Embracing the full spectrum of real-world data for cancer medicines research in Australia

A qualitative study exploring stakeholders' perceptions of registry-based randomised controlled trials capacity and capability in Australia

BACKGROUND

Traditional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in clinical research. Traditional RCTs however are complex, expensive and have low external validity. Registry-based randomised controlled trials (RRCTs) are an emerging alternative approach that integrates the internal validity of a traditional RCT with the external validity of a clinical registry by recruiting more real-world patients and leveraging an existing registry platform for data collection. As RRCTs are a novel research design, there is limited understanding of the RRCT landscape in Australia. This qualitative study aims to explore the RRCT landscape in Australia including current capacity and capabilities, and to identify challenges and opportunities for conducting RRCTs.

METHODS

We conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with 18 clinician researchers, 6 research program managers and 6 research governance officers. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We analysed the data using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We identified four overarching themes: (1) understanding of the RRCT methodology concept and knowledge of Australian clinical registries and RRCT landscape; (2) enablers and barriers in the uptake and conduct of RRCTs; (3) ethics and governance requirements impacting the conduct of RRCTs and (4) recommendations for the promotion, support and implementation of RRCTs. Understanding of and ability to define an RRCT varied considerably amongst participants, as did their appreciation of the role the registry should play in supporting these trials. Lack of ongoing funding to support both registries and RRCTs, along with low awareness and minimal education around this methodology, were identified as the predominant barriers to the uptake of RRCTs in Australia. The simplicity of RRCTs, specifically their pragmatic nature and lower costs, was identified as one of their best attributes. There was consensus that inadequate funding, onerous research governance requirements and poor awareness of this methodology were currently prohibitive in enticing clinicians and researchers to conduct RRCTs. Recommendations to improve the uptake of RRCTs included establishing a sustainable funding model for both registries and RRCTs, harmonising governance requirements across jurisdictions and increasing awareness of RRCTs through education initiatives.

CONCLUSIONS

RRCTs in Australia are an evolving methodology with slow but steady uptake across a number of clinical disciplines. Whilst RRCTs are increasingly identified as a beneficial alternative methodology to evaluate and improve current standards of care, several barriers to effective RRCT implementation were identified. Creating greater awareness of the benefits of RRCTs across a number of stakeholders to help secure ongoing funding and addressing both registry and RRCT governance challenges are two essential steps in enhancing the uptake of RRCTs in Australia and internationally.

"Nothing to lose and the possibility of gaining": a qualitative study on the feasibility and acceptability of registry-based randomised controlled trials among cancer patients and clinicians

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the "gold standard" for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in clinical research. However, conventional RCTs are typically complex, expensive, and have narrow eligibility criteria, which limits generalisability. Registry-based randomised controlled trials (RRCTs) are an alternative approach that integrates the internal validity of an RCT with the external validity of a clinical registry by recruiting real-world patients and leveraging an existing registry platform for data collection. As RRCT is a novel research design, there has been limited research on the feasibility and acceptability of RRCTs from the patients' and trial team's perspectives. This study aims to explore patients', clinicians', and study coordinators' perspectives towards participation in and conduct of oncology RRCTs in Australia.

METHODS

Thirty-seven semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 cancer patients, 15 clinicians, and 7 study coordinators. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three overarching themes were identified: (1) enablers and barriers to recruitment and enrolment of patients in RRCTs, (2) experiences of patients participating in RRCTs, and (3) recommendations for the implementation of future RRCTs. For patients, altruism and "trust in the clinician" were key reasons to participate in a RRCT. For clinicians and clinical trial coordinators, the RRCT study design was perceived as "simple and straightforward" but "less exciting" than RCTs. Competition from commercially sponsored RCTs poses challenges for investigator-led RRCTs recruitment, particularly if eligible patient numbers are low. There were limited impacts on patients' treatment experiences and clinicians' clinical workflow given that the RRCTs explored different standards of care. Recommendations to improve the enrolment of patients in RRCTs included generating greater buy-in from clinicians by increasing awareness of RRCTs via education initiatives and broader promotion of the "selling point" of RRCTs and providing monetary compensation to hospitals for enrolling patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst patients, clinicians, and study coordinators were generally supportive of RRCTs, several barriers to effective RRCT implementation in oncology were identified. Developing strategies to increase acceptance of the methodology by clinicians will help enhance the uptake of RRCTs in Australia and internationally.