Comparison of Population-Based Observational Studies With Randomized Trials in Oncology

被引:142
作者
Soni, Payal D. [1 ]
Hartman, Holly E. [2 ]
Dess, Robert T. [2 ]
Abugharib, Ahmed [3 ]
Allen, Steven G. [2 ]
Feng, Felix Y. [4 ]
Zietman, Anthony L. [5 ]
Jagsi, Reshma [2 ]
Schipper, Matthew J. [2 ]
Spratt, Daniel E. [2 ]
机构
[1] Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Med Ctr, Richmond, VA USA
[2] Univ Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[3] Sohag Univ Hosp, Sohag, Egypt
[4] Univ Calif San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[5] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Boston, MA 02114 USA
关键词
CANCER; SUPPRESSION; MORTALITY; OUTCOMES; RISK;
D O I
10.1200/JCO.18.01074
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
PURPOSE Comparative efficacy research performed using population registries can be subject to significant bias. There is an absence of objective data demonstrating factors that can sufficiently reduce bias and provide accurate results. METHODS MEDLINE was searched from January 2000 to October 2016 for observational studies comparing two treatment regimens for any diagnosis of cancer, using SEER, SEER-Medicare, or the National Cancer Database. Reporting quality and statistical methods were assessed using components of the STROBE criteria. Randomized trials comparing the same treatment regimens were identified. Primary outcome was correlation between survival hazard ratio (HR) estimates provided by the observational studies and randomized trials. Secondary outcomes included agreement between matched pairs and predictors of agreement. RESULTS Of 3,657 studies reviewed, 350 treatment comparisons met eligibility criteria and were matched to 121 randomized trials. There was no significant correlation between the HR estimates reported by observational studies and randomized trials (concordance correlation coefficient, 0.083; 95% CI, -0.068 to 0.230). Forty percent of matched studies were in agreement regarding treatment effects (kappa, 0.037; 95% CI, -0.027 to 0.1), and 62% of the observational study HRs fell within the 95% CIs of the randomized trials. Cancer type, data source, reporting quality, adjustment for age, stage, or comorbidities, use of propensity weighting, instrumental variable or sensitivity analysis, and well-matched study population did not predict agreement. CONCLUSION We were unable to identify any modifiable factor present in population-based observational studies that improved agreement with randomized trials. There was no agreement beyond what is expected by chance, regardless of reporting quality or statistical rigor of the observational study. Future work is needed to identify reliable methods for conducting population-based comparative efficacy research. (C) 2019 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
引用
收藏
页码:1209 / +
页数:9
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]   A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. [J].
Benson, K ;
Hartz, AJ .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2000, 342 (25) :1878-1886
[2]   Using the National Cancer Database for Outcomes Research [J].
Boffa, Daniel J. ;
Rosen, Joshua E. ;
Mallin, Katherine ;
Loomis, Ashley ;
Gay, Greer ;
Palis, Bryan ;
Thoburn, Kathleen ;
Gress, Donna ;
McKellar, Daniel P. ;
Shulman, Lawrence N. ;
Facktor, Matthew A. ;
Winchester, David P. .
JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2017, 3 (12) :1722-1728
[3]   External irradiation with or without long-term androgen suppression for prostate cancer with high metastatic risk: 10-year results of an EORTC randomised study [J].
Bolla, Michel ;
Van Tienhoven, Geertjan ;
Warde, Padraig ;
Dubois, Jean Bernard ;
Mirimanoff, Rene-Olivier ;
Storme, Guy ;
Bernier, Jacques ;
Kuten, Abraham ;
Sternberg, Cora ;
Billiet, Ignace ;
Lopez Torecilla, Jose ;
Pfeffer, Raphael ;
Cutajar, Carmel Lino ;
Van der Kwast, Theodore ;
Collette, Laurence .
LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2010, 11 (11) :1066-1073
[4]   Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. [J].
Concato, J ;
Shah, N ;
Horwitz, RI .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2000, 342 (25) :1887-1892
[5]   The GRACE Checklist: A Validated Assessment Tool for High Quality Observational Studies of Comparative Effectiveness [J].
Dreyer, Nancy A. ;
Bryant, Allison ;
Velentgas, Priscilla .
JOURNAL OF MANAGED CARE & SPECIALTY PHARMACY, 2016, 22 (10) :1107-1113
[6]   MORTALITY AND MORBIDITY IN PATIENTS RECEIVING ENCAINIDE, FLECAINIDE, OR PLACEBO - THE CARDIAC-ARRHYTHMIA SUPPRESSION TRIAL [J].
ECHT, DS ;
LIEBSON, PR ;
MITCHELL, LB ;
PETERS, RW ;
OBIASMANNO, D ;
BARKER, AH ;
ARENSBERG, D ;
BAKER, A ;
FRIEDMAN, L ;
GREENE, HL ;
HUTHER, ML ;
RICHARDSON, DW .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1991, 324 (12) :781-788
[7]   Limits of observational data in determining outcomes from cancer therapy [J].
Giordano, Sharon H. ;
Kuo, Yong-Fang ;
Duan, Zhigang ;
Hortobagyi, Gabriel N. ;
Freeman, Jean ;
Goodwin, James S. .
CANCER, 2008, 112 (11) :2456-2466
[8]  
Institute of Medicine, 2013, OBS STUD LEARN HLTH
[9]   Why most published research findings are false [J].
Ioannidis, JPA .
PLOS MEDICINE, 2005, 2 (08) :696-701
[10]   Functional status is a confounder of the association of influenza vaccine and risk of all cause mortality in seniors [J].
Jackson, LA ;
Nelson, JC ;
Benson, P ;
Neuzil, KM ;
Reid, RJ ;
Psaty, BM ;
Heckbert, SR ;
Larson, EB ;
Weiss, NS .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 35 (02) :345-352