Pivotal Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) constitute scientific evidence in support of therapeutic choices when a drug is authorized in the market. In RCTs, patients are selected in a rigorous manner, in order to avoid bias that may influence efficacy assessments. Therefore, patients who take the drug in Real Life Studies (RLSs) are not the same as those participating in RCTs, which, in turn, leads to low data transferability from RCTs to RLS. The objective of this study was to evaluate the differences between RCTs and RLS, in terms of patient baseline characteristics.
Materials and Methods
Our study includes all oral target therapies for RCC (Renal Cell Carcinoma) marketed in Europe before March 31, 2019. For each treatment, we considered both RCTs and RLSs, the former gathered from Summary of Product Characteristics published on the European Medicine Agency (EMA) website, and the latter yielded by our search in relevant literature. For each drug considered, we then compared the baseline characteristics of patients included in the RCT samples with those of the samples included in the RLSs using the Chi-squared and Mann-Whitney tests.
Results
We considered six medicines, for a total of 9 pivotal RCTs and 31 RLSs. RCTs reported the same type of patient baseline characteristics, whereas RLSs are more varied in reporting. Some patient baseline characteristics (metastases, previous treatments, etc.) were significantly different between RCTs and RLs. Other characteristics, such as ECOG Performance Status, brain metastases, and comorbidities, liver and kidney failure, are comprised in exclusion criteria of RCTs, though are included in RLS.
Discussion and Conclusion: While evaluating equal treatments for the same indications, RCTs and RLSs do not always assess patients with the same characteristics. It would be necessary to produce evidence from RLSs so as to have an idea of treatment effectiveness in patients groups that are not eligible or underrepresented in RCTs.
BothwellLEPodolskySH.The emergence of the randomized, controlled trial.N Engl J Med2016;
375: 501–504.
2.
SchwartzDLellouchJ.Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials.J Clin Epidemiol2009;
62: 499–505.
3.
FreemantleNStrackT.Real-world effectiveness of new medicines should be evaluated by appropriately designed clinical trials.J Clin Epidemiol2010;
63: 1053–1058.
4.
MitchellAPHarrisonMRWalkerMS, et al.
Clinical trial participants with metastatic renal cell carcinoma differ from patients treated in real-world practice. J Oncol Pract2015;
11: 491–497.
5.
EltingLSCooksleyCBekeleBN, et al.
Generalizability of cancer clinical trial results: prognostic differences between participants and nonparticipants.Cancer2006;
106: 2452–2458.
6.
Corrigan-CurayJSacksLWoodcockJ.Real-world evidence and real-world data for evaluating drug safety and effectiveness.J Am Med Assoc2018;
320: 867–868.
7.
RocheNReddelHKAgustiA, et al.
Integrating real-life studies in the global therapeutic research framework. Lancet Respir Med2013;
1: e29–e30.
8.
KimESBruinoogeSSRobertsS, et al.
Broadening eligibility criteria to make clinical trials more representative: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research Joint Research Statement.J Clin Oncol2017;
35: 3737–3744.
9.
EichlerHGAbadieEBreckenridgeA, et al.
Bridging the efficacy-effectiveness gap: a regulator's perspective on addressing variability of drug response.Nat Rev Drug Discov2011;
10: 495–506.
10.
MahajanR.Real world data: additional source for making clinical decisions.Int J Appl Basic Med Res2015;
5: 82.
11.
ShermanREAndersonSADal PanGJ, et al.
Real-world evidence – what is it and what can it tell us?N Engl J Med2016;
375: 2293–2297.
12.
SiegelRLMillerKDJemalA.Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin2018;
68: 7–30.
13.
CapitanioUBensalahKBexA, et al.
Epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma.Eur Urol2019;
75: 74–84.
14.
BarataPCRiniBI.Treatment of renal cell carcinoma: current status and future directions.CA Cancer J Clin2017;
67: 507–524.
15.
LudmirEBMainwaringWLinTA, et al.
Factors associated with age disparities among cancer clinical trial participants. JAMA Oncol2019; 5: 1769–1773.
16.
LudmirEBFullerCDMoningiS, et al.
Sex-based disparities among cancer clinical trial participants.J Natl Cancer Inst 2020; 112: 211–213.
17.
Kennedy-MartinTCurtisSFariesD, et al.
A literature review on the representativeness of randomized controlled trial samples and implications for the external validity of trial results.Trials2015;
16: 495.
18.
SusukidaRCrumRMStuartEA, et al.
Assessing sample representativeness in randomized controlled trials: application to the National Institute of Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network. Addiction2016;
111: 1226–1234.
19.
KostevKSchokkerEJacobL.Differences in baseline characteristics between type 2 diabetes mellitus patients treated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in randomized controlled trials and those receiving the same treatment in real-world settings. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther2018;
56: 411–416.
20.
SmythBHaberATrongtrakulK, et al.
Representativeness of randomized clinical trial cohorts in end-stage kidney disease: a meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med2019; 179: 1316–1324.
21.
JinSPazdurRSridharaR.Re-evaluating eligibility criteria for oncology clinical trials: analysis of investigational new drug applications in 2015.J Clin Oncol2017;
35: 3745–3752.
22.
Oude RengerinkKKalkmanSCollierS, et al.
Series: pragmatic trials and real world evidence: paper 3. Patient selection challenges and consequences.J Clin Epidemiol2017;
89: 173–180.
23.
CohenD.FDA official: “clinical trial system is broken”.Br Med J2013;
347: f6980.
24.
LedfordH.Cancer researchers push to relax rules for clinical trials.Nature2018;
556: 12–13.
25.
RiniBIEscudierBTomczakP, et al.
Comparative effectiveness of Axitinib versus Sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet2011;
378: 1931–1939.
26.
GuidaAAlbigesLDerosaL, et al.
Everolimus versus Axitinib as second-line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: experience From Institut Gustave Roussy.Clin Genitourin Cancer2017;
15: e1081–e1088.
27.
ChoueiriTKEscudierBPowlesT, et al.
Cabozantinib versus Everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med2015;
373: 1814–1823.
28.
ChoueiriTKHalabiSSanfordBL, et al.
Cabozantinib versus Sunitinib as initial targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma of poor or intermediate risk: the Alliance A031203 CABOSUN trial.J Clin Oncol2017;
35: 591–597.
29.
KucharzJDumnickaPKusnierz-CabalaB, et al.
The correlation between the incidence of adverse events and progression-free survival in patients treated with cabozantinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).Med Oncol2019;
36: 19.
30.
ProcopioGPrisciandaroMIacovelliR, et al.
Safety and efficacy of Cabozantinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: real-world data from an Italian Managed Access Program. Clin Genitourin Cancer2018;
16: e945–e951.
31.
MotzerRJEscudierBOudardS, et al.
Efficacy of everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Lancet2008;
372: 449–456.
32.
BergmannLKubeUDoehnC, et al.
Everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of initial anti-VEGF therapy: final results of a noninterventional study.BMC Cancer2015;
15: 303.
33.
HuangWKLiawCCPangST, et al. Everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: preliminary experience from Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. Chang Gung Med J2012;
35: 402–407.
34.
InamotoTAzumaHNonomuraN, et al.
Favorable outcome in elderly Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with everolimus: the Osaka Urologic Oncology Group. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev2014;
15: 1811–1815.
35.
KoutsoukosKBamiasATzannisK, et al.
Real-world experience of everolimus as second-line treatment in metastatic renal cell cancer after failure of pazopanib.Onco Targets Ther2017;
10: 4885–4893.
36.
LakomyRPoprachABortlicekZ, et al.
Utilization and efficacy of second-line targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: data from a national registry.BMC Cancer2017;
17: 880.
37.
MarazACsejteiAKocsisJ, et al.
Assessment of the role of everolimus therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma based on daily routine and recent research results.Pathol Oncol Res2019;
25: 149–156.
38.
NozawaMNonomuraNUedaT, et al.
Adverse event profile and dose modification of everolimus for advanced renal cell carcinoma in real-world Japanese clinical practice. Jpn J Clin Oncol2013;
43: 1132–1138.
39.
OudardSJolyFGeoffroisL, et al.
Clinical benefit of everolimus as second-line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the French retrospective sector study. Clin Genitourin Cancer2016;
14: e595–e607.
40.
RizzoMFacchiniGSavastanoC, et al.
Everolimus as second-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a ‘real-life' study.Future Oncol2015;
11: 219–224.
41.
YalcinSYildizRDaneF, et al.
A national, multicenter, non-interventional, observational study on treatment patterns in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in Turkey – NOTES study.Onco Targets Ther2018;
11: 1223–1228.
42.
SternbergCNDavisIDMardiakJ, et al.
Pazopanib in locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of a randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol2010;
28: 1061–1068.
43.
MotzerRJHutsonTECellaD, et al.
Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med2013;
369: 722–731.
44.
CecereSCRossettiSCavaliereC, et al.
Pazopanib in metastatic renal cancer: a “real-world” experience at National Cancer Institute “Fondazione G. Pascale”.Front Pharmacol2016;
7: 287.
45.
Isaacsson VelhoPNardoMSouzaM, et al.
Analysis of efficacy and toxicity profile of first-line sunitinib or pazopanib in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma in the Brazilian population. J Glob Oncol2018;
4: 1–10.
46.
JoshiAAgarwalaVRamaswamyA, et al.
Initial experience with first-line pazopanib in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a single institution data.Indian J Cancer2016;
53: 575–578.
47.
KimMSChungHSHwangEC, et al.
Efficacy of first-line targeted therapy in real-world Korean patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: focus on Sunitinib and Pazopanib.J Korean Med Sci2018;
33: e325.
48.
LalaniAALiHHengDYC, et al.
First-line Sunitinib or Pazopanib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: the Canadian experience.Can Urol Assoc J2017;
11: 112–117.
49.
MatranaMRBathalaTCampbellMT, et al.
Outcomes of unselected patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line Pazopanib therapy followed by vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors or mammalian target of Rapamycin inhibitors: a single institution experience. BJU Int2016;
118: 264–271.
50.
NazhaSTanguaySKapoorA, et al.
Use of targeted therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: clinical and economic impact in a Canadian real-life setting. Curr Oncol2018;
25: e576–e584.
51.
RacsaPNWhismanTRWorleyK.Comparing two tyrosine kinase inhibitors for treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma in Medicare and commercially insured patients.Curr Med Res Opin2015;
31: 1933–1940.
52.
SbranaABiascoEPaolieriF, et al.
Long-term response to first-line Pazopanib therapy in mRCC patients: a multicenter Italian experience.Anticancer Res2018;
38: 4913–4918.
53.
VogelzangNJPalSKGhateSR, et al.
Clinical and economic outcomes in elderly advanced renal cell carcinoma patients starting Pazopanib or Sunitinib treatment: a retrospective medicare claims analysis.Adv Ther2017;
34: 2452–2465.
54.
EscudierBEisenTStadlerWM, et al.
Sorafenib in advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med2007;
356: 125–134.
55.
ZhangYLiYCaiY, et al.
Efficacy of Sorafenib correlates with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk classification and bone metastasis in Chinese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Cell Oncol (Dordr)2016;
39: 15–21.
56.
MotzerRJHutsonTETomczakP, et al.
Sunitinib versus interferon alfa in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med2007;
356: 115–124.
57.
MotzerRJMichaelsonMDRedmanBG, et al.
Activity of SU11248, a multitargeted inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor, in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.J Clin Oncol2006;
24: 16–24.
58.
Abd GhafarNKAlipAOngTA, et al. Efficacy, safety, and prognostic indicators of first-line Sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a single center experience. J Cancer Res Ther2018;
14: 1303–1311.
59.
CoelhoRCReinertTCamposF, et al.
Sunitinib treatment in patients with advanced renal cell cancer: the Brazilian National Cancer Institute (INCA) experience.Int Braz J Urol2016;
42: 694–703.
60.
M Eel D.
Utilization of Sunitinib for renal cell cancer: an Egyptian University hospital experience. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev2016;
17: 3161–3166.
61.
FujitaTHirayamaTIshiiD, et al.
Efficacy and safety of Sunitinib in elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Mol Clin Oncol2018;
9: 394–398.
62.
MiyakeHMiyazakiAHaradaK, et al.
Assessment of efficacy, safety and quality of life of 110 patients treated with Sunitinib as first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: experience in real-world clinical practice in Japan.Med Oncol2014;
31: 978.
63.
PatelKBPanchalHPKaranwalAB, et al.
Sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: experience from single center study, efficacy and safety. Indian J Cancer2016;
53: 118–122.
64.
Ruiz-MoralesJMSwierkowskiMWellsJC, et al.
First-line Sunitinib versus Pazopanib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium.Eur J Cancer2016;
65: 102–108.
