Leveraging external control data in the design and analysis of neuro-oncology trials: Pearls and perils
Abstract Background Randomized controlled trials have been the gold standard for evaluating medical treatments for many decades but they are often criticized for requiring large sample sizes. Given the urgent need for better therapies for glioblastoma, it has been argued that data collected from pat...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Neuro-oncology (Charlottesville, Va.) Va.), 2024-05, Vol.26 (5), p.796-810 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 810 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 796 |
container_title | Neuro-oncology (Charlottesville, Va.) |
container_volume | 26 |
creator | Polley, Mei-Yin C Schwartz, Daniel Karrison, Theodore Dignam, James J |
description | Abstract
Background
Randomized controlled trials have been the gold standard for evaluating medical treatments for many decades but they are often criticized for requiring large sample sizes. Given the urgent need for better therapies for glioblastoma, it has been argued that data collected from patients treated with the standard regimen can provide high-quality external control data to supplement or replace concurrent control arm in future glioblastoma trials.
Methods
In this article, we provide an in-depth appraisal of the use of external control data in the context of neuro-oncology trials. We describe several clinical trial designs with particular attention to how external information is utilized and address common fallacies that may lead to inappropriate adoptions of external control data.
Results
Using 2 completed glioblastoma trials, we illustrate the use of an assessment tool that lays out a blueprint for assembling a high-quality external control data set. Using statistical simulations, we draw caution from scenarios where these approaches can fall short on controlling the type I error rate.
Conclusions
While this approach may hold promise in generating informative data in certain settings, this sense of optimism should be tampered with a healthy dose of skepticism due to a myriad of design and analysis challenges articulated in this review. Importantly, careful planning is key to its successful implementation. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/neuonc/noae005 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2917860814</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/neuonc/noae005</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2917860814</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-e63d4db0abacc092a6335d6564e4e52430f3cf5a0b97f1f56078e913e40aedec3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkD1PwzAQhi0EoqWwMiKPMKS149hJ2FDFl1QJBpgjx74EI9cudoLovyc0hZXBOkv33HunB6FzSuaUlGzhoPdOLZyXQAg_QFPKU5bwQojD3T9NCk7zCTqJ8Z2QlHJBj9GEFSnPaMGmqF3BJwTZGtdi-OogOGmx8q4L3mItO4mNw90bYA3RtA5Lp4cn7TaaiH2Dh_3BJ8MJ3vp2i7tgpI3X-BlksHFHbyAYG0_RUTN04GxfZ-j17vZl-ZCsnu4flzerRLG07BIQTGe6JrKWSpEylYIxrgUXGWTA04yRhqmGS1KXeUMbLkheQEkZZESCBsVm6HLM3QT_0UPsqrWJCqyVDnwfq7SkeSFIQbMBnY-oCj7GAE21CWYtw7aipPqRW41yq73cYeBin93Xa9B_-K_NAbgaAd9v_gv7BrKTh7c</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2917860814</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Leveraging external control data in the design and analysis of neuro-oncology trials: Pearls and perils</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Polley, Mei-Yin C ; Schwartz, Daniel ; Karrison, Theodore ; Dignam, James J</creator><creatorcontrib>Polley, Mei-Yin C ; Schwartz, Daniel ; Karrison, Theodore ; Dignam, James J</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
Background
Randomized controlled trials have been the gold standard for evaluating medical treatments for many decades but they are often criticized for requiring large sample sizes. Given the urgent need for better therapies for glioblastoma, it has been argued that data collected from patients treated with the standard regimen can provide high-quality external control data to supplement or replace concurrent control arm in future glioblastoma trials.
Methods
In this article, we provide an in-depth appraisal of the use of external control data in the context of neuro-oncology trials. We describe several clinical trial designs with particular attention to how external information is utilized and address common fallacies that may lead to inappropriate adoptions of external control data.
Results
Using 2 completed glioblastoma trials, we illustrate the use of an assessment tool that lays out a blueprint for assembling a high-quality external control data set. Using statistical simulations, we draw caution from scenarios where these approaches can fall short on controlling the type I error rate.
Conclusions
While this approach may hold promise in generating informative data in certain settings, this sense of optimism should be tampered with a healthy dose of skepticism due to a myriad of design and analysis challenges articulated in this review. Importantly, careful planning is key to its successful implementation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1522-8517</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1523-5866</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1523-5866</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noae005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38254183</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Brain Neoplasms - therapy ; Clinical Trials as Topic - standards ; Glioblastoma - therapy ; Humans ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods ; Research Design - standards</subject><ispartof>Neuro-oncology (Charlottesville, Va.), 2024-05, Vol.26 (5), p.796-810</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com. 2024</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-e63d4db0abacc092a6335d6564e4e52430f3cf5a0b97f1f56078e913e40aedec3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-e63d4db0abacc092a6335d6564e4e52430f3cf5a0b97f1f56078e913e40aedec3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0106-0323</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,1581,27911,27912</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38254183$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Polley, Mei-Yin C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwartz, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karrison, Theodore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dignam, James J</creatorcontrib><title>Leveraging external control data in the design and analysis of neuro-oncology trials: Pearls and perils</title><title>Neuro-oncology (Charlottesville, Va.)</title><addtitle>Neuro Oncol</addtitle><description>Abstract
Background
Randomized controlled trials have been the gold standard for evaluating medical treatments for many decades but they are often criticized for requiring large sample sizes. Given the urgent need for better therapies for glioblastoma, it has been argued that data collected from patients treated with the standard regimen can provide high-quality external control data to supplement or replace concurrent control arm in future glioblastoma trials.
Methods
In this article, we provide an in-depth appraisal of the use of external control data in the context of neuro-oncology trials. We describe several clinical trial designs with particular attention to how external information is utilized and address common fallacies that may lead to inappropriate adoptions of external control data.
Results
Using 2 completed glioblastoma trials, we illustrate the use of an assessment tool that lays out a blueprint for assembling a high-quality external control data set. Using statistical simulations, we draw caution from scenarios where these approaches can fall short on controlling the type I error rate.
Conclusions
While this approach may hold promise in generating informative data in certain settings, this sense of optimism should be tampered with a healthy dose of skepticism due to a myriad of design and analysis challenges articulated in this review. Importantly, careful planning is key to its successful implementation.</description><subject>Brain Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Clinical Trials as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Glioblastoma - therapy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods</subject><subject>Research Design - standards</subject><issn>1522-8517</issn><issn>1523-5866</issn><issn>1523-5866</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkD1PwzAQhi0EoqWwMiKPMKS149hJ2FDFl1QJBpgjx74EI9cudoLovyc0hZXBOkv33HunB6FzSuaUlGzhoPdOLZyXQAg_QFPKU5bwQojD3T9NCk7zCTqJ8Z2QlHJBj9GEFSnPaMGmqF3BJwTZGtdi-OogOGmx8q4L3mItO4mNw90bYA3RtA5Lp4cn7TaaiH2Dh_3BJ8MJ3vp2i7tgpI3X-BlksHFHbyAYG0_RUTN04GxfZ-j17vZl-ZCsnu4flzerRLG07BIQTGe6JrKWSpEylYIxrgUXGWTA04yRhqmGS1KXeUMbLkheQEkZZESCBsVm6HLM3QT_0UPsqrWJCqyVDnwfq7SkeSFIQbMBnY-oCj7GAE21CWYtw7aipPqRW41yq73cYeBin93Xa9B_-K_NAbgaAd9v_gv7BrKTh7c</recordid><startdate>20240503</startdate><enddate>20240503</enddate><creator>Polley, Mei-Yin C</creator><creator>Schwartz, Daniel</creator><creator>Karrison, Theodore</creator><creator>Dignam, James J</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0106-0323</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240503</creationdate><title>Leveraging external control data in the design and analysis of neuro-oncology trials: Pearls and perils</title><author>Polley, Mei-Yin C ; Schwartz, Daniel ; Karrison, Theodore ; Dignam, James J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c329t-e63d4db0abacc092a6335d6564e4e52430f3cf5a0b97f1f56078e913e40aedec3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Brain Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Clinical Trials as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Glioblastoma - therapy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods</topic><topic>Research Design - standards</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Polley, Mei-Yin C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwartz, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karrison, Theodore</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dignam, James J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Neuro-oncology (Charlottesville, Va.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Polley, Mei-Yin C</au><au>Schwartz, Daniel</au><au>Karrison, Theodore</au><au>Dignam, James J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Leveraging external control data in the design and analysis of neuro-oncology trials: Pearls and perils</atitle><jtitle>Neuro-oncology (Charlottesville, Va.)</jtitle><addtitle>Neuro Oncol</addtitle><date>2024-05-03</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>796</spage><epage>810</epage><pages>796-810</pages><issn>1522-8517</issn><issn>1523-5866</issn><eissn>1523-5866</eissn><abstract>Abstract
Background
Randomized controlled trials have been the gold standard for evaluating medical treatments for many decades but they are often criticized for requiring large sample sizes. Given the urgent need for better therapies for glioblastoma, it has been argued that data collected from patients treated with the standard regimen can provide high-quality external control data to supplement or replace concurrent control arm in future glioblastoma trials.
Methods
In this article, we provide an in-depth appraisal of the use of external control data in the context of neuro-oncology trials. We describe several clinical trial designs with particular attention to how external information is utilized and address common fallacies that may lead to inappropriate adoptions of external control data.
Results
Using 2 completed glioblastoma trials, we illustrate the use of an assessment tool that lays out a blueprint for assembling a high-quality external control data set. Using statistical simulations, we draw caution from scenarios where these approaches can fall short on controlling the type I error rate.
Conclusions
While this approach may hold promise in generating informative data in certain settings, this sense of optimism should be tampered with a healthy dose of skepticism due to a myriad of design and analysis challenges articulated in this review. Importantly, careful planning is key to its successful implementation.</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>38254183</pmid><doi>10.1093/neuonc/noae005</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0106-0323</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1522-8517 |
ispartof | Neuro-oncology (Charlottesville, Va.), 2024-05, Vol.26 (5), p.796-810 |
issn | 1522-8517 1523-5866 1523-5866 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2917860814 |
source | MEDLINE; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current) |
subjects | Brain Neoplasms - therapy Clinical Trials as Topic - standards Glioblastoma - therapy Humans Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods Research Design - standards |
title | Leveraging external control data in the design and analysis of neuro-oncology trials: Pearls and perils |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T15%3A02%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Leveraging%20external%20control%20data%20in%20the%20design%20and%20analysis%20of%20neuro-oncology%20trials:%20Pearls%20and%20perils&rft.jtitle=Neuro-oncology%20(Charlottesville,%20Va.)&rft.au=Polley,%20Mei-Yin%20C&rft.date=2024-05-03&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=796&rft.epage=810&rft.pages=796-810&rft.issn=1522-8517&rft.eissn=1523-5866&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/neuonc/noae005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2917860814%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2917860814&rft_id=info:pmid/38254183&rft_oup_id=10.1093/neuonc/noae005&rfr_iscdi=true |