Podcast
MSL Talk: Tom Caravela, Khalil Ahmed
Real-World Evidence in Oncology: Opportunities and Limitations
Summary
- Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are traditionally viewed as the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy, but real-world evidence (RWE) is gaining traction in oncology for addressing questions not fully answered by RCTs.
- RWE is derived from health records, cancer registries, and other sources, and while valuable, it has intrinsic limitations that require careful consideration to avoid misleading conclusions.
- RWE is particularly useful for evaluating treatment effectiveness in daily practice, assessing complex procedures, and exploring interventions in rare subgroups where RCTs are not feasible.
- There are notable differences between RCTs and RWE, such as the highly selective patient criteria in RCTs versus the broader, more diverse populations in RWE studies.
- RWE can provide insights into treatment safety and long-term adverse events, especially in patient populations not well-represented in RCTs.
- Despite its benefits, RWE has limitations such as potential selection bias and the absence of control groups, which can affect the accuracy of treatment efficacy comparisons.
- Combining RWE with RCTs offers a more comprehensive understanding of treatment impacts, although RWE should not replace RCTs.
Traditionally, randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) have been considered the highest level of evidence to define the efficacy of treatments, before their adoption in clinical practice. However, in oncology, like in other fields of medicine, the analysis of real-world evidence (RWE) to answer clinical and policy-relevant questions that cannot be directly or completely answered using data from RCTs has rapidly gained increased interest in recent years [1–3]. It is clear that data obtained from health records, cancer registries, and other RWE sources can produce valuable insights into treatments and their outcomes in routine, daily oncology practice. However, caution must be paid to the intrinsic limitations of such data, to avoid a misleading and potentially harmful use of them....
Real‐world evidence, Clinical trials, Cancer treatments
Related Topics
You May Also Like
MSL Talk: Tom Caravela, Khalil Ahmed
Podcast
MSL Talk: Tom Caravela, Brad Atkinson, Brian Wilson, Christina Wright
How and Why Medical Affairs Can Support Diversity in Clinical Trials
Article
Envision Pharma Group
Patient involvement: A must-have in medicine development, but is it being overlooked in a cost-constrained environment?
Article
Garth W. Strohbehn, MD, MPhil, Allen S. Lichter, MD and Mark J. Ratain, MD
US Government Payer-Funded Trials to Address Oncology's Drug-Dosing Conundrum: A Congressional Call to Action?
Article
Jayson L. Parker, Sebnem S. Kuzulugil, Kirill Pereverzev, Stephen Mac, Gilberto Lopes, Zain Shah, Ashini Weerasinghe, Daniel Rubinger, Adam Falconi, Ayse Bener, Bora Caglayan, Rohan Tangri, Nicholas Mitsakakis
Does biomarker use in oncology improve clinical trial failure risk? A large-scale analysis
Article
Avi Cherla, MSc; Huseyin Naci, MHS, PhD; Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH; Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD; Elias Mossialos, MD, PhD