Trial reportBritish journal of haematology2026
Comparability of external and internal control patients for the prospective randomized HOVON-103 trial in older AML patients.
Trial report in British journal of haematology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Comparability of external and internal control patients for the prospective randomized HOVON-103 trial in older AML patients.British journal of haematology · 2026Trial
- Feasibility of a prospective real-time monitoring system capturing real-world data from elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Real-world data (RWD) previously contributed to post-marketing regulatory decision-making, but are currently also considered as external controls to single-arm trials. The use of RWD control data may be compromised by methodological issues, urging validation of RWD control cohorts. Two external control cohorts of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia patients, one registered by the HARMONY Alliance (HA) and one by the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR), were compared to the control arm of the randomized HOVON-103 trial (H103 controls). All patients, aged >65 years with a WHO performance score of 0-2 (or missing), received standard induction chemotherapy. 1:1 propensity score calliper matching (PSM) was applied to improve comparability, and overall (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were assessed. Fewer data elements were available in external cohorts compared to H103 controls, specifically in the NCR cohort. Baseline characteristics of the external cohorts differed from H103 controls; missing data were also more frequent and predominantly concerned WHO performance score. After PSM, HA patients demonstrated non-significantly different OS and RFS to H103 controls at 2 years (26 ± 4% vs. 31 ± 5%, p = 0.59; 24 ± 5% vs. 30 ± 6%, p = 0.52), while NCR patients had 12% lower OS (28 ± 4% vs. 40 ± 4%, p = 0.21). Validation of external control cohorts is needed before incorporating RWD control data into comparative analyses, as missing data, specifically comorbidities, and residual confounding may limit comparability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.