University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA.
Semin Radiat Oncol. 2023 Oct;33(4):374-385. doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2023.06.003.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for comparative-effectiveness research (CER). Since the 1980s, there has been a rise in the creation and utilization of large national cancer databases to provide readily accessible "real-world data" (RWD). This review article discusses the role of RCTs in oncology, and the role of RWD from the national cancer database in CER. RCTs remain the preferred study type for CER because they minimize confounding and bias. RCTs have challenges to conduct, including extensive time and resources, but these factors do not impact the internal validity of the result. Generalizability and external validity are potential limitations of RCTs. RWD is ideal for studying cancer epidemiology, patterns of care, disparities in care delivery, quality-of-care evaluation, and applicability of RCT data in specific populations excluded from RCTs. However, retrospective databases with RWD have limitations in CER due to unmeasured confounders and are often suboptimal in identifying causal treatment effects.
随机对照试验(RCTs)是比较有效性研究(CER)的金标准。自 20 世纪 80 年代以来,大型国家癌症数据库的创建和利用呈上升趋势,以提供易于获取的“真实世界数据”(RWD)。本文讨论了 RCTs 在肿瘤学中的作用,以及来自国家癌症数据库的 RWD 在 CER 中的作用。RCTs 仍然是 CER 的首选研究类型,因为它们可以最大程度地减少混杂和偏倚。RCTs 在实施方面存在挑战,包括需要大量的时间和资源,但这些因素并不影响结果的内部有效性。RCTs 的普遍性和外部有效性是潜在的局限性。RWD 非常适合研究癌症流行病学、护理模式、护理提供方面的差异、护理质量评估,以及 RCT 数据在 RCT 排除的特定人群中的适用性。然而,由于存在未测量的混杂因素,基于回顾性数据库的 RWD 在 CER 中存在局限性,并且通常不太理想,无法确定因果治疗效果。