Externally Controlled Studies Using Real-World Data in Patients With Hematological Cancers: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Importance: The use of real-world data (RWD) external control arms in prospective studies is increasing. The advantages, including the immediate availability of a control population, must be balanced with the requirements of meeting evidentiary standards.

Objective: To address the question of whether and to what extent the methods of RWD studies compare to standard methods used in randomized clinical trials.

Evidence review: A systematic search across 4 electronic databases and Google Scholar was conducted from January 1, 2000, to October 23, 2023. Studies were included in the systematic review if they compared an intervention arm in a clinical trial to an RWD control arm in patients with hematological cancers and if they were published between 2000 and 2023.

Findings: Thirty-two prospective intervention studies incorporating external control data from RWD sources of patients with hematological cancers were identified. A total of 4306 patients from intervention arms and 10 594 from RWD control arms were included across all studies. Only 2 studies (6%) included prospectively collected RWD. The complete trial inclusion criteria were applied to the RWD cohort in 7 studies (22%). Four studies (13%) published the statistical analysis plan and prespecified use of RWD. A total of 23 studies (72%) applied matching algorithms for trial and RWD cohorts, including matching for demographic, disease, and/or therapy-related characteristics. The end point criteria were the same as the trial in 8 studies (25%). In contrast, 12 studies (38%) used different end points, and 12 (38%) did not provide an end point definition for the RWD. Twelve studies (38%) had a median follow-up difference of less than a year between arms. Eight studies (25%) reported toxic effect data for the trial arm, of which 5 studies reported toxic effect data for the RWD arm.

Conclusions and relevance: In this systematic review, limitations were observed in the application of clinical trial eligibility criteria to RWD, statistical rigor and application of matching methods, the definition of end points, follow-up, and reporting of adverse events, which may challenge the conclusions reported in studies using RWD.