现实世界数据:癌症临床试验的应用和相关性。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY Seminars in Radiation Oncology Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.semradonc.2023.06.003
Andrew J. Gross , Courtney E. Pisano , Chachrit Khunsriraksakul , Daniel E. Spratt , Henry S. Park , Yilun Sun , Ming Wang , Nicholas G. Zaorsky
{"title":"现实世界数据:癌症临床试验的应用和相关性。","authors":"Andrew J. Gross ,&nbsp;Courtney E. Pisano ,&nbsp;Chachrit Khunsriraksakul ,&nbsp;Daniel E. Spratt ,&nbsp;Henry S. Park ,&nbsp;Yilun Sun ,&nbsp;Ming Wang ,&nbsp;Nicholas G. Zaorsky","doi":"10.1016/j.semradonc.2023.06.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for comparative-effectiveness research (CER). Since the 1980s, there has been a rise in the creation and utilization of large national cancer databases to provide readily accessible “real-world data” (RWD). This review article discusses the role of RCTs in oncology, and the role of RWD from the national cancer database in CER. RCTs remain the preferred study type for CER because they minimize confounding and bias. RCTs have challenges to conduct, including extensive time and resources, but these factors do not impact the internal validity of the result. Generalizability and external validity are potential limitations of RCTs. RWD is ideal for studying cancer epidemiology, patterns of care, disparities in care delivery, quality-of-care evaluation, and applicability of RCT data in specific populations excluded from RCTs. However, retrospective databases with RWD have limitations in CER due to unmeasured confounders and are often suboptimal in identifying causal treatment effects.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49542,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in Radiation Oncology","volume":"33 4","pages":"Pages 374-385"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Real-World Data: Applications and Relevance to Cancer Clinical Trials\",\"authors\":\"Andrew J. Gross ,&nbsp;Courtney E. Pisano ,&nbsp;Chachrit Khunsriraksakul ,&nbsp;Daniel E. Spratt ,&nbsp;Henry S. Park ,&nbsp;Yilun Sun ,&nbsp;Ming Wang ,&nbsp;Nicholas G. Zaorsky\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.semradonc.2023.06.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for comparative-effectiveness research (CER). Since the 1980s, there has been a rise in the creation and utilization of large national cancer databases to provide readily accessible “real-world data” (RWD). This review article discusses the role of RCTs in oncology, and the role of RWD from the national cancer database in CER. RCTs remain the preferred study type for CER because they minimize confounding and bias. RCTs have challenges to conduct, including extensive time and resources, but these factors do not impact the internal validity of the result. Generalizability and external validity are potential limitations of RCTs. RWD is ideal for studying cancer epidemiology, patterns of care, disparities in care delivery, quality-of-care evaluation, and applicability of RCT data in specific populations excluded from RCTs. However, retrospective databases with RWD have limitations in CER due to unmeasured confounders and are often suboptimal in identifying causal treatment effects.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Seminars in Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":\"33 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 374-385\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Seminars in Radiation Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053429623000401\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053429623000401","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随机对照试验是比较有效性研究的金标准。自20世纪80年代以来,创建和利用大型国家癌症数据库以提供易于访问的“真实世界数据”(RWD)的情况有所增加。这篇综述文章讨论了随机对照试验在肿瘤学中的作用,以及来自国家癌症数据库的RWD在CER中的角色。随机对照试验仍然是CER的首选研究类型,因为它们最大限度地减少了混淆和偏差。随机对照试验具有挑战性,包括大量的时间和资源,但这些因素不会影响结果的内部有效性。可推广性和外部有效性是随机对照试验的潜在局限性。RWD是研究癌症流行病学、护理模式、护理提供差异、护理质量评估以及RCT数据在被排除在RCT之外的特定人群中的适用性的理想选择。然而,由于未测量的混杂因素,RWD的回顾性数据库在CER方面存在局限性,并且在确定因果治疗效果方面往往是次优的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Real-World Data: Applications and Relevance to Cancer Clinical Trials

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for comparative-effectiveness research (CER). Since the 1980s, there has been a rise in the creation and utilization of large national cancer databases to provide readily accessible “real-world data” (RWD). This review article discusses the role of RCTs in oncology, and the role of RWD from the national cancer database in CER. RCTs remain the preferred study type for CER because they minimize confounding and bias. RCTs have challenges to conduct, including extensive time and resources, but these factors do not impact the internal validity of the result. Generalizability and external validity are potential limitations of RCTs. RWD is ideal for studying cancer epidemiology, patterns of care, disparities in care delivery, quality-of-care evaluation, and applicability of RCT data in specific populations excluded from RCTs. However, retrospective databases with RWD have limitations in CER due to unmeasured confounders and are often suboptimal in identifying causal treatment effects.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Each issue of Seminars in Radiation Oncology is compiled by a guest editor to address a specific topic in the specialty, presenting definitive information on areas of rapid change and development. A significant number of articles report new scientific information. Topics covered include tumor biology, diagnosis, medical and surgical management of the patient, and new technologies.
期刊最新文献
Radiation as an Immune Modulator: Where We Are With Modern Total Body Irradiation. Radiation for Multiple Myeloma in the Era of Novel Agents: Indications, Safety, and Dose Selection. Rising to the Top: How Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors are Changing the Landscape of Treatment for Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma. Translating Between Radiation Dose and Late Toxicity for Lymphoma Survivors: Implications on Toxicity Counseling and Survivorship. Advanced Stage Hodgkin and Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphomas: Is There Still a Role for Consolidation Radiotherapy in the PET Era?
×
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