Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May;26(5):e859-e862.
doi: 10.1002/onco.13696. Epub 2021 Mar 6.

Implementing Historical Controls in Oncology Trials

Affiliations

Implementing Historical Controls in Oncology Trials

Olivier Collignon et al. Oncologist. 2021 May.

Abstract

Drug development in oncology has broadened from mainly considering randomized clinical trials to also including single-arm trials tailored for very specific subtypes of cancer. They often use historical controls, and this article discusses benefits and risks of this paradigm and provide various regulatory and statistical considerations. While leveraging the information brought by historical controls could potentially shorten development time and reduce the number of patients enrolled, a careful selection of the past studies, a prespecified statistical analysis accounting for the heterogeneity between studies, and early engagement with regulators will be key to success. Although both the European Medicines Agency and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have already approved medicines based on nonrandomized experiments, the evidentiary package can be perceived as less comprehensive than randomized experiments. Use of historical controls, therefore, is better suited for cases of high unmet clinical need, where the disease course is well characterized and the primary endpoint is objective. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Incorporating historical data in single-arm oncology trials has the potential to accelerate drug development and to reduce the number of patients enrolled, compared with standard randomized controlled clinical trials. Given the lack of blinding and randomization, such an approach is better suited for cases of high unmet clinical need and/or difficult experimental situations, in which the trajectory of the disease is well characterized and the endpoint can be measured objectively. Careful pre-specification and selection of the historical data, matching of the patient characteristics with the concurrent trial data, and innovative statistical methodologies accounting for between-study variation will be needed. Early engagement with regulators (e.g., via Scientific Advice) is highly recommended.

Keywords: Bayesian designs; Drug regulation; Historical controls; Indirect comparison; Single-arm trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article.

References

    1. Hatswell AJ, Baio G, Berlin JA et al. Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: Analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999–2014. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011666. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Simon R, Blumenthal G, Rothenberg M et al. The role of nonrandomized trials in the evaluation of oncology drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2015;97:502–507. - PubMed
    1. Martinalbo J, editor. Single‐arm trials for cancer drug approval and patient access. Presented at: ESMO Annual Congress; October 10, 2016; Copenhagen, Denmark; 3941.
    1. Renfro L, Sargent D. Statistical controversies in clinical research: Basket trials, umbrella trials, and other master protocols: A review and examples. Ann Oncol 2016;28:34–43. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cunanan KM, Gonen M, Shen R et al. Basket trials in oncology: A trade‐off between complexity and efficiency. J Clin Oncol 2016;35:271–273. - PMC - PubMed