Acceptance and Utilization of Real-World Evidence among Cancer Care Physicians in the USA: A National Survey.

Background and objective: Regulatory agencies and policy makers increasingly recognize real-world evidence (RWE) as a valuable complement to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology, yet data on how US physicians who treat cancer use and perceive RWE remain limited. The study aimed to assess attitudes toward RWE among US physicians who treat cancer, including their confidence in interpreting it and reliance across clinical decision contexts.

Methods: A cross-sectional national survey was administered in November 2024 to licensed US physicians who treat cancer, recruited from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) member directory, using a random sample stratified by state population. Inclusion criteria were active US medical licensure and current involvement in oncology patient care. The survey instrument included sections on demographics and practice characteristics; RWE familiarity and usage frequency; comparative reliance on RWE versus RCTs in treatment selection, dosing, and outcome prediction (scales ranging from 0 to 10: 0 = complete reliance on RCT data, 10 = complete reliance on RWE); perceived barriers to adoption (4-point scale); and potential facilitators (4-point scale). Categorical data were summarized as counts and percentages, and continuous variables were summarized as means and standard deviations (SD). Chi-squared tests were used to compare categorical variables across groups, paired t tests were used to assess differences in mean reliance scores, and Spearman's rho was used to evaluate correlations. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results: In total, 128 completed surveys were received. Overall, 94% of respondents (n = 120) were at least "somewhat familiar" with RWE, 14% (n = 18) used it "often," and 3% (n = 4) reported daily use. 49% (n = 63) felt confident interpreting RWE studies, with late-career physicians (> 20 years of experience) less confident than their early and mid-career peers. Reliance on RWE was lower for treatment selection (mean 3.0, SD 1.7) than for dosing (mean 3.7, SD 2.0) or outcome prediction (mean 3.8, SD 2.0) (p < 0.001). Top barriers included reconciling conflicting RWE versus RCT data, data completeness, and bias. Key facilitators included improved analytical standards, guideline integration, and additional training.

Conclusions: While awareness of RWE is high among US physicians who treat cancer, they apply it selectively on the basis of clinical context, showing notably lower reliance for treatment selection. Addressing concerns about methodological rigor, data quality, and interpretive skills may strengthen RWE's integration into oncology care.