External Control Arm with Synthetic Real-world Data for Comparative Oncology using Single Trial Arm Evidence (ECLIPSE): A Case Study using Lung-MAP S1400I
Gupta, A.; Segars, L.; Singletary, D.; Hansen, J. L.; Geale, K.; Arora, A.; Gomes, M.; Ramagopalan, S.; Cheung, W.; Arora, P.
Show abstract
2.Single-arm trials supplemented with external comparator arm(s) (ECA) derived from real-world data are sometimes used when randomized trials are infeasible. However, due to data sharing restrictions, privacy/security concerns, or for logistical reasons, patient-level real-world data may not be available to researchers for analysis. Instead, it may be possible to use generative models to construct synthetic data from the real-world dataset that can then be freely shared with researchers. Although the use of generative models and synthetic data is gaining prominence, the extent to which a synthetic data ECA can replace original data while preserving patient privacy in small samples is unclear. ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of nivolumab + ipilimumab combination therapy ("experimental arm") versus nivolumab monotherapy ("control arm") in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) using real-world data from two real-world databases ("original ECA"), and synthetic data versions of these datasets ("synthetic ECA"), with the aim of validating synthetic data for use in ECA analysis. Study designNon-randomized analyses of treatment efficacy comparing the experimental arm to the (i) original ECA and (ii) synthetic ECA, with baseline confounding adjustment. Data sourcesThe experimental arm is from the Lung-MAP no-match substudy S1400I (NCT02785952) provided by National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) in the United States. The real-world data source for the ECA is data from population-based oncology data from the Canadian province of Alberta, and from Nordic countries in Europe, specifically Denmark and Norway.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Supporting Reanalysis and Reuse of Clinical Trial Data: A Case Study 95%
- Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease (CLARITY): Statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled Bayesian adaptive sample size trial 94%
- Trials that turn from retrospectively registered to prospectively registered: A cohort study of ‘retroactively prospective’ clinical trial registration using history data 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Surgical Resection, Radiotherapy, And Percutaneous Thermal Ablation for Treatment of Stage 1 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis 94%
- Selumetinib in combination with dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed/refractory RAS-pathway mutated paediatric and adult acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (SeluDex): study protocol for an international, parallel-group, dose-finding with expansion phase I/II trial 93%
- CATALYST trial protocol: A multicentre, open-label, phase II, multi-arm trial for an early and accelerated evaluation of the potential treatments for COVID-19 in hospitalised adults 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Analysis of clinical trial registry entry histories using the novel R package cthist 94%
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 94%
- STIMULATE-ICP: A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster randomised trial of an integrated care pathway with a nested, Phase III, open label, adaptive platform randomised drug trial in individuals with Long COVID: a structured protocol 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Strength of Statistical Evidence for the Efficacy of Cancer Drugs: A Bayesian Re-Analysis of Trials Supporting FDA Approval 94%
- Income inequality and access to advanced immunotherapy for lung cancer: the case of Durvalumab in the Netherlands 93%
- Results reporting for clinical trials led by medical universities and university hospitals in the Nordic countries was often missing or delayed 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.