ArticlePLoS medicine2025
Trastuzumab in early curative breast cancer: A target trial emulation benchmarked against two randomized clinical trials.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Concordance between target trial emulation and randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Pooled it
- Target trial emulation in oncology: current use and future directions.Military Medical Research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBenchmarking an observational analysis against a randomized trial can increase confidence in the use of observational data to complement inferences made in trials. Until now, few examples of benchmarking have been within oncology. However, benchmarking trials of a cancer treatment poses a unique set of challenges, such as defining composite outcomes like disease-free survival. METHODS AND
findingsWe designed a target trial with a protocol as similar as possible to the B-31 and N9831 randomized trials, which estimated the effect of adjuvant trastuzumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in individuals with early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer. We then carried out an observational analysis by emulating the target trial using routinely collected data from Swedish registries to understand if we can estimate a similar effect of trastuzumab as the trial. The primary endpoint was the composite of disease-free survival consisting of the earliest of (1) local or regional recurrences, (2) distant recurrences, (3) contralateral breast cancer, (4) other second primary cancer, or (5) death from any cause. Individuals who had data compatible with both treatment strategies at baseline were cloned and one copy was assigned to each arm. We applied inverse probability weights to adjust for baseline and time-varying confounding (e.g., age and hematological events like neutropenia). Our observational analysis included 1,578 women, with a median age of 59 years, and who were diagnosed between 2008 and 2015. We estimated a similar effect after five years of follow-up (RR: 0.54, 95% CI [0.44, 0.67]) for the composite endpoint of disease-free survival as the two jointly analyzed B-31 and N9831 trials (HR: 0.48, 95% CI [0.39, 0.59]). While the comparability of results increases confidence in our estimates, there remains a risk of residual and unmeasured confounding, as is the case with all observational analyses.
conclusionsWe successfully benchmarked an observational analysis against the B-31 and N9831 trials. By aligning protocols and using appropriate methodological approaches, we show that observational data can be used to estimate similar results as randomized trials of cancer treatments, like trastuzumab. This opens the door to using observational data to complement results from randomized trials of cancer treatments which can provide quick, cheap, and robust evidence to support decision-making where trials leave evidence gaps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.