• SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Patient Resources
    • COVID-19 Patient Resource Center
    • Clinical Trials
    • Search Clinical Trials
    • Patient Notification System
    • What is Clinical Research?
    • Volunteering for a Clinical Trial
    • Understanding Informed Consent
    • Useful Resources
    • FDA Approved Drugs
  • Professional Resources
    • Research Center Profiles
    • Clinical Trial Listings
    • Market Research
    • FDA Approved Drugs
    • Training Guides
    • Books
    • eLearning
    • Events
    • Newsletters
    • JobWatch
    • White Papers
    • SOPs
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • White Papers
  • Trial Listings
  • Advertise
  • COVID-19
  • iConnect
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » Assessment Finds Quality Concerns in Real-World Cancer Studies

Assessment Finds Quality Concerns in Real-World Cancer Studies

August 16, 2021

Real-world data (RWD) studies have been increasingly conducted in support of regulatory approvals and changes in clinical practice for novel oncology drugs, but a retrospective cohort study has found that many of these studies lack in quality.

The study is the first systematic evaluation of RWD studies reporting the effectiveness of cancer drugs approved between 2010 and 2015 for treating solid organ malignancies in the noncurative setting, according to the researchers. Published in the European Journal of Cancer, the study analysis was confined to antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents for solid tumors in the noncurative setting, the UK, Canadian and New Zealand researchers noted.

Using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale, they scored 293 RWD studies of drugs approved by the FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) between 2010 and 2015. The researchers found that most were of poor methodologic quality. Specifically, 230 (78 percent) of the studies were low quality, scoring zero to 3 on the scale, while just 63 (22 percent) were of moderate quality, meaning they had a score of 4 to 6. Notably, none were found to rank in the 7 to 9 range, the scale’s bracket for high quality.

The researchers also assessed study quality compared to funding status. Those studies that were funded saw a trend toward higher quality compared to those that didn’t receive funding, although the trend wasn’t statistically significant. But for pharma industry funded studies, a statistically significant difference was seen, with 35 percent of those studies meeting the criteria for medium quality compared to just 17 percent of those that didn’t receive industry funding.

The survival outcomes for RWD studies were usually worse than their pivotal trials, the researchers also found. Conducting a survival analysis of the RWD studies, they found that a little more than one-third (37 percent) of the RWD studies had superior survival outcomes; the survival outcomes for the rest (63 percent) were inferior.

In addition, the RWD studies were found to have a number of limitations, mainly in patient selection and assessment/control of confounders and in the evaluation of the studies’ endpoints. Of the 293 studies, only five did a comparative assessment of the intervention drug with the comparator drug used in the pivotal trial, the researchers determined.

“We find that most new FDA and EMA approved drugs for solid organ cancers have RWD studies; however, the overall quality is very low and would presently be of insufficient rigor to support regulatory approvals and reimbursement,” the researchers said. “We also find that the majority of RWD studies report survival outcomes that are inferior to randomized controlled trials, suggesting that the benefits observed in trials are not translated into the real world. Of concern is that low-quality studies are more likely to overstate the benefits of new cancer drugs.”

In conclusion, the researchers said that the standards for RWD studies of cancer drugs needs to improve in quality and consistency before they are used routinely to support clinical practice and policy changes.

Read the full study here: https://bit.ly/3g0w4BQ.

Upcoming Events

  • 24May

    Powering an Effective Oversight Strategy with Clinical and Operational Insights

  • 25May

    2022 WCG Avoca Quality & Innovation Summit: Own the Future

  • 28Jun

    Effective Root Cause Analysis and CAPA Investigations for the Life Sciences

  • 16Oct

    WCG MAGI's Clinical Research Hybrid Conference - 2022 West

Featured Products

  • Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

    Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

  • Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection

    Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection: Resources for Investigators, Sponsors, CROs and IRBs

Featured Stories

  • Protocol-360x240.png

    Avoid Deviations by Making Protocol Review a Team Effort

  • SelectionProcess-360x240.png

    Give Us a Voice: Sites Clamor for a Say on Vendor Selection

  • Convince-360x240.png

    Use Data and Details to Convince Site Leadership to Add Staff

  • AsktheExpertsBadge-360x240.png

    Ask the Experts: Listing Trial Staff and Others on the Statement of Investigator

Standard Operating Procedures for Risk-Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials

The information you need to adapt your monitoring plan to changing times.

Learn More Here
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 617.948.5100 – Toll free 866.219.3440

Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing