ABSTRACT
Background Evaluating cancer treatments in real-world data (RWD) requires informative endpoints. Due to non-standardized data collection in RWD, it is unclear if and when common oncology endpoints are approximately equivalent to their clinical trial analogues. This study used RWD to replicate both the atezolizumab and docetaxel arms of the OAK trial. Outcomes using progression-free survival (PFS) derived from abstracted physician’s notes in RWD (rwPFS) were then compared against PFS outcomes derived according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) from the clinical trial (ctPFS).
Methods Atezolizumab and docetaxel arms of the phase III OAK RCT (NCT02008227) were replicated in a US nationwide real-world database by applying selected OAK inclusion/exclusion criteria, followed by adjustment for baseline prognostic variables using propensity score-based methods. Multiple rwPFS definitions were characterized and a definition was chosen that was acceptable from both clinical and data analysis perspectives. Concordance of outcomes was assessed using Kaplan-Meier (KM) medians and hazard ratios (HRs).
Results Overall, 133 patients receiving atezolizumab and 479 patients receiving docetaxel were selected for the RWD cohort. After adjustment, prognostic variables were balanced between RCT arms and corresponding RWD cohorts. Comparing rwPFS against ctPFS outcomes in terms of KM median and HR showed better concordance for docetaxel (2.99 vs 3.52 months; HR, 0.99, 95% CI, 0.85-1.15) than for atezolizumab (3.71 vs 2.76 months; HR, 0.8, 95% CI 0.61-1.02). The latter improved when events labelled “pseudo-progression” were excluded from the RWD (im-rwPFS) and immune-modified RECIST PFS (im-ctPFS) was used in the RCT Atezolizumab data (4.24 vs 4.14 months; HR, 0.95, 95% CI, 0.70-1.25). These findings were robust across several sensitivity analyses.
Conclusions While rwPFS and ctPFS were similar under docetaxel treatment, this was only the case for atezolizumab when immune-modified progression criteria were used, suggesting that similarity of RWD endpoints to their clinical trial analogues depends on drug category and possibly other factors. Replication of RCTs using RWD and comparison of outcomes can be used as a tool for characterizing RWD endpoints. Additional studies are needed to verify these findings and to better understand the conditions for approximate numerical equivalence of rwPFS and ctPFS endpoints.
Competing Interest Statement
SKM and HT are employees of Genentech, Inc. MTB is an employee of F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. JM reports personal fees from Roche, Astra Zeneca, Pierre Fabre, Takeda, BMS, MSD, Jiangsu Hengrui, Blueprint, Daiichi, Novartis, and Amgen; grants from Roche, Astra Zeneca, Pierre Fabre, and BMS.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Protocol number and title: RWE-001: The Flatiron Health Real World Evidence Parent Protocol IRB name and registration number: WCG IRB; IRB00000533. Protocol approval ID, tracking number: 420180044.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.