Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38367182›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2024

Harnessing the Potential of Real-World Evidence in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Where Do We Stand?

Sietske C M W van Nassau, Guus M Bol, Frederieke H van der Baan, Jeanine M L Roodhart, Geraldine R Vink, Cornelis J A Punt, Anne M May, Miriam Koopman, Jeroen W G Derksen

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sietske C M W van NassauDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, PO Box 85500, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands. s.c.m.vannassau@umcutrecht.nl.
Guus M BolDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, PO Box 85500, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.
Frederieke H van der BaanDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, PO Box 85500, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.
Jeanine M L RoodhartDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, PO Box 85500, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.
Geraldine R VinkDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, PO Box 85500, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.
Cornelis J A PuntDepartment of Epidemiology & Health Economics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Anne M MayDepartment of Epidemiology & Health Economics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Miriam KoopmanDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, PO Box 85500, Utrecht, 3584 CX, The Netherlands.
Jeroen W G DerksenDepartment of Epidemiology & Health Economics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementTreatment guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) are primarily based on the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), the gold standard methodology to evaluate safety and efficacy of oncological treatments. However, generalizability of trial results is often limited due to stringent eligibility criteria, underrepresentation of specific populations, and more heterogeneity in clinical practice. This may result in an efficacy-effectiveness gap and uncertainty regarding meaningful benefit versus treatment harm. Meanwhile, conduct of traditional RCTs has become increasingly challenging due to identification of a growing number of (small) molecular subtypes. These challenges-combined with the digitalization of health records-have led to growing interest in use of real-world data (RWD) to complement evidence from RCTs. RWD is used to evaluate epidemiological trends, quality of care, treatment effectiveness, long-term (rare) safety, and quality of life (QoL) measures. In addition, RWD is increasingly considered in decision-making by clinicians, regulators, and payers. In this narrative review, we elaborate on these applications in CRC, and provide illustrative examples. As long as the quality of RWD is safeguarded, ongoing developments, such as common data models, federated learning, and predictive modelling, will further unfold its potential. First, whenever possible, we recommend conducting pragmatic trials, such as registry-based RCTs, to optimize generalizability and answer clinical questions that are not addressed in registrational trials. Second, we argue that marketing approval should be conditional for patients who would have been ineligible for the registrational trial, awaiting planned (non) randomized evaluation of outcomes in the real world. Third, high-quality effectiveness results should be incorporated in treatment guidelines to aid in patient counseling. We believe that a coordinated effort from all stakeholders is essential to improve the quality of RWD, create a learning healthcare system with optimal use of trials and real-world evidence (RWE), and ultimately ensure personalized care for every CRC patient.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsClinical Trials as TopicHumansTreatment OutcomeUncertaintyColorectal cancerEfficacy-effectiveness gapOncologyPopulation-basedReal-world dataReal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID38367182
PMCPMC10997699
OpenAlexW4391914878

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.