Treatment effectiveness in a rare oncology indication: Lessons from an external control cohort study

MOMENT registry: Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harboring MET exon 14 skipping treated with systemic therapy

Aim: MET exon 14 (METex14) skipping occurs in 3-4% of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases. Low frequency of this alteration necessitated open-label, single-arm trials to investigate MET inhibitors. Since broad MET biomarker testing was only recently introduced in many countries, there is a lack of historical real-world data from patients with METex14 skipping NSCLC receiving conventional therapies. Given the rarity of this population and limitations of existing real-world data sources, the MOMENT registry aims to prospectively collect uniform, comprehensive, high-quality data from patients with METex14 skipping advanced NSCLC treated in routine clinical practice, which can support clinical and regulatory decision making. Patients & methods: MOMENT is a multinational, non-interventional disease registry collecting data on patients with METex14 skipping advanced NSCLC receiving any systemic anticancer therapy. Newly diagnosed patients and those already receiving treatment are eligible. Patients with previous participation in a clinical trial can be included if they receive at least one subsequent therapy line in a routine clinical setting. Eligible systemic treatment includes all available anticancer therapies (approved, conditionally approved or provided through Early Access). Data collection includes biomarker testing results, demographics, baseline clinical characteristics, treatment details and effectiveness, safety information and imaging. Registry site inclusion is dependent on confirmation that local METex14 skipping detection methods are sufficient to confirm METex14 skipping status. MOMENT is currently active at more than 60 sites across Europe and North America and approximately 700 patients are expected to be enrolled within the next 4 years. The first patient was enrolled on 4 October 2022. After completion of data collection, MOMENT data can be shared with external parties to conduct non-interventional studies. Discussion/conclusion: The MOMENT registry collects comprehensive, high-quality real-world data from patients with METex14 skipping advanced NSCLC receiving systemic anticancer treatment in a routine clinical setting, to enable future studies informing regulatory decisions and optimal care for this rare population. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05376891 (ClinicalTrials.gov); EUPAS47602 (EU PAS register no.).

Analytical Methods for Comparing Uncontrolled Trials With External Controls From Real-World Data: A Systematic Literature Review and Comparison With European Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Practice

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to provide an overview of analytical methods in scientific literature for comparing uncontrolled medicine trials with external controls from individual patient data real-world data (IPD-RWD) and to compare these methods with recommendations made in guidelines from European regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) organizations and with their evaluations described in assessment reports.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (until March 1, 2023) in PubMed and Connected Papers was performed to identify analytical methods for comparing uncontrolled trials with external controls from IPD-RWD. These methods were compared descriptively with methods recommended in method guidelines and encountered in assessment reports of the European Medicines Agency (2015-2020) and 4 European HTA organizations (2015-2023).

RESULTS

Thirty-four identified scientific articles described analytical methods for comparing uncontrolled trial data with IPD-RWD-based external controls. The various methods covered controlling for confounding and/or dependent censoring, correction for missing data, and analytical comparative modeling methods. Seven guidelines also focused on research design, RWD quality, and transparency aspects, and 4 of those recommended analytical methods for comparisons with IPD-RWD. The methods discussed in regulatory (n = 15) and HTA (n = 35) assessment reports were often based on aggregate data and lacked transparency owing to the few details provided.

CONCLUSIONS

Literature and guidelines suggest a methodological approach to comparing uncontrolled trials with external controls from IPD-RWD similar to target trial emulation, using state-of-the-art methods. External controls supporting regulatory and HTA decision making were rarely in line with this approach. Twelve recommendations are proposed to improve the quality and acceptability of these methods.

Analysis of factors associated with use of real-world data in single technology appraisals of cancer drugs by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

OBJECTIVES

This study investigates factors associated with use of real-world data (RWD) in economic modelling for single technology appraisals (STAs) of cancer drugs by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to improve systematic understanding of the use of RWD.

METHODS

The data were extracted from STAs of cancer drugs, for which NICE issued guidance between January 2011 and December 2022 (n=267). Binary regression was used to test hypotheses concerning the greater or lesser use of RWD. Bonferroni-Holm correction was used to control error rates in multiple hypotheses tests. Several explanatory variables were considered in this analysis, including time (Time), incidence rate of disease (IR), availability of direct treatment comparison (AD), generalisability of trial data (GE), maturity of survival data in trial (MS) and previous technology recommendations by NICE (PR). The primary outcome variable was any use of RWD. Secondary outcome variables were specific uses of RWD in economic models.

RESULTS

AD had a statistical negative association with any use of RWD whereas no associations with non-parametric and parametric use of RWD were found. Time had several statistical associations with use of RWD (validating survival distributions for the intervention, estimating progression-free survival for the intervention, estimating overall survival for comparators and transition probabilities).

CONCLUSIONS

RWD were more likely to be used in economic modelling of cancer drugs when randomised controlled trials failed to provide relevant clinical information of the drug for appraisals, particularly in the absence of direct treatment comparisons. These results, based on analysis of data systematically collected from previous appraisals, suggest that uses of RWD were associated with data gaps in the economic modelling. While this result may support some of the claimed advantages of using RWD when evidence is absent, the question, the extent to which use of RWD in indirect treatment comparisons reduces uncertainty is still to be determined.

Exploring the discrepancies between clinical trials and real-world data: A small-cell lung cancer study

The potential of real-world data to inform clinical trial design and supplement control arms has gained much interest in recent years. The most common approach relies on reproducing control arm outcomes by matching real-world patient cohorts to clinical trial baseline populations. However, recent studies pointed out that there is a lack of replicability, generalisability, and consensus. In this article, we propose a novel approach that aims to explore and examine these discrepancies by concomitantly investigating the impact of selection criteria and operations on the measurements of outcomes from the patient data. We tested the approach on a dataset consisting of small-cell lung cancer patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy regimens from a real-world data cohort (n = 223) and six clinical trial control arms (n = 1224). The results showed that the discrepancy between real-world and clinical trial data potentially depends on differences in both patient populations and operational conditions (e.g., frequency of assessments, and censoring), for which further investigation is required. Discovering and accounting for confounders, including hidden effects of differences in operations related to the treatment process and clinical trial study protocol, would potentially allow for improved translation between clinical trials and real-world data. Continued development of the method presented here to systematically explore and account for these differences could pave the way for transferring learning across clinical studies and developing mutual translation between the real-world and clinical trials to inform clinical study design.

Framework for the Use of External Controls to Evaluate Treatment Outcomes in Precision Oncology Trials

Advances in genomics have enabled anticancer therapies to be tailored to target specific genomic alterations. Single-arm trials (SATs), including those incorporated within umbrella, basket, and platform trials, are widely adopted when it is not feasible to conduct randomized controlled trials in rare biomarker-defined subpopulations. External controls (ECs), defined as control arm data derived outside the clinical trial, have gained renewed interest as a strategy to supplement evidence generated from SATs to allow comparative analysis. There are increasing examples demonstrating the application of EC in precision oncology trials. The prospective application of EC in conducting comparative studies is associated with distinct methodological challenges, the specific considerations for EC use in biomarker-defined subpopulations have not been adequately discussed, and a formal framework is yet to be established. In this review, we present a framework for conducting a prospective comparative analysis using EC. Key steps are (1) defining the purpose of using EC to address the study question, (2) determining if the external data are fit for purpose, (3) developing a transparent study protocol and a statistical analysis plan, and (iv) interpreting results and drawing conclusions on the basis of a prespecified hypothesis. We specify the considerations required for the biomarker-defined subpopulations, which include (1) specifying the comparator and biomarker status of the comparator group, (2) defining lines of treatment, (3) assessment of the biomarker testing panels used, and (4) assessment of cohort stratification in tumor-agnostic studies. We further discuss novel clinical trial designs and statistical techniques leveraging EC to propose future directions to advance evidence generation and facilitate drug development in precision oncology.

Regulatory and HTA Considerations for Development of Real-World Data Derived External Controls

Regulators and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies are increasingly familiar with, and publishing guidance on, external controls derived from real-world data (RWD) to generate real-world evidence (RWE). We recently conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) evaluating publicly available information on the use of RWD-derived external controls to contextualize outcomes from uncontrolled trials submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and/or select HTA bodies. The review identified several key operational and methodological aspects for which more detailed guidance and alignment within and between regulatory agencies and HTA bodies is necessary. This paper builds on the SLR findings by delineating a set of key takeaways for the responsible generation of fit-for-purpose RWE. Practical methodological and operational guidelines for designing, conducting, and reporting RWD-derived external control studies are explored and discussed. These considerations include: (i) early engagement with regulators and HTA bodies during the study planning phase; (ii) consideration of the appropriateness and comparability of external controls across multiple dimensions, including eligibility criteria, temporality, population representation, and clinical evaluation; (iii) ensuring adequate sample sizes, including hypothesis testing considerations; (iv) implementation of a clear and transparent strategy for assessing and addressing data quality, including data missingness across trials and RWD; (v) selection of comparable and meaningful endpoints that are operationalized and analyzed using appropriate analytic methods; and (vi) conduct of sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of findings in the context of uncertainty and sources of potential bias.