Evaluation of Real-World Tumor Response Derived From Electronic Health Record Data Sources: A Feasibility Analysis in Patients With Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Chemotherapy

Brittany A McKelvey,Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer,Donna R Rivera,Amy Alabaster,Hillary S Andrews,Elizabeth G Bond,Thomas D Brown,Amanda Bruno,Lauren Damato,Janet L Espirito,Laura L Fernandes,Eric Hansen,Paul Kluetz,Xinran Ma,Andrea McCracken,Pallavi S Mishra-Kalyani,Yanina Natanzon,Danielle Potter,Nicholas J Robert,Lawrence Schwartz,Regina Schwind,Connor Sweetnam,Joseph Wagner,Mark D Stewart,Jeff D Allen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI.24.00091
Abstract:Purpose: Real-world data (RWD) holds promise for ascribing a real-world (rw) outcome to a drug intervention; however, ascertaining rw-response to treatment from RWD can be challenging. Friends of Cancer Research formed a collaboration to assess available data attributes related to rw-response across RWD sources to inform methods for capturing, defining, and evaluating rw-response. Materials and methods: This retrospective noninterventional (observational) study included seven electronic health record data companies (data providers) providing summary-level deidentified data from 200 patients diagnosed with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) and treated with first-line platinum doublet chemotherapy following a common protocol. Data providers reviewed the availability and frequency of data components to assess rw-response (ie, images, radiology imaging reports, and clinician response assessments). A common protocol was used to assess and report rw-response end points, including rw-response rate (rwRR), rw-duration of response (rwDOR), and the association of rw-response with rw-overall survival (rwOS), rw-time to treatment discontinuation (rwTTD), and rw-time to next treatment (rwTTNT). Results: The availability and timing of clinician assessments was relatively consistent across data sets in contrast to images and image reports. Real-world response was analyzed using clinician response assessments (median proportion of patients evaluable, 77.5%), which had the highest consistency in the timing of assessments. Relative consistency was observed across data sets for rwRR (median 46.5%), as well as the median and directionality of rwOS, rwTTD, and rwTTNT. There was variability in rwDOR across data sets. Conclusion: This collaborative effort demonstrated the feasibility of aligning disparate data sources to evaluate rw-response end points using clinician-documented responses in patients with mNSCLC. Heterogeneity exists in the availability of data components to assess response and related rw-end points, and further work is needed to inform drug effectiveness evaluation within RWD sources.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?