Comparison of Rheumatoid Arthritis Information Recorded in UK CPRD Aurum and CPRD GOLD Databases (Companion Paper 3).

Purpose: To report distribution of codes associated with a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) diagnosis recorded in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum compared to the previously validated CPRD GOLD database as a critical step toward making decisions about CPRD Aurum's suitability for medical research. Patients and Methods: We analyzed the distribution of codes for RA diagnoses, labs, and treatments in the new CPRD Aurum database, compared to the CPRD GOLD database by selecting relevant indicators of RA diagnosis, treatment, and clinical care. We included all patients in England in CPRD Aurum and CPRD GOLD with an incident diagnosis code for RA on or after 1 January 2005 and at least two years recorded data before first RA diagnosis. Results: We found 53,083 and 18,167 patients with a new diagnosis code for RA in CPRD Aurum and CPRD GOLD, respectively. In both databases approximately 67% were female with similar mean ages at first diagnosis. There were few differences in RA-related recording patterns between the two data sources. Before first RA diagnosis, CPRD Aurum patients had more RA-specific labs and other supporting clinical codes. After diagnosis, CPRD Aurum patients had more RA diagnoses coded and more often had 10+ general RA labs than patients in CPRD GOLD. More CPRD GOLD patients had 10+ prescriptions for conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARD) compared to CPRD Aurum. Otherwise, the distribution of drugs used to treat RA was similar between databases. The standardized incidence of RA was similar between databases. Conclusion: Overall, among patients with a diagnosis code for RA, recording of diagnoses, prescription drugs, and labs were similar between CPRD Aurum and CPRD GOLD. Slight differences were found for a few variables, but overall, we found consistency between the databases. In addition, standardized incidence of RA was similar between databases.

Use of the CPRD Aurum Database: Insights Gained from New Data Quality Assessments.

Ongoing evaluation of any electronic health data source is critical to assess suitability for its use in medical research. In addition, familiarity with a data source's history and recording practices is important for making informed data source selection, study design choices, and interpretation of results. In this commentary, the authors discuss three studies that assessed different aspects of the quality and completeness of information contained in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum compared to the well-established CPRD GOLD and to other linked data sources, with the aim to describe insights gained through these data quality assessments. Our findings support the view that CPRD Aurum and GOLD are both valuable tools for studies based on information recorded in primary care but should not be used without critical consideration of strengths and limitations. Further, use of linked data should be considered for some studies, after taking into account all relevant factors.

Correctness and Completeness of Breast Cancer Diagnoses Recorded in UK CPRD Aurum and CPRD GOLD Databases: Comparison to Hospital Episode Statistics and Cancer Registry (Companion Paper 2).

Purpose: To evaluate the new Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum database, we estimated 'correctness' (ie accuracy, validity) and 'completeness' (ie presence, missingness) of malignant breast cancer diagnoses recorded in CPRD Aurum compared to external linked data sources: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Admitted Patient Care (APC), HES Outpatient (OP), and Cancer Registry (CR), and to the previously validated CPRD GOLD. Methods: Linkage-eligible, female patients with incident malignant breast cancer diagnosis recorded in at least one study data source were selected. Correctness was the proportion of malignant breast cancer cases recorded in CPRD Aurum or GOLD who also had a diagnosis recorded in HES APC/OP (2004-2019) or CR (2004-2016). Completeness was estimated by identifying all malignant breast cancer diagnoses in HES APC/OP or CR and calculating the proportion with a concordant diagnosis in CPRD Aurum or GOLD. Results: Compared to HES APC/OP, there were 85,659 and 31,452 eligible patients in CPRD Aurum and GOLD, respectively. Correctness estimates were high (CPRD Aurum 83.5%, GOLD 81.7%). Compared to CR, there were 70,190 and 29,597 eligible patients in CPRD Aurum and GOLD, respectively: correctness was 89.1% for CPRD Aurum and 88.2% for GOLD. Completeness estimates for CPRD Aurum and GOLD were high (>90%). Diagnoses were recorded in CPRD Aurum within -7 to 74 days of those in the linked sources. Reasons for discordant diagnostic coding included presence of treatment or other clinical codes only, diagnosis coded after end of follow-up, non-malignant breast cancer in linked data, and administrative codes in lieu of diagnostic codes. Conclusion: These results indicate that correctness and completeness of malignant breast cancer diagnoses in CPRD Aurum were high and similar to CPRD GOLD. This provides confidence in use of CPRD Aurum for research purposes. Where complete case capture is important, researchers should consider linkage to HES APC or CR.

Presence of Breast Cancer Information Recorded in United Kingdom Primary Care Databases: Comparison of CPRD Aurum and CPRD GOLD (Companion Paper 1).

Purpose: To evaluate the presence of data elements related to diagnosis and treatment of malignant breast cancer in CPRD Aurum compared to those in the previously validated CPRD GOLD. Methods: Females in CPRD Aurum or GOLD with a first-time code for malignant breast cancer, mastectomy, or ≥1 prescription for tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors (2004-2019) were selected. We compared the presence of the codes for breast cancer diagnosis, surgeries (mastectomy, lumpectomy), tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitor prescriptions, radiation, chemotherapy, and supporting clinical codes (suspected breast cancer, lump symptoms, biopsy, lumpectomy, cancer care, referral/visit to specialist, palliative care). Age standardized incidence rates of breast cancer diagnosis in CPRD Aurum and GOLD were calculated. Results: There were 131,936 eligible patients in CPRD Aurum and 69,102 patients in GOLD. A similar proportion of patients in CPRD Aurum and GOLD had codes for breast cancer diagnosis, mastectomy, drug prescriptions, lump, biopsy, lumpectomy, chemotherapy, and cancer and palliative care coded in their electronic record during follow-up. However, suspected breast cancer, radiation, and referral/visits to specialists were coded more frequently in patients in CPRD Aurum compared to GOLD. Age-standardized incidence rates were similar for CPRD Aurum and GOLD. Conclusion: Overall, there was consistency between data elements related to malignant breast cancer recorded in CPRD Aurum and GOLD, particularly for the most informative clinical details. These findings provide reassurance that breast cancer information recorded in CPRD Aurum is generally comparable to that recorded in the previously validated CPRD GOLD and support the use of CPRD Aurum for breast cancer research.

Utilization patterns and factors associated with persistence of new users of anti-osteoporosis treatment in Denmark: a population-based cohort study.

Persistence with initial treatment was highest after 1 year, decreasing afterwards. Persistence was highest for denosumab followed by alendronate. We identified several factors associated with treatment persistence, some of which were the same irrespective of OTx agent, which could help target subgroups of patients in terms of social and healthcare support. PURPOSE: To describe patient characteristics, persistence, and factors associated with the persistence of new users of the bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate) and the RANKL inhibitor denosumab in Denmark. METHODS: A population-based cohort study using health registries (2010-2018). We included alendronate (n = 128,590), risedronate (n = 892), ibandronate (n = 5,855), and denosumab (n = 16,469) users, aged ≥ 50 years. RESULTS: The 1-year persistence was 68.2% in the alendronate cohort; 39.3% in the risedronate cohort; 56.3% in the ibandronate cohort; and 84.0% in the denosumab cohort. The 2-year persistence was 58.7% in the alendronate cohort; 28.0% in the risedronate cohort; 42.9% in the ibandronate cohort; and 71.9% in the denosumab cohort. The 4-year persistence was 46.3%, 15.4%, 29.6%, and 56.9%, respectively. Later years of treatment initiation were associated with lower persistence for alendronate (adjusted odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was 0.86 (0.81-0.91) in 2016 compared to 2010), but not for risedronate (OR was 1.56 (0.60-4.06), ibandronate (OR was 0.92 (0.71-1.19) or denosumab (OR was 1.11 (0.87-1.43). Older age was associated with higher persistence for all medications and the same goes for the female sex except for ibandronate. Dementia was associated with higher persistence for alendronate but not denosumab, whereas prior osteoporosis treatment (OT) was the opposite. Several comorbidities were associated with lower persistence for alendronate, but not denosumab. CONCLUSION: Persistence was highest for denosumab followed by alendronate. We identified several factors associated with treatment persistence, some of which were the same irrespective of OTx agent, which could help target subgroups of patients in terms of social and healthcare support.

The Alignment of Real-World Evidence and Digital Health: Realising the Opportunity.

In the new era of healthcare digitalization, there is a golden opportunity in the overlap between digital health and Real-World Evidence (RWE). In this commentary, we define RWE and digital health and investigate their intersection. We describe the stages in the RWE value chain critical to the evidence generation process, how these stages change with new digital technologies and the opportunities and challenges that arise from how these stages evolve-including their application for stakeholders such as patients, physicians and regulators. We also discuss the current published guidelines and frameworks regarding digital health. We categorise these publications in terms of their clarity as "Extensive", "Intermediate" or "Basic" and according to whether they encompass all levels of digital health or are more focussed in their guidance. Finally, we provide recommendations to increase synergy between RWE and digital health.

Biomarker testing and mutation prevalence in metastatic colorectal cancer patients in five European countries using a large oncology database.

Background: The literature on biomarker testing for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Europe is scarce. This study aimed to estimate the percentage of mCRC patients from five European countries tested for biomarkers over time. Materials & methods: An oncology database was retrospectively analyzed; evaluated biomarkers were RAS, BRAF and microsatellite instability (MSI). The patients were drug treated during 2018 and tested for relevant biomarkers in 2013-2018. Results: RAS testing was conducted in >90% of mCRC patients from 2014 onwards. BRAF testing increased from 31% of mCRC patients in 2013 to 67% in 2018. MSI testing increased from 10 to 41%. There was no notable trend over time for RAS and BRAF mutation or MSI-high prevalence. Conclusion: Biomarker testing among patients diagnosed with mCRC was increased over time. This study demonstrates the quick uptake of biomarker testing in clinical practice. These findings are significant as biomarker-based drugs are becoming more common.

Lay abstract Each patient's cancer is unique. To find the best medicine for each patient, doctors perform tests to look at the cancer's genes. It is unknown how often and how well these tests are done. We tried to find this out for patients with cancer of the bowel or rectum that has spread to other organs. We found that an important genetic test called RAS is done in most patients. Other tests, called BRAF and microsatellite instability, are also conducted increasingly frequently. This is important because the results of such tests allow doctors to decide which drug(s) should be the most effective depending on the patient's cancer genes.

Impact of biomarkers and primary tumor location on the metastatic colorectal cancer first-line treatment landscape in five European countries.

Background: Advances in therapies for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and improved understanding of prognostic and predictive factors have impacted treatment decisions. Materials & methods: This study used a large oncology database to investigate patterns of monoclonal antibody (mAb) plus chemotherapy treatment in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK in mCRC patients treated in first line in 2018. Results: Anti-EGFR mAbs were most often administered to patients with RAS wild-type mCRC and those with left-sided tumors, while anti-VEGF mAbs were preferred in RAS mutant and right-sided tumors. Adopted treatment strategies differed between countries, largely due to reimbursement. Conclusion: Biomarker status and primary tumor location steered treatment decisions in first line. Adopted treatment strategies differed between participating countries.

Lay abstract Each patient's cancer is unique. For example, colon cancer on the left side is different from colon cancer on the right side. Colon cancer is different from cancer of the rectum. Cancers also have changes in their genes, which means some treatments should work, while others may not. Doctors can select among different medicines to find the drug that works best for each patient. We looked at patients with cancer of the colon or rectum that has spread to other organs. We tried to find out how doctors in Europe select drugs for their patients after performing tests called RAS or BRAF. We found that doctors make different choices in different countries.

Real-world reproducibility study characterizing patients newly diagnosed with multiple myeloma using Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a UK-based electronic health records database.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the reproducibility of a study characterizing newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients within an electronic health records (EHR) database using different analytic tools. METHODS: We reproduced the findings of a descriptive cohort study using an iterative two-phase approach. In Phase I, a common protocol and statistical analysis plan (SAP) were implemented by independent investigators using the Aetion Evidence Platform® (AEP), a rapid-cycle analytics tool, and SAS statistical software as a gold standard for statistical analyses. Using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) dataset, the study included patients newly diagnosed with MM within primary care setting and assessed baseline demographics, conditions, drug exposure, and laboratory procedures. Phase II incorporated analysis revisions based on our initial comparison of the Phase I findings. Reproducibility of findings was evaluate by calculating the match rate and absolute difference in prevalence between the SAS and AEP study results. RESULTS: Phase I yielded slightly discrepant results, prompting amendments to SAP to add more clarity to operational decisions. After detailed specification of data and operational choices, exact concordance was achieved for the number of eligible patients (N = 2646), demographics, comorbidities (i.e., osteopenia, osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease [CVD], and hypertension), bone pain, skeletal-related events, drug exposure, and laboratory investigations in the Phase II analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this reproducibility study, a rapid-cycle analytics tool and traditional statistical software achieved near-exact findings after detailed specification of data and operational choices. Transparency and communication of the study design, operational and analytical choices between independent investigators were critical to achieve this reproducibility.

The Healthcare Professionals' Perspective on Impact and Actions Taken Following Severe Infusion Reaction Events in Oncology Centers in Europe.

PURPOSE: The study aim was to describe the management strategies used for severe infusion-related reactions (SIRs) and understand the impact of such events in oncology day hospitals in France, Germany, Spain, and the UK. METHODS: The study was based on qualitative telephone interviews and quantitative self-completion questionnaires and asked healthcare professionals about the impact of SIRs and consequent actions taken. RESULTS: The procedures to prevent and manage SIRs were similar across countries and settings. In all countries, they were part of a larger risk-assessment and adverse events-prevention process. Preventive measures included patient history, risk assessment, pre-medication, and close monitoring of high-risk patients. The management procedures comprised stopping the infusion, triggering of the emergency chain, administering corticosteroids ± antihistamines, and hospitalization if necessary. The recalled SIRs had important consequences to affected patients, healthcare providers, and hospital organizational plans. All affected patients needed to be monitored closely for a prolonged time, thus blocking hospital beds. 44% of patients needed to be hospitalized, 17% needed resuscitation, and one patient died of cardiac arrest immediately after the start of the infusion. Importantly, 82% of patients were not re-challenged with the presumedly SIR-causing regimen or re-challenged in a later line. CONCLUSION: SIRs are unpredictable in nature, may have an extremely rapid onset, and are potentially fatal. Such events have a profound impact on the affected and surrounding patients, the care team and the organizational plan of the day-hospitals. Specific tools to reliably identify high-risk patients and predict the occurrence of events are needed.

Management of EGFR Inhibitor-induced Skin Toxicity and Factors Impacting Patients' Adherence to Skin Toxicity Treatment: Health Care Provider and Patient Surveys in European Oncology Centers.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to provide a description of existing measures for the prevention and management of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor monoclonal antibody-induced skin toxicities and factors impacting patients' adherence to those measures in France, Germany, and Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study consisted of 2 separate surveys. Health care professionals (HCPs; oncologists and nurses) in France, Germany, and Spain were interviewed, and patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and head-and-neck cancer in France and Germany self-completed questionnaires. The study was conducted between February and July 2018. RESULTS: A total of 53 oncologists, 44 nurses, and 143 patients participated in the study. HCPs stated that skin toxicities moderately (52%) or severely (28%) impacted patient care. Ninety percent of HCPs reported routine provision of prophylactic measures. The great majority of patients self-reported adherence with the prophylactic (80% to 88% depending on the type of measures) and reactive (93% to drug prescription) skin toxicity recommendations. HCPs estimated patient adherence to be 45% for full adherence and 40% for partial adherence. Most HCPs reported a positive or very positive impact of preventive measures and recommendations on skin toxicity incidence and severity, patients' quality of life, and various aspects of quality of anti-cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Skin toxicities are an important adversity negatively impacting on patient care. However, despite the positive perception of the effectiveness of skin toxicity prophylaxis, almost one-third of oncology centers did not provide formal guidelines, and 10% of HCPs did not provide routine prophylactic measures. Patient adherence appears to be high for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor monoclonal antibody-induced skin toxicity prevention measures.

A National Survey of Medical Oncologist's Opinions and Perceptions for Managing Rash Among mCRC Patients Treated with Panitumumab.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to describe medical oncologist's opinions and perceptions regarding the management of dermatologic toxicities among metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who were treated with panitumumab in the USA and assess if there were differences across demographic and clinical characteristics. METHODS: We developed a survey based on the current literature and expert opinions regarding the management of dermatologic toxicities. The survey was implemented online in September 2016. Eligible oncologists were board certified and had treated at least five new or continuing patients with mCRC in the last 3 months, among whom at least three patients had received or were currently receiving panitumumab. RESULTS: A total of 250 oncologists completed the survey. The data suggest that approximately 82% of patients received recommendations for moisturizer, 88% for sunscreen and 67% for ultraviolet (UV)-protective garments prior to or at the time of initiation of panitumumab therapy. There were minor differences in how dermatologic toxicities were managed across specific demographic or clinical groups. The data also suggest that the management associated with panitumumab use among mCRC patients can be greatly improved. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the urgent need for heightened education regarding dermatologic toxicity management among oncologists who treated mCRC patients with panitumumab. Easily implemented strategies, such as moisturizer, sunscreen, and UV-protective garments should be recommended to all patients. FUNDING: Amgen, Inc. Plain language summary available for this article.

Dermatologic Toxicities: A Chart Review of Clinical Management Among Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Panitumumab.

BACKGROUND: At least 90% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who are treated with an anti-EGFR will develop a dermatologic toxicity. Preemptive management strategies have been shown to reduce the severity of rash. OBJECTIVES: This article aims to describe treatment modalities used for the management of dermatologic toxicity among patients with mCRC who were treated with panitumumab and to assess the proportion of patients who were recommended preemptive versus reactive management strategies. METHODS: This retrospective chart review evaluated different treatment modalities and routes of administration. The modalities were categorized as prescription or over-the-counter. The timing in relation to the first dose of panitumumab was used to define preemptive versus reactive treatments. FINDINGS: In a sample of 330 patients, only 10% of patients were recommended to begin treatment for rash preemptively. The two most common treatment modalities for preemptively and reactively treated patients were prescription oral antibiotics and prescription topical antibiotics.

European follow-up of incorrect biomarker results for colorectal cancer demonstrates the importance of quality improvement projects.

Biomarker analysis for colorectal cancer has been shown to be reliable in Europe with 97% of samples tested by EQA participants to be correctly classified. This study focuses on errors during the annual EQA assessment. The aim was to explore the causes and actions related to the observed errors and to provide feedback and assess any improvement between 2016 and 2017. An electronic survey was sent to all laboratories with minimum one genotyping error or technical failure on ten tumor samples. A workshop was organized based on 2016 survey responses. Improvement of performance in 2017 was assessed for returning participants (n = 76), survey respondents (n = 13) and workshop participants (n = 4). Survey respondents and workshop participants improved in terms of (maximum) analysis score, successful participation, and genotyping errors compared to all returning participants. In 2016, mostly pre- and post-analytical errors (both 25%) were observed caused by unsuitability of the tumor tissue for molecular analysis. In 2017, most errors were due to analytical problems (50.0%) caused by methodological problems. The most common actions taken (n = 58) were protocol revisions (34.5%) and staff training (15.5%). In 24.1% of issues identified no action was performed. Corrective actions were linked to an improved performance, especially if performed by the pathologist. Although biomarker testing has improved over time, error occurrence at different phases stresses the need for quality improvement throughout the test process. Participation to quality improvement projects and a close collaboration with the pathologist can have a positive influence on performance.

Prospective Observational Cohort Study to Describe the Use of Panitumumab in Combination with Chemotherapy in Real-World Clinical Practice for Patients with Wild-Type RAS mCRC.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to better understand panitumumab use in real-life clinical practice in first- and second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in five European countries. METHODS: This is a combined analysis of two observational, non-interventional prospective cohort studies, one of which was conducted in Germany and France, the other in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, and Hungary. The studies observed patients with wild-type [Kirsten] rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog ([K]RAS/RAS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), who had been treated with panitumumab in combination with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in the first line or with panitumumab combined with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in the second line following fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. The planned duration of observation was 12 months from the first dose of panitumumab. RESULTS: A total of 332 patients treated with panitumumab + FOLFOX in the first line and 94 patients treated with panitumumab + FOLFIRI in the second line were analyzed. The median number of panitumumab infusions was 10.0 in first-line FOLFOX patients and 11.5 in second-line FOLFIRI patients; the median duration of panitumumab exposure was 5.7 and 6.9 months, respectively. The unadjusted overall response rate (complete or partial response) in patients with available post-baseline response assessment (n = 290) was 51.7% in first-line FOLFOX and 44.9% in second-line FOLFIRI patients. In the first-line setting, resectability was achieved in 9.3%. Reported hospitalizations were mostly cancer-related visits such as scheduled anticancer treatment administrations, tumor assessment visits, or interventions. The majority of adverse drug reactions were skin disorders, with 75.3% in first-line FOLFOX patients and 72.3% in second-line FOLFIRI patients. CONCLUSION: Overall, the study results show that treatment patterns, clinical efficacy, and the safety profile of panitumumab in routine clinical practice were comparable to those in randomized controlled trials. The relatively low skin toxicity rate could be attributed to increasing experience in managing panitumumab-associated rash and some degree of underreporting. FUNDING: Amgen.

Federated electronic health records research technology to support clinical trial protocol optimization: Evidence from EHR4CR and the InSite platform.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if inclusion/exclusion (I/E) criteria of clinical trial protocols can be represented as structured queries and executed using a secure federated research platform (InSite) on hospital electronic health records (EHR) systems, to estimate the number of potentially eligible patients. METHODS: Twenty-three clinical trial protocols completed during 2011-2017 across diverse disease areas were analyzed to construct queries that were executed with InSite using EHR records from 24 European hospitals containing records of >14 million patients. The number of patients matching I/E criteria of each protocol was estimated. RESULTS: All protocols could be formalized to some extent into a medical coding system (e.g. ICD-10CM, ATC, LOINC, SNOMED) and mapped to local hospital coding systems. The median number of I/E criteria of protocols tested was 29 (range: 14-47). A median of 55% (range 38-89%) of I/E criteria in each protocol could be transformed into a computable format. The median number of eligible patients identified was 26 per hospital site (range: 1-134). CONCLUSION: Clinical trial I/E eligibility criteria can be structured computationally and executed as queries on EHR systems to estimate the patient recruitment pool at each site. The results further suggest that an increase in structured coded information in EHRs would increase the number of I/E criteria that could be evaluated. Additional work is needed on broader deployment of federated platforms such as InSite.

Panitumumab use in metastatic colorectal cancer and patterns of RAS testing: results from a Europe-wide physician survey and medical records review.

BACKGROUND: In Europe, treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with panitumumab requires prior confirmation of RAS wild-type mutation status. Two studies - a physician survey and a medical records review (MRR) - were conducted to evaluate the use of panitumumab and awareness among prescribing oncologists of the associated RAS testing requirements in clinical practice. METHODS: Both studies enrolled participants from nine European countries and were carried out in three consecutive rounds. Rounds 1 and 2 (2012-2013) examined KRAS (exon 2) testing only; the results have been published in full previously. Round 3 (2014-2015) examined full RAS testing (exons 2, 3, 4 of KRAS and NRAS) and was initiated following a change in prescribing guidelines, from requiring KRAS alone to requiring full RAS testing. For the physician survey, telephone interviews were conducted with oncologists who had prescribed panitumumab to patients with mCRC in the previous 6 months. For the MRR, oncologists were asked to provide anonymised clinical information, extracted from their patients' records. RESULTS: In Round 3, 152 oncologists and 131 patients' records were included in the physician survey and MRR, respectively. In Round 3 of the physician survey, 95.4% (n = 145) of participants correctly identified that panitumumab should only be prescribed in RAS wild-type mCRC compared with 99.0% (n = 298) of 301 participants in Rounds 1 and 2, responding to the same question about KRAS testing. In Round 3 of the MRR, 100% (n = 131) of patients included in the study had confirmed KRAS or RAS wild-type status prior to initiation of panitumumab compared with 97.7% (n = 299) of 306 patients in Rounds 1 and 2 (KRAS only). Of those patients in Round 3, 83.2% (n = 109) had been tested for RAS status and 16.8% (n = 22) had been tested for KRAS status only. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' adherence to prescribing guidelines has remained high over time in Europe, despite the change in indication for panitumumab treatment, from KRAS to RAS wild-type mCRC. Additionally, this study demonstrates the uptake of full RAS testing among the majority of oncologists and pathologists.

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 8. Data collection and management.

Pragmatic trials can improve our understanding of how treatments will perform in routine practice. In a series of eight papers, the GetReal Consortium has evaluated the challenges in designing and conducting pragmatic trials and their specific methodological, operational, regulatory, and ethical implications. The present final paper of the series discusses the operational and methodological challenges of data collection in pragmatic trials. A more pragmatic data collection needs to balance the delivery of highly accurate and complete data with minimizing the level of interference that data entry and verification induce with clinical practice. Furthermore, it should allow for the involvement of a representative sample of practices, physicians, and patients who prescribe/receive treatment in routine care. This paper discusses challenges that are related to the different methods of data collection and presents potential solutions where possible. No one-size-fits-all recommendation can be given for the collection of data in pragmatic trials, although in general the application of existing routinely used data-collection systems and processes seems to best suit the pragmatic approach. However, data access and privacy, the time points of data collection, the level of detail in the data, and the lack of a clear understanding of the data-collection process were identified as main challenges for the usage of routinely collected data in pragmatic trials. A first step should be to determine to what extent existing health care databases provide the necessary study data and can accommodate data collection and management. When more elaborate or detailed data collection or more structured follow-up is required, data collection in a pragmatic trial will have to be tailor-made, often using a hybrid approach using a dedicated electronic case report form (eCRF). In this case, the eCRF should be kept as simple as possible to reduce the burden for practitioners and minimize influence on routine clinical practice.

RAS mutation prevalence among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of real-world data.

AIM: A confirmed wild-type RAS tumor status is commonly required for prescribing anti-EGFR treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. This noninterventional, observational research project estimated RAS mutation prevalence from real-world sources. MATERIALS & METHODS: Aggregate RAS mutation data were collected from 12 sources in three regions. Each source was analyzed separately; pooled prevalence estimates were then derived from meta-analyses. RESULTS: The pooled RAS mutation prevalence from 4431 tumor samples tested for RAS mutation status was estimated to be 43.6% (95% CI: 38.8-48.5%); ranging from 33.7% (95% CI: 28.4-39.3%) to 54.1% (95% CI: 51.7-56.5%) between sources. CONCLUSION: The RAS mutation prevalence estimates varied among sources. The reasons for this are not clear and highlight the need for further research.

RAS testing practices and RAS mutation prevalence among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results from a Europe-wide survey of pathology centres.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) include anti-epithelial growth factor therapies, which, in Europe, are indicated in patients with RAS wild-type tumours only and require prior mutation testing of "hot-spot" codons in exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and NRAS. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of RAS testing methods and estimate the RAS mutation prevalence in mCRC patients. METHODS: Overall, 194 pathology laboratories were invited to complete an online survey. Participating laboratories were asked to provide information on their testing practices and aggregated RAS mutation data from 20 to 30 recently tested patients with mCRC. RESULTS: A total of 96 (49.5 %) laboratories across 24 European countries completed the survey. All participants tested KRAS exon 2, codons 12 and 13. Seventy (72.9 %) laboratories reported complete testing of all RAS hot-spot codons, and three (3.1 %) reported only testing KRAS exon 2. Sixty-nine (71.9 %) laboratories reported testing >80 patients yearly for RAS mutation status. Testing was typically performed within the reporting institution (93.8 %, n = 90), at the request of a treating oncologist (89.5 %, n = 85); testing methodology varied by laboratory and by individual codon tested. For laboratory RAS testing, turnaround times were ≤10 working days for the majority of institutions (90.6 %, n = 87). The overall crude RAS mutation prevalence was 48.5 % (95 % confidence interval: 46.4-50.6) for laboratories testing all RAS hot-spot codons. Prevalence estimates varied significantly by primary tumour location, approximate number of patients tested yearly and indication given for RAS testing. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate a rapid uptake of RAS testing in the majority of European pathology laboratories.