Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38254183›Full record

ReviewNeuro-oncology2024

Leveraging external control data in the design and analysis of neuro-oncology trials: Pearls and perils.

Mei-Yin C Polley, Daniel Schwartz, Theodore Karrison, James J Dignam

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuro-oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. On the use of external controls in clinical trials.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mei-Yin C PolleyDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0106-0323
Daniel SchwartzDepartment of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Theodore KarrisonDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
James J DignamDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Funding

Statistics CoreU10CA180822 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI James J. Dignam · 2014 to 2026
$146.4M
Training Grant in Quantitative Sciences for Cancer ResearchT32CA009337 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI QUACKENBUSH, JOHN, TRIPPA, LORENZO · 1986 to 2025
$12.3M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009337NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180822
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomized 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.

methodsIn 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.

resultsUsing 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.

conclusionsWhile 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.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGlioblastomaResearch DesignClinical Trials as TopicHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicbiasesconcurrent controlexternal controlglioblastomatype I error

Identifiers

PMID38254183
PMCPMC11066907

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.