{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Examining external control arms in oncology: A scoping review of applications to date.
{Author}: Farah E;Kenney M;Warkentin MT;Cheung WY;Brenner DR;
{Journal}: Cancer Med
{Volume}: 13
{Issue}: 13
{Year}: 2024 Jul
{Factor}: 4.711
{DOI}: 10.1002/cam4.7447
{Abstract}: OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating the comparative efficacy and safety of new cancer therapies. However, enrolling patients in control arms of clinical trials can be challenging for rare cancers, particularly in the context of precision oncology and targeted therapies. External Control Arms (ECAs) are a potential solution to address these challenges in clinical research design. We conducted a scoping review to explore the use of ECAs in oncology.
METHODS: We systematically searched four databases, namely MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligible articles focusing on patients undergoing therapy for cancer, employing ECAs, and reporting clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: Of the 629 articles screened, 23 were included in this review. The earliest included studies were published in 1996, while most studies were published in the past 5 years. 44% (10/23) of ECAs were employed in blood-related cancer studies. Geographically, 30% (7/23) of studies were conducted in the United States, 22% (5/23) in Japan, and 9% (2/23) in South Korea. The primary data sources used to construct the ECAs involved pooled data from previous trials (35%, 8/23), administrative health databases (17%, 4/23) and electronic medical records (17%, 4/23). While 52% (12/23) of the studies employed methods to align treatment and ECAs characteristics, 48% (11/23) lacked explicit strategies.
CONCLUSIONS: ECAs offer a valuable approach in oncology research, particularly when alternative designs are not feasible. However, careful methodological planning and detailed reporting are essential for meaningful and reliable results.