Finding the Evidence in Real-World Evidence: Moving from Data to Information to Knowledge

Real-World Evidence Studies in Oncology Therapeutics: Hope or Hype?

Randomized controlled trial (RCT) remains a gold standard in evidence-based medicine for assessing the efficacy and safety of cancer therapies. However, due to some inherent methodological limitations of RCT, such as stringent inclusion criteria, highly specific treatment, ethical and scientific compromise in rare cancer, and inability to adequately assess safety, real-world evidence (RWE) has been adjudged as a suitable option to complement data obtained from RCT. Moreover, in the context of cancer therapeutics, few notable merits pertain to developing a novel product for rare cancer subtypes, establishing new indications for already approved drugs, optimization of treatment regimen and sequence, a better description of long-term safety, and supporting the reimbursement-related decision. However, the implementation of RWE for the aforementioned purposes will be limited by various challenges, especially in the context of developing economies such as India. Special attention should be given to the availability of data, maintaining the quality standard, and establishing stringent regulations for privacy and security along with active regulatory engagement with relevant stakeholders. Such activities will be key to facilitating the use of RWE in cancer therapeutics.

Challenges to Using Big Data in Cancer

Big data in healthcare can enable unprecedented understanding of diseases and their treatment, particularly in oncology. These data may include electronic health records, medical imaging, genomic sequencing, payor records, and data from pharmaceutical research, wearables, and medical devices. The ability to combine datasets and use data across many analyses is critical to the successful use of big data and is a concern for those who generate and use the data. Interoperability and data quality continue to be major challenges when working with different healthcare datasets. Mapping terminology across datasets, missing and incorrect data, and varying data structures make combining data an onerous and largely manual undertaking. Data privacy is another concern addressed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Common Rule, and the General Data Protection Regulation. The use of big data is now included in the planning and activities of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency. The willingness of organizations to share data in a precompetitive fashion, agreements on data quality standards, and institution of universal and practical tenets on data privacy will be crucial to fully realizing the potential for big data in medicine.

Australian experience with ibrutinib in patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma: a study from the Lymphoma and Related Diseases Registry

Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) have an established role in the management of patients with relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). However, scant data exist on outcomes of patients ineligible for clinical trials testing these therapies. We describe a contemporary cohort of relapsed/refractory MCL patients from the Australasian Lymphoma and Related Diseases Registry treated with ibrutinib December 2014 until July 2018, to determine the proportion potentially eligible for original trials, reasons for ineligibility and survival outcomes. Of 44 patients, 41% met one or more exclusion criteria from previous phase II/III MCL BTKi studies. Median progression-free and overall survival were 13.7 months (95% CI 6.2-28.1) and 15.6 months (95% CI 10.8-29.6) respectively and were shorter in patients excluded from clinical trials based on ECOG ≥2. Ibrutinib has demonstrable clinical effectiveness in a population enriched for unfit and trial-ineligible patients, and a need for more inclusive enrollment criteria in future BTKi studies is highlighted.

Harnessing Real-World Evidence to Advance Cancer Research

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) form a cornerstone of oncology research by generating evidence about the efficacy of therapies in selected patient populations. However, their implementation is often resource- and cost-intensive, and their generalisability to patients treated in routine practice may be limited. Real-world evidence leverages data collected about patients receiving clinical care in routine practice outside of clinical trial settings and provides opportunities to identify and address gaps in clinical trial evidence. This review outlines the strengths and limitations of real-world and RCT evidence and proposes a framework for the complementary use of the two bodies of evidence to advance cancer research. There are challenges to the implementation of real-world research in oncology, including heterogeneity of data sources, timely access to high-quality data, and concerns about the quality of methods leveraging real-world data, particularly causal inference. Improved understanding of the strengths and limitations of real-world data and ongoing efforts to optimise the conduct of real-world evidence research will improve its reliability, understanding and acceptance, and enable the full potential of real-world evidence to be realised in oncology practice.

Inequalities in glycemic and multifactorial cardiovascular control of type 2 diabetes: The Heart Healthy Hoods study

Aim

This study aimed to analyze glycemic control and multifactorial cardiovascular control targets in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in primary care according to sex and socioeconomic status (SES).

Materials and methods

This is an observational, cross-sectional, and multicenter study. We analyzed all the patients with T2DMM aged between 40 and 75 years in Madrid city (113,265) through electronic health records from 01 August 2017 to 31 July 2018. SES was defined by an area-level socioeconomic index stratified by quintiles (1st quintile: more affluent).

Outcomes

Outcomes included glycemic control (HbA1c ≤ 7%), 3-factor cardiovascular control [HbA1c ≤ 7%, blood pressure (BP), < 140/90 mmHg, LDL < 100 mg/ml] and 4-factor control [HbA1c ≤ 7%, blood pressure (BP) < 140/90 mmHg, LDL < 100 mg/ml, and BMI < 30 kg/m²]. Multilevel logistic regression models analyzed factors associated with suboptimal glycemic control.

Results

In total 43.2% were women. Glycemic control was achieved by 63% of patients (women: 64.2% vs. men: 62.4%). Being more deprived was associated with suboptimal glycemic control (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.10-1.32); however, sex was not related (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.94-1.01). The optimal 3-factor control target was reached by 10.3% of patients (women: 9.3% vs. men: 11.2%), especially those in the 5th quintile of SES. The 4-factor control was achieved by 6.6% of the sample. In the 3-factor control target, being women was related to the suboptimal 3-factor control target (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.19- 1.34) but only belonging to SES 4th quintile was related to the unachieved target (OR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.04-2.07).

Conclusion

Suboptimal glycemic control was associated with being less affluent and suboptimal 3-factor control target was associated with being women.

The use of real-world evidence to support FDA post-approval study requirements for oncology drugs

BACKGROUND

: The 21^st Century Cures Act of 2016 included provisions for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to evaluate the potential for real-world evidence (RWE) to support or fulfill post-approval study requirements. This study reviewed post-marketing requirement (PMR) and post-marketing commitment (PMC) obligations for oncology drugs approved by the FDA post-Cures Act to identify those with RWE components.

METHODS

: Approval letters issued by the FDA between 2017-2020 for oncology drugs were systematically analyzed for PMRs or PMCs with requests for RWE. For each PMR/PMC identified, the characteristics of the approvals, the PMRs/PMCs, and the RWE requested were reviewed.

RESULTS

: Of 189 oncology drug approvals with 456 associated PMRs/PMCs, a total of 15 PMRs/PMCs specified RWE. Compared with all oncology drug approvals, the 14 approvals with PMRs/PMCs requesting RWE were more frequently accelerated approvals, for new therapies, with orphan indications. All 15 PMRs/PMCs requested real-world safety data, with 3 also requesting real-world effectiveness data. RWE requested included post-marketing safety reports, prospective observational studies, expanded access study data, and registry data.

CONCLUSION

: As a greater proportion of safety and efficacy data generation for oncology drugs shifts to the post-marketing setting, RWE has the potential to become an integral component of PMR/PMC fulfillment.

Early Tumor Size Reduction of at least 10% at the First Follow-Up Computed Tomography Can Predict Survival in the Setting of Advanced Melanoma and Immunotherapy

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Early tumor size reduction (TSR) has been explored as a prognostic factor for survival in patients with advanced melanoma in clinical trials. The purpose of this analysis is to validate, in a routine clinical milieu, the predictive capacity of TSR by 10% for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and to compare its predictive performance with the RECIST 1.1 criteria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study was approved by the local ethics committee. A total of 152 patients with both CT before immunotherapy initiation and at first response evaluation after immunotherapy initiation were included. Prior to statistical analysis, treatment response was trichotomized as follows: Complete response and/or partial response, stable disease and progressive disease. Furthermore, response was dichotomized regarding TSR (TSR ≥ 10% and TSR < 10%). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, Cox regression and Harrel's concordance index (C-index) were computed for prediction of overall survival and progression-free survival.

RESULTS

Tumor size reduction by at least 10% significantly differentiated between patients with increased survival from the ones with decreased survival (median OS: TSR ≥ 10%: 2137 days vs. TSR < 10%: 263 days) (p < 0.001) (median PFS: TSR ≥ 10%: 590 days vs.  TSR < 10%: 11 days) (p < 0.001). RECIST 1.1. criteria had a slightly higher C-index for overall survival reflecting a slight superior predictive capacity (RECIST: 0.69 vs TSR: 0.64) but a similar predictive capacity regarding progression-free survival (both: 0. 63).

CONCLUSION

Early tumor size reduction serves as a simple-to-use metric which can be implemented on the first follow-up CT. Tumor size reduction by at least 10% can be considered an additional biomarker predictive of overall survival and progression-free survival in routine clinical care and not only in the context of clinical trials in patients with advanced melanoma undergoing immunotherapy. Nevertheless, RECIST-based criteria should remain the main tool of treatment response assessment until results of prospective studies validating the TSR method are available.

Expanded Access and Right To Try Requests: The Community Oncologist's Experience

PURPOSE:

For patients with cancer who have exhausted approved treatment options and for whom appropriate clinical trials are not available, access to investigational drugs through the US Food and Drug Administration's Expanded Access (EA) program has been an alternative since the program's inception more than 30 years ago. In 2018, federal Right To Try legislation was passed in the United States, creating a second pathway—one that bypasses the US Food and Drug Administration—to obtain unapproved drugs outside of clinical trials. The use of the two programs by community medical oncologists and hematologist-oncologists has not been studied.

METHODS:

Between October 2019 and February 2020, community oncologists-hematologists from across the United States completed web-based surveys about EA and Right To Try pathways for accessing unapproved drugs for their patients. Physicians were asked about their utilization of, and perceptions of, the two programs.

RESULTS:

Of the 238 physicians who completed the survey, 46% indicated that they had attempted to gain access to an investigational drug for a patient using the EA program, whereas 14% reported attempting to use Right To Try pathway to obtain an unapproved drug for a patient. Eighty-nine percent of those who tried to use the EA program reported success in obtaining the investigational drug versus 73% of those who attempted to use the Right To Try pathway.

CONCLUSION:

Our survey found that most community oncologists-hematologists were aware of both the EA and Right To Try pathways, but there is room for improvement in understanding and utilization of the programs.

Understanding the evolution of coverage policies for prophylaxis treatments of hemophilia A without inhibitors: a payer Delphi panel

BACKGROUND: The landscape for hemophilia A prophylaxis is rapidly expanding from factor VIII replacement therapy to include novel treatments such as nonfactor replacement therapies that may enhance coagulation (e.g., emicizumab) or inhibit anticoagulant pathways (e.g., fitusiran and concizumab). For payers, this expansion presents challenges in balancing well-established treatments with new options that cost more and have lesser known real-world safety and efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate likely coverage practices for hemophilia A prophylaxis therapies among U.S. payers given evolving real-world data on safety and efficacy. METHODS: A 3-round modified Delphi process was conducted with representatives of U.S. commercial health plans who had considerable expertise in managing populations of patients with hemophilia. Round 1 consisted of an online questionnaire; round 2 involved an online discussion about the aggregated results from round 1; and round 3 allowed participants to revise their responses from round 1 based on insights gained during round 2. Questions elicited ratings, rankings, and estimates on access restrictions based on given safety and efficacy information for hemophilia A prophylaxis therapies. Consensus was reached if ≥ 74% of panelists (14 of 19) were within 1 SD of the median group estimate during round 3. RESULTS: 19 Payers participated in the research. Among them, 94% dealt with commercial insurance, 94% with Medicare, and 81% with Medicaid; 79% had spent ≥ 5 years in their current role. Panelists reported limited access restrictions on hemophilia A prophylaxis therapies; the most common restrictions were prior authorization (n = 16, 84%) and quantity level limits (n = 13, 67%). Tiering and step therapy were reported by 7 respondents (39%). Respondents agreed that there was an 80% median likelihood that ≥ 9 additional patients with any safety event (e.g., thrombotic event, death) per year would trigger access restrictions, with the median likelihood of restrictions increasing to 95% for another ≥ 10 patients with safety events per year. Respondents also agreed that > 5 thrombotic events requiring treatment per patient per year would have a 98% median likelihood of leading to access restrictions and that ≥ 5 years of real-world safety and efficacy data would be highly likely (95% median likelihood) to affect coverage decisions. Noncoverage was highly unlikely (ranked fifth or sixth of 6 by 14 respondents), as was no restriction-coverage parity (ranked sixth of 6 by 10 respondents). All else being equal, cost continues to affect access policies, with respondents agreeing that a 13%-30% difference in net cost may lead to preferred formulary treatment for a drug with superior efficacy and noninferior safety, inferior efficacy and noninferior safety, or noninferior efficacy and inferior safety. CONCLUSIONS: Payers prefer treatments with well-understood efficacy, safety, and cost over newer treatments with uncertain long-term effects. Relatively unrestricted access to legacy and new hemophilia A prophylaxis will likely continue unless additional real-world safety concerns or major cost differences emerge. DISCLOSURES: Financial support for this study was provided by Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, which was involved in study concept and design. Graf, Tuly, Harley, and Pednekar are employees of PRECISIONheor, a research consultancy to the health and life sciences industries that was contracted by Takeda to conduct this study and write the manuscript. Batt served as a consultant on this project through PRECISIONheor.

Prevalence of Missing Data in the National Cancer Database and Association With Overall Survival

IMPORTANCE

Cancer registries are important real-world data sources consisting of data abstraction from the medical record; however, patients with unknown or missing data are underrepresented in studies that use such data sources.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence of missing data and its association with overall survival among patients with cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this retrospective cohort study, all variables within the National Cancer Database were reviewed for missing or unknown values for patients with the 3 most common cancers in the US who received diagnoses from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2015. The prevalence of patient records with missing data and the association with overall survival were assessed. Data analysis was performed from February to August 2020.

EXPOSURES

Any missing data field within a patient record among 63 variables of interest from more than 130 total variables in the National Cancer Database.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Prevalence of missing data in the medical records of patients with cancer and associated 2-year overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 1 198 749 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (mean [SD] age, 68.5 [10.9] years; 628 811 men [52.5%]), 2 120 775 patients with breast cancer (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [13.3] years; 2 101 758 women [99.1%]), and 1 158 635 patients with prostate cancer (mean [SD] age, 65.2 [9.0] years; 100% men) were included in the analysis. Among those with non-small cell lung cancer, 851 295 patients (71.0%) were missing data for variables of interest; 2-year overall survival was 33.2% for patients with missing data and 51.6% for patients with complete data (P < .001). Among those with breast cancer, 1 161 096 patients (54.7%) were missing data for variables of interest; 2-year overall survival was 93.2% for patients with missing data and 93.9% for patients with complete data (P < .001). Among those with prostate cancer, 460 167 patients (39.7%) were missing data for variables of interest; 2-year overall survival was 91.0% for patients with missing data and 95.6% for patients with complete data (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that within a large cancer registry-based real-world data source, there was a high prevalence of missing data that were unable to be ascertained from the medical record. The prevalence of missing data among patients with cancer was associated with heterogeneous differences in overall survival. Improvements in documentation and data quality are necessary to make optimal use of real-world data for clinical advancements.

Comparison of Solid Tumor Treatment Response Observed in Clinical Practice With Response Reported in Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

In clinical trials supporting the regulatory approval of oncology drugs, solid tumor response is assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Calculation of RECIST-based responses requires sequential, timed imaging data, which presents challenges to the method's application in real-world evidence research.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and validity of a novel real-world RECIST method in assessing tumor burden associated with therapy for a large heterogeneous patient population undergoing treatment in routine clinical practice.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used physician-abstracted data pooled from retrospective, multisite electronic health record (EHR) review studies of patients treated with anticancer drugs at US oncology practices from 2014 through 2017. Included patients were receiving first-line treatment for thyroid cancer, breast cancer, or metastatic melanoma. Data were analyzed from March through August 2020.

EXPOSURES

Undergoing treatment with immunotherapy or targeted therapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Tumor response was classified according to RECIST guidelines (ie, change in sum diameter of target lesions) post hoc with measurements derived from imaging scans and reports.

RESULTS

Among 1308 completed electronic case report forms, 956 forms (73.1%) had adequate data to classify real-world RECIST response. The greatest difference between physician-recorded responses and real-world RECIST-based responses was found in the proportion of complete responses: 118 responses (12.3%) vs 46 responses (4.8%) (P < .001). Among 609 patients in the metastatic melanoma population, complete responses were reported in 112 physician-recorded responses (18.4%) vs 44 real-world RECIST-based responses (7.2%) (P < .001), compared with 11 of 247 responses (4.5%) to 31 of 192 responses (16.1%) across pivotal trials of the same melanoma therapies.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that comparing tumor lesion sizes and categorizing treatment response according to RECIST guidelines may be feasible using real-world data. This study found that physician-recorded assessments were associated with overestimation of treatment response, with the largest overestimation among complete responses. Real-world RECIST-based assessments were associated with better approximations of tumor response reported in clinical trials compared with those reported in EHRs.

The Safety and Efficacy of Second-Generation Basal Insulin Analogues in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes at Risk of Hypoglycemia and Use in Other Special Populations: A Narrative Review

Hypoglycemia is a major barrier impeding glycemic control in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus and creates a substantial burden on the healthcare system. Certain populations that require special attention, such as older adults and individuals with renal impairment, a longer duration of diabetes or those who have experienced prior hypoglycemia, may be at a higher risk of hypoglycemia, particularly with insulin treatment. Second-generation basal insulin analogues (insulin glargine 300 U/mL and degludec) have demonstrated reductions in hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL although evidence of this benefit across specific populations is less clear. In this review we summarize the literature with respect to the efficacy and safety data for second-generation basal insulin analogues in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are at risk of hypoglycemia or who require special attention. Randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses and real-world evidence demonstrate that the use of second-generation basal insulin analogues is associated with less hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL without compromising glycated hemoglobin control. A reduced risk of hypoglycemia with second-generation basal insulin analogues was evident in older adults and in individuals with obesity, renal impairment, a history of cardiovascular disease or a long duration of insulin use. Further studies are needed in other populations, including those with more severe renal impairment or hepatic dysfunction, the hospitalized population and those with cognitive impairment. Overall, less hypoglycemia associated with second-generation basal insulin analogues may help reduce barriers for insulin use, improve adherence and offset the costs of hypoglycemia-related healthcare resource utilization.

Use of Real-World Evidence to Support FDA Approval of Oncology Drugs

OBJECTIVES

Real-world evidence (RWE) has gained increased attention in recent years as a complement to traditional clinical trials. The use of RWE to establish the efficacy of oncology drugs for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval has not been described. In this paper, we review 5 recent examples where RWE was submitted in support of the FDA approvals of original or supplementary indications for oncology drugs.

METHODS

To identify cases where RWE was used, we reviewed drug approval packages available at Drugs@FDA for oncology drugs approved between 2017 and 2019. Five cases were selected to present a broad overview of different types of RWE, different circumstances under which RWE has been used for regulatory approvals, and how FDA evaluated the data in each case. The type of RWE submitted, the indication, limitations identified by FDA reviewers, and the outcome of the submission are discussed.

RESULTS

RWE, particularly historical controls for rare or orphan indications, has been used to support both original and supplementary oncology drug approvals. Types of RWE included data from electronic health records, claims, post-marketing safety reports, retrospective medical record reviews, and expanded access studies. Small sample sizes, data quality, and methodological issues were among concerns cited by FDA reviewers.

CONCLUSION

By bridging the gap between the constraints of the trial setting and the realities of clinical practice, RWE can add value to a regulatory submission. These early examples provide insight into how regulators evaluated RWE submitted as evidence of efficacy for oncology drugs.

Safety of Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter 2 Inhibitors

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have a well-defined safety profile based on data obtained from numerous clinical trials, including cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) and postmarketing pharmacovigilance reporting. Adverse events including risk of genital mycotic infection and volume depletion-related events are consistent with the mechanism of action of this drug class. However, several emergent (albeit infrequent) serious safety issues have also been reported. In their respective CVOTs, the proportion of patients with reported diabetic ketoacidosis was similar in empagliflozin or canagliflozin compared with their placebo groups, but it was higher for dapagliflozin. Canagliflozin may be associated with an increased risk of bone fracture and lower limb amputation; however, data are inconclusive. There is no evidence linking SGLT2 inhibitors with an increased risk of cancer, but these agents, particularly dapagliflozin, should be used with caution in patients with hematuria or a history of bladder cancer. Postmarketing reports of acute kidney injury have occurred in patients receiving SGLT2 inhibitors, and cases identified in recent CVOTs occurred with similar frequency in SGLT2 inhibitor and placebo groups. Common adverse events associated with SGLT2 inhibitors (such as genital infections or volume depletion) are generally mild and manageable by patients or by primary care physicians, and the risk of rare events (such as ketoacidosis) can be minimized by appropriate patient selection and early recognition of symptoms. When selecting treatment, it is important that clinicians weigh the known risks of SGLT2 inhibitors against their proven benefits, including the reduction of adverse cardiovascular and renal outcomes.

Sequential therapy with ramucirumab and/or checkpoint inhibitors for non-small-cell lung cancer in routine practice

Aim: To describe treatment patterns and outcomes for advanced/metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treated with single-agent or combination ramucirumab (ramucirumab-based) and/or immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI-based) therapy. Materials & methods: Retrospective study of aNSCLC patients (n = 4054) identified in the Flatiron Health database, who received at least two treatment lines including ramucirumab- and/or ICI-based regimens between December 2014 and May 2017. Results: Median overall survival (95% CI) from aNSCLC diagnosis was 29.3 (25.5-33.0) months for patients receiving sequential ramucirumab- and ICI-based therapy (n = 245), 15.1 (12.6-18.2) months for patients receiving sequences including ramucirumab- without ICI-based therapy (n = 112), and 23.1 (21.9-24.2) months for patients receiving ICI-based therapy without ramucirumab-based therapy in sequence (n = 3697). Conclusion: Results provide real-world survival estimates for aNSCLC treated with sequences including ramucirumab- and/or ICI-based therapies.

Accelerating anticancer drug development - opportunities and trade-offs

The traditional approach to drug development in oncology, with discrete phases of clinical testing, is becoming untenable owing to expansion of the precision medicine paradigm, whereby patients are stratified into multiple subgroups according to the underlying cancer biology. Seamless approaches to drug development in oncology hold great promise of accelerating the accessibility of novel therapeutic agents to the public but are also accompanied by important trade-offs, including the limited availability of information on the clinical benefit and safety of novel agents at the time of market entry. In this Perspectives article, we describe several opportunities, in the form of novel trial designs or modelling strategies, to improve the efficiency of drug development in oncology, as well as new mechanisms to obtain information about anticancer therapies throughout their life cycle, such as innovative functional imaging techniques or the use of real-world clinical data.

Real-world outcomes of nivolumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium

Objectives

In the present study, we explored the real-world efficacy of the immuno-oncology checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib in the second-line setting.

Methods

Using the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (imdc) dataset, a retrospective analysis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mrcc) treated with nivolumab or cabozantinib in the second line after prior therapy targeted to the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (vegfr) was performed. Baseline characteristics and imdc risk factors were collected. Overall survival (os) and time to treatment failure (ttf) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves. Overall response rates (orrs) were determined for each therapy. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to determine survival differences between cabozantinib and nivolumab treatment.

Results

The analysis included 225 patients treated with nivolumab and 53 treated with cabozantinib. No significant difference in median os was observed: 22.10 months [95% confidence interval (ci): 17.18 months to not reached] with nivolumab and 23.70 months (95% ci: 15.52 months to not reached) with cabozantinib (p = 0.61). The ttf was also similar at 6.90 months (95% ci: 4.60 months to 9.20 months) with nivolumab and 7.39 months (95% ci: 5.52 months to 12.85 months) with cabozantinib (p = 0.20). The adjusted hazard ratio (hr) for nivolumab compared with cabozantinib was 1.30 (95% ci: 0.73 to 2.3), p = 0.38. When adjusted by imdc criteria and age, the hr was 1.32 (95% ci: 0.74 to 2.38), p = 0.35.

Conclusions

Real-world imdc data indicate comparable os and ttf for nivolumab and cabozantinib. Both agents are reasonable therapeutic options for patients progressing after initial first-line vegfr-targeted therapy.

Reducing Length of Stay Using a Robotic-assisted Approach for Retromuscular Ventral Hernia Repair: A Comparative Analysis From the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare length of stay (LOS) after robotic-assisted and open retromuscular ventral hernia repair (RVHR).

BACKGROUND

RVHR has traditionally been performed by open techniques. Robotic-assisted surgery enables surgeons to perform minimally invasive RVHR, but with unknown benefit. Using real-world evidence, this study compared LOS after open (o-RVHR) and robotic-assisted (r-RVHR) approach.

METHODS

Multi-institutional data from patients undergoing elective RVHR in the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative between 2013 and 2016 were analyzed. Propensity score matching was used to compare median LOS between o-RVHR and r-RVHR groups. This work was supported by an unrestricted grant from Intuitive Surgical, and all clinical authors have declared direct or indirect relationships with Intuitive Surgical.

RESULTS

In all, 333 patients met inclusion criteria for a 2:1 match performed on 111 r-RVHR patients using propensity scores, with 222 o-RVHR patients having similar characteristics as the robotic-assisted group. Median LOS [interquartile range (IQR)] was significantly decreased for r-RVHR patients [2 days (IQR 2)] compared with o-RVHR patients [3 days (IQR 3), P < 0.001]. No differences in 30-day readmissions or surgical site infections were observed. Higher surgical site occurrences were noted with r-RVHR, consisting mostly of seromas not requiring intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Using real-world evidence, a robotic-assisted approach to RVHR offers the clinical benefit of reduced postoperative LOS. Ongoing monitoring of this technique should be employed through continuous quality improvement to determine the long-term effect on hernia recurrence, complications, patient satisfaction, and overall cost.

Using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors in real-world evidence cancer research

Aim: Real-world evidence of charted treatment responses to cancer drug therapy was compared with medical record derived radiographic measurements of target lesions per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Materials & methods: 15 physicians treating 59 metastatic Merkel cell cancer (mMCC) patients contributed patient-level data. A comparison of medical record reported best response with radiographic measurements per RECIST of pre- and post-treatment target lesions. Results: RECIST response rates were significantly lower compared with medical record reported with a concordance of 43.2% (95% CI: 28.0–58.4%). Conclusion: Subjective assessment of tumor response collected via traditional chart abstraction may overestimate benefit and limit the potential role of real-world evidence in value-based care research. The use of target lesion measurements presents an attractive alternative that better aligns with trial results.

Beyond maximum grade: modernising the assessment and reporting of adverse events in haematological malignancies

Tremendous progress in treatment and outcomes has been achieved across the whole range of haematological malignancies in the past two decades. Although cure rates for aggressive malignancies have increased, nowhere has progress been more impactful than in the management of typically incurable forms of haematological cancer. Population-based data have shown that 5-year survival for patients with chronic myelogenous and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, indolent B-cell lymphomas, and multiple myeloma has improved markedly. This improvement is a result of substantial changes in disease management strategies in these malignancies. Several haematological malignancies are now chronic diseases that are treated with continuously administered therapies that have unique side-effects over time. In this Commission, an international panel of clinicians, clinical investigators, methodologists, regulators, and patient advocates representing a broad range of academic and clinical cancer expertise examine adverse events in haematological malignancies. The issues pertaining to assessment of adverse events examined here are relevant to a range of malignancies and have been, to date, underexplored in the context of haematology. The aim of this Commission is to improve toxicity assessment in clinical trials in haematological malignancies by critically examining the current process of adverse event assessment, highlighting the need to incorporate patient-reported outcomes, addressing issues unique to stem-cell transplantation and survivorship, appraising challenges in regulatory approval, and evaluating toxicity in real-world patients. We have identified a range of priority issues in these areas and defined potential solutions to challenges associated with adverse event assessment in the current treatment landscape of haematological malignancies.

Combination Glucose-Lowering Therapy Plans in T2DM: Case-Based Considerations

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a complex disease, and while lifestyle interventions remain the cornerstone of therapy, most patients will also require pharmacotherapy. Current diabetes treatment guidelines and algorithms recommend an individualized approach to setting glycemic goals and selecting treatment. Although a single antihyperglycemic agent may be appropriate as the initial T2DM pharmacotherapy, the progressive nature of the disease due to declining pancreatic β-cell function will result in the vast majority of T2DM patients eventually requiring two or more antihyperglycemic agents. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Clinical Endocrinology T2DM management algorithm recommends initial dual agent combination therapy when a single agent is unlikely to achieve their target glycemia, i.e., for those patients with an HbA1c ≥ 7.5 and an individualized HbA1c target of < 7.5%. The American Diabetes Association Standards of Care recommend combination pharmacotherapy for those patients presenting with very elevated HbA1c levels (e.g., ≥ 9% and < 10%). Metformin (if well tolerated and not contraindicated) is the initial pharmacologic choice for most patients; selection of another antihyperglycemic agent to the regimen will depend on the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and other patient-specific factors (e.g., age, known duration of T2DM, history of or risk for hypoglycemia and/or adverse consequences from hypoglycemia, other comorbidities, and available resources), along with drug-specific factors (e.g., risk for hypoglycemia, potential effects on weight, drug adverse event profiles, and cost). Combination therapy may be administered as a multi-pill regimen, a single-pill combination (i.e., fixed-dose combination oral therapy), or as a combination of oral and/or injectable therapies. This paper provides two illustrative case presentations to demonstrate how current treatment recommendations and algorithms can be used to guide the selection of non-insulin-based combination therapy for patients with T2DM in primary care settings and discusses the relative merits of several possible approaches for each patient.

FUNDING

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Real-World Evidence in the Real World: Beyond the FDA

The 21^st Century Cures Act ("Cures Act") ¹ relies on the concept of real-world evidence ("RWE") ² to improve the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval process. This has amplified interest and furthered momentum in applying RWE more broadly, beyond FDA regulation. In this article, we discuss the understandable appeal of RWE's pragmatic application and its many potential benefits. But we also caution that claims about RWE's wide-ranging, ameliorative impact on the health care system are likely overstated. The real world of RWE is messy and uncertain. Successfully incorporating RWE into regular health care system decision-making, beyond the FDA, faces considerable obstacles and limitations. We review the reasons to be wary about RWE as a game-changer. These concerns including data reliability, insufficient incentives for stakeholders to generate and engage with high-quality RWE, and lack of comprehensive regulatory oversight. In addition, the push for RWE may impact the enforcement of the health care fraud and abuse laws, perhaps not in necessarily positive ways. Increased reliance on RWE may have significant implications for off-label fraud enforcement, further conflating the distinction between claims that are false for reimbursement rather than for scientific purposes.

Real-world evidence in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Real-world evidence has played an important role in expanding our knowledge on the treatment and prognostication of advanced renal cell carcinoma. This type of data has been particularly helpful in providing a better understanding of groups that are traditionally excluded from randomized controlled trials. The International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) represents the largest collection of real-world data on patients with advanced kidney cancer treated with targeted therapies. The IMDC prognostic model has been used to stratify patients in contemporary clinical trials and to provide risk-directed treatment selection in everyday clinical practice. More recently, it has been shown to predict response to first-line combination immunotherapy in the phase III CheckMate 214 clinical trial. In this review, we highlight the real-world evidence associated with the treatment of mRCC. We focus on first-line therapy, as well as second-line and third-line therapeutic options, including novel immuno-oncology agents. We also address the real-world evidence for the use of cytoreductive nephrectomy in advanced renal cell carcinoma in the targeted therapy era.

Evidence-based data and rare cancers: The need for a new methodological approach in research and investigation

Rare cancers are not so rare, their incidence is increasing and, as a group, they have worse survival than the common cancers. These factors emphasise the societal need to ensure sufficient focus on research into their biological basis, aetiological factors, new more effective therapies and organisation of healthcare to improve access to best practice and innovation. Accuracy of diagnosis is one of the first hurdles to be overcome, with around one third of tumours being reclassified - by type or risk group - when subject to a centralised pathology review process. Timely access to appropriate expert knowledge is a second challenge for patients - in Europe this is being addressed by the establishment of European Reference Networks (ERNs) as part of the EU cross border healthcare initiative. There are ERNs for adult solid and haematological cancers and childhood cancers, all of which are individually rare. These ERNs will facilitate creation of large databases of rare tumours that will incorporate knowledge of their molecular features and build an evidence base for the effectiveness of innovative, biology-directed therapies. With an increasing focus on 'real world' outcome data, research methodologies are evolving, to include randomised registry trials and data linkage approaches that exploit the ever-richer information held on patients in routine health care data. The inclusion of genomic analysis into cancer diagnosis, treatment and risk prediction raises many issues for the conduct of clinical research and cohort studies and personal data sharing. Sophisticated means of pseudonymisation, together with full involvement of affected and 'at risk' patients, are supporting novel research designs and access to data that will continue to build the evidence base to improve outcomes for patients with rare cancers.

Cardiovascular effects of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors

As the first cardiovascular (CV) outcome trial of a glucose-lowering agent to demonstrate a reduction in the risk of CV events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the EMPAgliflozin Removal of Excess Glucose: Cardiovascular OUTCOME Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG OUTCOME^®) trial, which investigated the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin, has generated great interest among health care professionals. CV outcomes data for another SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin, have been published recently in the CANagliflozin CardioVascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) Program, as have CV data from the retrospective real-world study Comparative Effectiveness of Cardiovascular Outcomes in New Users of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors (CVD-REAL), which compared SGLT2 inhibitors with other classes of glucose-lowering drugs. This review discusses the results of these three studies and, with a focus on EMPA-REG OUTCOME, examines the possible mechanisms by which SGLT2 inhibitors may reduce CV risk in patients with T2DM.

PHEDRA: using real-world data to analyze treatment patterns and ibrutinib effectiveness in hematological malignancies

Aim: PHEDRA (Platform for Haematology in EMEA: Data for Real World Analysis) is a unique, noninterventional project based on secondary data collection from real-world (RW) patient-level (health record) databases to understand treatment patterns in hematological malignancies. It compares ibrutinib's effectiveness with alternative treatments using RW data (RWD) and randomized clinical trials data. Materials & methods: RWD are cleaned, validated, harmonized into a Common Data Model, and analyzed statistically alongside randomized clinical trial data. Treatment outcomes include overall and progression-free survival. Results: To date, RWD (four databases) are available for 2840 patients in three indications, collected between 1990 and 2017. Conclusion: PHEDRA is an innovative approach to generate evidence to inform optimal treatment decisions in RW settings.