Trastuzumab in early curative breast cancer: A target trial emulation benchmarked against two randomized clinical trials.

IF 15.8 1区 医学 Q1 Medicine
Vanessa Voelskow, Xabier Garcia-Albeniz, Anita Berglund, Maria Feychting, Tobias Kurth, Anthony A Matthews
{"title":"Trastuzumab in early curative breast cancer: A target trial emulation benchmarked against two randomized clinical trials.","authors":"Vanessa Voelskow, Xabier Garcia-Albeniz, Anita Berglund, Maria Feychting, Tobias Kurth, Anthony A Matthews","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.1004661","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Benchmarking an observational analysis against a randomized trial can increase confidence in the use of observational data to complement inferences made in trials. Until now, few examples of benchmarking have been within oncology. However, benchmarking trials of a cancer treatment poses a unique set of challenges, such as defining composite outcomes like disease-free survival.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>We designed a target trial with a protocol as similar as possible to the B-31 and N9831 randomized trials, which estimated the effect of adjuvant trastuzumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in individuals with early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer. We then carried out an observational analysis by emulating the target trial using routinely collected data from Swedish registries to understand if we can estimate a similar effect of trastuzumab as the trial. The primary endpoint was the composite of disease-free survival consisting of the earliest of (1) local or regional recurrences, (2) distant recurrences, (3) contralateral breast cancer, (4) other second primary cancer, or (5) death from any cause. Individuals who had data compatible with both treatment strategies at baseline were cloned and one copy was assigned to each arm. We applied inverse probability weights to adjust for baseline and time-varying confounding (e.g., age and hematological events like neutropenia).. Our observational analysis included 1,578 women, with a median age of 59 years, and who were diagnosed between 2008 and 2015. We estimated a similar effect after five years of follow-up (RR: 0.54, 95% CI [0.44, 0.67]) for the composite endpoint of disease-free survival as the two jointly analyzed B-31 and N9831 trials (HR: 0.48, 95% CI [0.39, 0.59]). While the comparability of results increases confidence in our estimates, there remains a risk of residual and unmeasured confounding, as is the case with all observational analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We successfully benchmarked an observational analysis against the B-31 and N9831 trials. By aligning protocols and using appropriate methodological approaches, we show that observational data can be used to estimate similar results as randomized trials of cancer treatments, like trastuzumab. This opens the door to using observational data to complement results from randomized trials of cancer treatments which can provide quick, cheap, and robust evidence to support decision-making where trials leave evidence gaps.</p>","PeriodicalId":49008,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Medicine","volume":"22 7","pages":"e1004661"},"PeriodicalIF":15.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004661","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Benchmarking an observational analysis against a randomized trial can increase confidence in the use of observational data to complement inferences made in trials. Until now, few examples of benchmarking have been within oncology. However, benchmarking trials of a cancer treatment poses a unique set of challenges, such as defining composite outcomes like disease-free survival.

Methods and findings: We designed a target trial with a protocol as similar as possible to the B-31 and N9831 randomized trials, which estimated the effect of adjuvant trastuzumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in individuals with early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer. We then carried out an observational analysis by emulating the target trial using routinely collected data from Swedish registries to understand if we can estimate a similar effect of trastuzumab as the trial. The primary endpoint was the composite of disease-free survival consisting of the earliest of (1) local or regional recurrences, (2) distant recurrences, (3) contralateral breast cancer, (4) other second primary cancer, or (5) death from any cause. Individuals who had data compatible with both treatment strategies at baseline were cloned and one copy was assigned to each arm. We applied inverse probability weights to adjust for baseline and time-varying confounding (e.g., age and hematological events like neutropenia).. Our observational analysis included 1,578 women, with a median age of 59 years, and who were diagnosed between 2008 and 2015. We estimated a similar effect after five years of follow-up (RR: 0.54, 95% CI [0.44, 0.67]) for the composite endpoint of disease-free survival as the two jointly analyzed B-31 and N9831 trials (HR: 0.48, 95% CI [0.39, 0.59]). While the comparability of results increases confidence in our estimates, there remains a risk of residual and unmeasured confounding, as is the case with all observational analyses.

Conclusions: We successfully benchmarked an observational analysis against the B-31 and N9831 trials. By aligning protocols and using appropriate methodological approaches, we show that observational data can be used to estimate similar results as randomized trials of cancer treatments, like trastuzumab. This opens the door to using observational data to complement results from randomized trials of cancer treatments which can provide quick, cheap, and robust evidence to support decision-making where trials leave evidence gaps.

曲妥珠单抗治疗早期乳腺癌:以两项随机临床试验为基准的靶试验模拟。
背景:对随机试验的观察性分析进行基准分析可以增加使用观察性数据来补充试验中得出的推论的信心。到目前为止,在肿瘤学领域很少有基准测试的例子。然而,癌症治疗的基准试验带来了一系列独特的挑战,例如确定无病生存等综合结果。方法和发现:我们设计了一项目标试验,其方案尽可能与B-31和N9831随机试验相似,该试验评估了曲妥珠单抗辅助化疗与单独化疗在早期人类表皮生长因子受体2阳性乳腺癌患者中的效果。然后,我们进行了一项观察性分析,通过使用瑞典注册中心常规收集的数据来模拟目标试验,以了解我们是否可以估计曲妥珠单抗与试验相似的效果。主要终点是无病生存期的组合,包括:(1)局部或区域复发,(2)远处复发,(3)对侧乳腺癌,(4)其他第二原发癌症,或(5)任何原因的死亡。在基线时具有与两种治疗策略相容的数据的个体被克隆,每个组分配一个副本。我们应用逆概率权重来调整基线和时变混杂(例如,年龄和血液学事件,如中性粒细胞减少)。我们的观察性分析包括1578名女性,中位年龄59岁,在2008年至2015年期间被诊断。在随访5年后,我们估计无病生存的复合终点与B-31和N9831试验的结果相似(RR: 0.54, 95% CI [0.44, 0.67]) (HR: 0.48, 95% CI[0.39, 0.59])。虽然结果的可比性增加了我们估计的可信度,但仍然存在残留和未测量混淆的风险,正如所有观察性分析的情况一样。结论:我们成功地对B-31和N9831试验进行了基准观察分析。通过调整方案和使用适当的方法学方法,我们表明观察数据可用于估计与曲妥珠单抗等癌症治疗随机试验相似的结果。这为使用观察数据来补充癌症治疗随机试验的结果打开了大门,这些随机试验可以提供快速、廉价和有力的证据,以支持试验留下证据空白的决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
0.60%
发文量
227
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: PLOS Medicine is a prominent platform for discussing and researching global health challenges. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including biomedical, environmental, social, and political factors affecting health. It prioritizes articles that contribute to clinical practice, health policy, or a better understanding of pathophysiology, ultimately aiming to improve health outcomes across different settings. The journal is unwavering in its commitment to uphold the highest ethical standards in medical publishing. This includes actively managing and disclosing any conflicts of interest related to reporting, reviewing, and publishing. PLOS Medicine promotes transparency in the entire review and publication process. The journal also encourages data sharing and encourages the reuse of published work. Additionally, authors retain copyright for their work, and the publication is made accessible through Open Access with no restrictions on availability and dissemination. PLOS Medicine takes measures to avoid conflicts of interest associated with advertising drugs and medical devices or engaging in the exclusive sale of reprints.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信