Abstract:Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) estimate the causal effect of an intervention on the outcome in a target population through careful design to control for potential biases. However, this effect varies based on how the target population is defined, and in practice, physicians are tasked with determining the relevance of RCT results for patient populations with different characteristics than the study population. Approaches that extend inferences from a study population to a representative target, such as transportability analysis, provide powerful tools to address questions such as who would most benefit from a clinical intervention. 1 ,2 Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, driven by the advanced disease at the time of diagnosis. While screening the general population using chest radiographs showed no benefit, evidence from 2 large trials showed lung cancer mortality benefit when screening high-risk populations based on age and smoking history using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). The National Lung Screening Trial enrolled 53 454 participants randomly assigned to undergo 3 annual screens with either LDCT (n = 26 722) or chest radiography (n = 26 732). 3 The trial reported a 20% (95% CI, 7%-27%) relative risk reduction of lung cancer–related mortality in men and women compared with chest radiography at 6.5-year follow-up. The Dutch/Belgian randomized lung cancer screening trial (NELSON) reported its survival results involving 15 792 participants who were screened at 1, 3, and 6 years, showing 24% (95% CI, 7%-39%) relative risk reduction of lung cancer–related mortality in men undergoing LDCT screening as compared with no screening at 10-year follow-up. 4 These trials show compelling evidence for the studied populations that lung cancer screening using LDCT can reduce lung cancer mortality. However, compared with the general US population that would be eligible for screening, both NLST and NELSON participants were younger, had fewer comorbidities, were less likely to currently smoke, were more educated, and had more limited racial and ethnic diversity. Would a similar reduction in lung cancer mortality using LDCT vs chest radiographs be observed in the general population? The ability to extrapolate trial results to a target population is critical to enable the generalization of knowledge obtained from a trial and informing clinical decisions and public health policy. Robertson et al 5 estimated the effectiveness of LDCT vs radiography screening in a nationally representative target population to determine whether the estimated effect size differed from reported NLST findings. Their analysis leveraged survey data collected as part of the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) in 2010, which was specifically selected given the availability of cancer-related health behavior, screening, and risk assessment data and the data having been collected before the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a recommendation for lung cancer screening in 2013, avoiding the possibility that included patients may have already undergone lung cancer screening. A composite data set of NLST and NHIS participants was created, including data on screening strategy and outcomes (from the NLST only) and covariates commonly used in lung cancer risk models (from NLST and NHIS). Inverse odds weighting was used to reweight the results of the NLST to the target population by estimating the probability of trial participation and screening assignment in the trial. Based on this analysis, the relative rate reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality was 18% (95% CI, 1%-33%) vs 21% (95% CI, 9%-32%) reported in the NLST. To conduct their transportability analysis, the authors made 2 key assumptions. 5 First, to ensure conditional exchangeability over trial participation status, it is essential to comprehensively incorporate relevant demographic and clinical characteristics to construct the model for the likelihood of trial participation (ie, NLST vs NHIS). Second, every combination of covariates in the target population should possess a nonzero probability of being observed within the trial. Because transportability analysis does not allow us to extrapolate the results to a population that is not studied in the original RCT, we need to include a substantial number of participants from marginalized groups (eg, minoritized racial and ethnic groups, low-income populations) to facilitate the transportability of findings to the general population. In addition to these assumptions, when incorporating the results of transportability analysis into clinical guidelines or policymaking, the treatment or intervention's consistency (with the original trial's design) must be emphasized. Considering that the NLST took place in 2010, broadened criteria for LDCT screening (ie, adults aged 50 to 80 years -Abstract Truncated-

Extending Inferences From Sample To Target Populations: On The Generalizability Of A Real-World Clinico-Genomic Database Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Cohort

Assessing the Validity of a a Priori Patient-Trial Generalizability Score Using Real-world Data from a Large Clinical Data Research Network: A Colorectal Cancer Clinical Trial Case Study.

genRCT: a statistical analysis framework for generalizing RCT findings to real-world population

Abstract 2551: Harness the power of real-world-data for oncology target and biomarker research: A case study by applying clinic-genomics data for 2,659 lung cancer patients and beyond

Molecular Characterization and Prognostic Analysis of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Single Centric Real-World Study.

Exploring the discrepancies between clinical trials and real-world data by accounting for Selection criteria, Operations, and Measurements of Outcome

Representativeness of race, ethnicity and social determinants of health in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer via linkage of real-world electronic health records, administrative claims, and consumer financial data.

Clinical Trial Generalizability Assessment in the Big Data Era: A Review

Stratification of patients by tumor type using molecular profiling in real-world data.

The Comparison of Newly Diagnosed Invasive Breast Patient Cohorts in Genomics Evidence Neoplasia Information Exchange Biopharma Collaborative (GENIE-BPC) and Other Real-World Databases

Implications of Selection Bias Due to Delayed Study Entry in Clinical Genomic Studies

Extending Trial Results to a Representative Target Population

AI-generated synthetic clinical-genomic data for precision oncology research: Validation using a case study on lung adenocarcinoma.

Study protocol for "Transportability of patient outcomes from a US clinical trial to real-world populations - a case study using Lung-MAP S1400I (NCT02785952)"

Abstract 6467: Causal personalized treatment estimation framework using real-world electronic health record (EHR) data to inform cancer care decisions

Abstract 2410: Comparative genomic profiling of unresectable NSCLC patients in the U.S. and China using a globally harmonized liquid biopsy assay platform

Evaluating eligibility criteria of oncology trials using real-world data and AI

Incorporating Real-World Clinico-Genomic Insights to Inform Diversity Enrollment Targets in Oncology Trials

Abstract 6158: Tumor genomic heterogeneity in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients from Latin America

Real-world Trends, Rural-urban Differences, and Socioeconomic Disparities in Utilization of Narrow Versus Broad Next-generation Sequencing Panels.

Investigating Racial Disparities in Carcinomas Through TCGA Transcriptomic and Proteomic Database