Connor Sweetnam

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential collective opportunities and challenges of transforming real-world data (RWD) to real-world evidence for clinical effectiveness by focusing on aligning analytic definitions of oncology end points. Patients treated with a qualifying therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the frontline setting meeting broad eligibility criteria were included to reflect the real-world population. Although a trend toward improved outcomes in patients receiving PD-(L)1 therapy over standard chemotherapy was observed in RWD analyses, the magnitude and consistency of treatment effect was more heterogeneous than previously observed in controlled clinical trials. The study design and analysis process highlighted the identification of pertinent methodological issues and potential innovative approaches that could inform the development of high-quality RWD studies.

In prior work, Friends of Cancer Research convened multiple data partners to establish standardized definitions for oncology real-world end points derived from electronic health records (EHRs) and claims data. Here, we assessed the performance of real-world overall survival (rwOS) from data sets sourced from EHRs by evaluating the ability of the end point to reflect expected differences from a previous randomized controlled trial across five data sources, after applying inclusion/exclusion criteria. The KEYNOTE-189 clinical trial protocol of platinum doublet chemotherapy (chemotherapy) vs. programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) in combination with platinum doublet chemotherapy (PD-1 combination) in first-line nonsquamous metastatic non-small cell lung cancer guided retrospective cohort selection. The Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator was used to calculate 12-month rwOS with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in each data source. Cox proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and associated 95% CIs, controlled for prognostic factors. Once the inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied, the five resulting data sets included 155 to 1,501 patients in the chemotherapy cohort and 36 to 405 patients in the PD-1 combination cohort. Twelve-month rwOS ranged from 45% to 58% in the chemotherapy cohort and 44% to 68% in the PD-1 combination cohort. The adjusted HR for death ranged from 0.80 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.93) to 1.15 (95% CI: 0.71, 1.85), controlling for age, gender, performance status, and smoking status. This study yielded insights regarding data capture, including ability of real-world data to precisely identify patient populations and the impact of criteria on end points. Sensitivity analyses could elucidate data set-specific factors that drive results.

PURPOSE Therapeutic decision making for patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) includes a growing number of options for genomic, biomarker-guided, targeted therapies. We compared actionable biomarker detection, targeted therapy receipt, and real-world overall survival (rwOS) in patients with aNSCLC tested with comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) versus small panel testing (SP) in real-world community health systems. METHODS Patients older than 18 years diagnosed with aNSCLC between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, who received biomarker testing were followed until death or study end (September 30, 2021), and categorized by most comprehensive testing during follow-up: SP (≤52 genes) or CGP (>52 genes). RESULTS Among 3,884 patients (median age, 68 years; 50% female; 73% non-Hispanic White), 20% received CGP and 80% SP. The proportion of patients with ≥one actionable biomarker (actionability) was significantly higher in CGP than in SP (32% v 14%; P < .001). Of patients with actionability, 43% (CGP) and 38% (SP) received matched therapies ( P = .20). Among treated patients, CGP before first-line treatment was associated with higher likelihood of matched therapy in any line (odds ratio, 3.2 [95% CI, 1.84 to 5.53]). CGP testing (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.72 to 0.89]) and actionability (HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.91]) were associated with reduced risk of mortality. Among treated patients with actionability, matched therapy receipt showed improved median rwOS in months in CGP (34 [95% CI, 21 to 49] matched v 14 [95% CI, 10 to 18] unmatched) and SP (27 [95% CI, 21 to 43] matched v 10 [95% CI, 8 to 14] unmatched). CONCLUSION Patients who received CGP had improved detection of actionable biomarkers and greater use of matched therapies, both of which were associated with significant increases in survival.

PURPOSE: Real-world data (RWD) holds promise for ascribing a real-world (rw) outcome to a drug intervention; however, ascertaining rw-response to treatment from RWD can be challenging. Friends of Cancer Research formed a collaboration to assess available data attributes related to rw-response across RWD sources to inform methods for capturing, defining, and evaluating rw-response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective noninterventional (observational) study included seven electronic health record data companies (data providers) providing summary-level deidentified data from 200 patients diagnosed with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) and treated with first-line platinum doublet chemotherapy following a common protocol. Data providers reviewed the availability and frequency of data components to assess rw-response (ie, images, radiology imaging reports, and clinician response assessments). A common protocol was used to assess and report rw-response end points, including rw-response rate (rwRR), rw-duration of response (rwDOR), and the association of rw-response with rw-overall survival (rwOS), rw-time to treatment discontinuation (rwTTD), and rw-time to next treatment (rwTTNT). RESULTS: The availability and timing of clinician assessments was relatively consistent across data sets in contrast to images and image reports. Real-world response was analyzed using clinician response assessments (median proportion of patients evaluable, 77.5%), which had the highest consistency in the timing of assessments. Relative consistency was observed across data sets for rwRR (median 46.5%), as well as the median and directionality of rwOS, rwTTD, and rwTTNT. There was variability in rwDOR across data sets. CONCLUSION: This collaborative effort demonstrated the feasibility of aligning disparate data sources to evaluate rw-response end points using clinician-documented responses in patients with mNSCLC. Heterogeneity exists in the availability of data components to assess response and related rw-end points, and further work is needed to inform drug effectiveness evaluation within RWD sources.