Efficacy-effectiveness analysis on survival in a population-based real-world study of BRAF-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with encorafenib-cetuximab.

BACKGROUND: Encorafenib-cetuximab has been approved for pretreated BRAFV600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients based on efficacy demonstrated in the randomized phase III BEACON trial. The aim of this real-world effectiveness study is to improve knowledge on the generalizability of trial results. METHODS: This population-based real-world study includes all mCRC patients in the Netherlands treated with encorafenib-cetuximab since approval. Individual patient data and pathology reports were collected. Overall survival (OS) was compared to BEACON and subgroup analyses were conducted for patients who would have been eligible and ineligible for BEACON. RESULTS: 166 patients were included with a median follow-up time of 14.5 months. Median OS was 6.7 months (95% CI:6.0-8.3) and differed from BEACON (9.3 months; 95% CI:8.0-11.3, p-value 0.002). Thirty-six percent of real-world patients would have been ineligible for the BEACON trial. Trial ineligible subgroups with symptomatic brain metastases and WHO performance status ≥2 had the poorest median OS of 5.0 months (95% CI:4.0-NR) and 3.9 months (95% CI:2.4-NR). CONCLUSION: This real-world cohort of mCRC patients treated with encorafenib-cetuximab showed a clinically relevant efficacy-effectiveness gap for OS. The chance of survival benefit from encorafenib-cetuximab in patients with brain metastases and/or WHO performance status ≥2 is negligible as neither efficacy nor effectiveness has been demonstrated.

Harnessing the Potential of Real-World Evidence in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Where Do We Stand?

OPINION STATEMENT: Treatment guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) are primarily based on the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), the gold standard methodology to evaluate safety and efficacy of oncological treatments. However, generalizability of trial results is often limited due to stringent eligibility criteria, underrepresentation of specific populations, and more heterogeneity in clinical practice. This may result in an efficacy-effectiveness gap and uncertainty regarding meaningful benefit versus treatment harm. Meanwhile, conduct of traditional RCTs has become increasingly challenging due to identification of a growing number of (small) molecular subtypes. These challenges-combined with the digitalization of health records-have led to growing interest in use of real-world data (RWD) to complement evidence from RCTs. RWD is used to evaluate epidemiological trends, quality of care, treatment effectiveness, long-term (rare) safety, and quality of life (QoL) measures. In addition, RWD is increasingly considered in decision-making by clinicians, regulators, and payers. In this narrative review, we elaborate on these applications in CRC, and provide illustrative examples. As long as the quality of RWD is safeguarded, ongoing developments, such as common data models, federated learning, and predictive modelling, will further unfold its potential. First, whenever possible, we recommend conducting pragmatic trials, such as registry-based RCTs, to optimize generalizability and answer clinical questions that are not addressed in registrational trials. Second, we argue that marketing approval should be conditional for patients who would have been ineligible for the registrational trial, awaiting planned (non) randomized evaluation of outcomes in the real world. Third, high-quality effectiveness results should be incorporated in treatment guidelines to aid in patient counseling. We believe that a coordinated effort from all stakeholders is essential to improve the quality of RWD, create a learning healthcare system with optimal use of trials and real-world evidence (RWE), and ultimately ensure personalized care for every CRC patient.

Improving sustainability of a patient decision aid for systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A qualitative study.

Objective: To improve sustainability of a patient decision aid for systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, we evaluated real-world experiences and identified ways to optimize decision aid content and future implementation. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with patients and medical oncologists addressed two main subjects: user experience and decision aid content. Content analysis was applied. Fifteen experts discussed the results and devised improvements based on experience and literature review. Results: Thirteen users were interviewed. They confirmed the relevance of the decision aid for shared decision making. Areas for improvement of content concerned; 1) outdated and missing information, 2) an imbalance in presentation of treatment benefits and harms, and 3) medical oncologists' expressed preference for a more center-specific or patient individualized decision aid, presenting a selection of the guideline recommended treatment options. Key points for improvement of implementation were better alignment within the care pathway, and clear instruction to users. Conclusion: We identified relevant opportunities for improvement of an existing decision aid and developed an updated version and accompanying implementation strategy accordingly. Innovation: This paper outlines an approach for continued decision aid and implementation strategy development which will add to sustainability. Implementation success of the improved decision aid is currently being studied in a multi-center mixed-methods implementation study.