Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34106270›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology2022

The use of external control data for predictions and futility interim analyses in clinical trials.

Steffen Ventz, Leah Comment, Bill Louv, Rifaquat Rahman, Patrick Y Wen, Brian M Alexander, Lorenzo Trippa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Prospectively shared control data across concurrent randomised clinical trials.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2023
    Trial
  4. Harmonized Estimation of Subgroup-Specific Treatment Effects in Randomized Trials: The Use of External Control Data.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Machine Learning in Clinical Trials: A Primer with Applications to Neurology.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Accessible Data Collections for Improved Decision Making in Neuro-Oncology Clinical Trials.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2023
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Comment: Advancing Clinical Trials with Novel Designs and Implementations.Statistical science : a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics · 2023
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Steffen VentzDepartments of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2229-9560
Leah CommentFoundation Medicine, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Bill LouvProject Data Sphere, Morrisville, North Carolina, USA.
Rifaquat RahmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9443-1797
Patrick Y WenCenter for Neuro-Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Brian M AlexanderFoundation Medicine, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Lorenzo TrippaDepartments of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

Statistical Methods and Validation Analyses for the Integration of External Data in Clinical TrialsR01LM013352 · NLM · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI TRIPPA, LORENZO · 2021 to 2024
$1.5M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM013352
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExternal control (EC) data from completed clinical trials and electronic health records can be valuable for the design and analysis of future clinical trials. We discuss the use of EC data for early stopping decisions in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

methodsWe specify interim analyses (IAs) approaches for RCTs, which allow investigators to integrate external data into early futility stopping decisions. IAs utilize predictions based on early data from the RCT, possibly combined with external data. These predictions at IAs express the probability that the trial will generate significant evidence of positive treatment effects. The trial is discontinued if this predictive probability becomes smaller than a prespecified threshold. We quantify efficiency gains and risks associated with the integration of external data into interim decisions. We then analyze a collection of glioblastoma (GBM) data sets, to investigate if the balance of efficiency gains and risks justify the integration of external data into the IAs of future GBM RCTs.

resultsOur analyses illustrate the importance of accounting for potential differences between the distributions of prognostic variables in the RCT and in the external data to effectively leverage external data for interim decisions. Using GBM data sets, we estimate that the integration of external data increases the probability of early stopping of ineffective experimental treatments by up to 25% compared to IAs that do not leverage external data. Additionally, we observe a reduction of the probability of early discontinuation for effective experimental treatments, which improves the RCT power.

conclusionLeveraging external data for IAs in RCTs can support early stopping decisions and reduce the number of enrolled patients when the experimental treatment is ineffective.

Indexed as

Medical FutilityResearch DesignHumansProbabilityexternal control datainterim futility analysisnewly diagnosed glioblastomapredictionsstudy design

Identifiers

PMID34106270
PMCPMC8804894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.