Use of record linkage to evaluate treatment outcomes and trial eligibility in a real‐world metastatic prostate cancer population in Scotland. Issue 6 (21st April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Baillie, Kelly; Mueller, Tanja; Pan, Jiafeng; Laskey, Jennifer; Bennie, Marion; Crearie, Christine; Kavanagh, Kimberley; Alvarez‐Madrazo, Samantha; Morrison, David; Clarke, Julie; Keel, Aileen; Cameron, David; Wu, Olivia; Kurdi, Amanj; Jones, Robert J.
• Is Part Of: Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety. Volume 29:Issue 6(2020)
• Page Start: 653
• Page End: 663
• Publication Date: 2020-04-21
• Subjects: abiraterone -- enzalutamide -- metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer -- pharmacoepidemiology -- real world -- record linkage; Pharmacoepidemiology -- Periodicals; Chemotherapy -- Periodicals; Epidemiology -- Periodicals; 615.705
• DOI: 10.1002/pds.4998
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1053-8569

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: New treatments are introduced into standard care based on clinical trial results. However, it is not clear if these benefits are reflected in the broader population. This study analysed the clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer, treated with abiraterone and enzalutamide, within the Scottish National Health Service. Methods: Retrospective cohort study using record linkage of routinely collected healthcare data (study period: February 2012 to February 2017). Overall survival (OS) was analysed using Kaplan‐Meier methods and Cox Proportional Hazard models; a subgroup analysis comprised potentially trial‐eligible patients. Results: Overall, 271 patients were included and 73.8% died during the study period. Median OS was poorer than in the pivotal trials, regardless of medication and indication: 10.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.6‐15.1) and 20.9 months (95% CI 14.9‐29.0) for abiraterone, and 12.6 months (95% CI 10.5‐18.2) and 16.0 months (95% CI 9.8—not reached) for enzalutamide, post and pre chemotherapy, respectively. Only 46% of patients were potentially "trial eligible" and in this subgroup OS improved. Factors influencing survival included baseline performance status, and baseline prostate‐specific antigen, alkaline phosphatase, and albumin levels. Conclusions: Poorer prognostic features of non‐trial eligible patients impact real‐world outcomes of cancer medicines. Electronic record linkage of routinely collected healthcare data offers an opportunity to report outcomes on cancer medicines at scale and describe population demographics. The availability of such observational data to supplement clinical trial results enables patients and clinicians to make more informed treatment decisions, and policymakers to contextualise trial findings.