emphasize new developments and recently published papers of major importance, highlighted by annotated reference lists. We also provide commentaries from well-known oncologists, and an international Editorial Board reviews the annual table of contents, suggests articles of special interest to their country/region, and ensures that topics are current and include emerging research.
期刊最新文献
New Therapeutic Targets in RAS Wild-type Pancreatic Cancer. Oligometastatic Breast Cancer: Seeking the Cure by Redefining Stage IV Disease? Community Palliative Care: What are the Best Models? Contemporary Review of Adenocarcinoma of the Cervix. Updates in Treatment of HER2-positive Metastatic Breast Cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1