OBJECTIVE: Malignant melanoma is an aggressive cancer, and there is a notable dearth on epidemiology, clinical and treatment characterization within the Portuguese population. We performed a scoping review to identify real-world evidence studies focused in Portuguese adult patients with malignant melanoma.
METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted. After screening, we described the studies by design, sample size, geographics, setting, population, and outcomes reported.
RESULTS: The search yielded 54 studies, mainly retrospective (79.6%). The population assessed was heterogeneous varying from patients with melanoma in general to specific types of melanoma, or even more restricted to patients with specific conditions. The evidence found was mostly concerning clinical outcomes (n=46), patients\' clinical profile (n=44) and demographic characterization (n=48). Treatment information was described in 30 studies whereas only 18 reported epidemiological parameters. Studies were mainly performed by the major oncology centers in Lisbon, Oporto and Coimbra, and only two evaluated the entire Portuguese population. To allow comparability, only studies including patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma were considered (13 of the 54) for outcomes evaluation analysis. Median OS varied from 18 to 36 months, assessed after melanoma treatment. Incidence was the most reported epidemiological parameter, confirming the increasing number of cutaneous malignant melanoma patients over the years. Only one study reported prevalence and four reported mortality rates.
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence found confirms the lack of information about malignant melanoma in Portugal, highlighting the need of real-world studies to assess melanoma prevalence and incidence rates, current treatment approaches, and clinical characterization of these patients.

The increased adoption of the internet, social media, wearable devices, e-health services, and other technology-driven services in medicine and healthcare has led to the rapid generation of various types of digital data, providing a valuable data source beyond the confines of traditional clinical trials, epidemiological studies, and lab-based experiments.
We provide a brief overview on the type and sources of real-world data and the common models and approaches to utilize and analyze real-world data. We discuss the challenges and opportunities of using real-world data for evidence-based decision making This review does not aim to be comprehensive or cover all aspects of the intriguing topic on RWD (from both the research and practical perspectives) but serves as a primer and provides useful sources for readers who interested in this topic.
Real-world hold great potential for generating real-world evidence for designing and conducting confirmatory trials and answering questions that may not be addressed otherwise. The voluminosity and complexity of real-world data also call for development of more appropriate, sophisticated, and innovative data processing and analysis techniques while maintaining scientific rigor in research findings, and attentions to data ethics to harness the power of real-world data.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) continue to be the basis for essential evidence regarding the efficacy of interventions such as cancer therapies. Limitations associated with RCT designs, including selective study populations, strict treatment regimens, and being time-limited, mean they do not provide complete information about an intervention\'s safety or the applicability of the trial\'s results to a wider range of patients seen in real-world clinical practice. For example, recent data from Alberta showed that almost 40% of patients in the province\'s cancer registry would be trial-ineligible per common exclusion criteria. Real-world evidence (RWE) offers an opportunity to complement the RCT evidence base with this kind of information about safety and about use in wider patient populations. It is also increasingly recognized for being able to provide information about an intervention\'s effectiveness and is considered by regulators as an important component of the evidence base in drug approvals. Here, we examine the limitations of RCTs in oncology research, review the different types of RWE available in this area, and discuss the strengths and limitations of RWE for complementing RCT oncology data.

To summarise real-world data from studies reporting golimumab persistence in European immune-mediated rheumatic disease (IMRD) populations and to report pooled estimates.
Systematic literature review.
Relevant literature was identified through searching Medline and Embase via Ovid as well as the conference databases of European League Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology-Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals.
We screened records using predefined patients, interventions, comparators, outcomes and study design criteria. Eligible studies included reports of persistence among adult IMRD patients in Europe receiving treatment with subcutaneous golimumab. Clinical trials, randomised controlled trials, literature reviews, editorials, guidelines and studies with <20 patients receiving golimumab were excluded.
Following double screening by two independent reviewers, 27 studies out of 578 identified records were selected for inclusion and subsequent data extraction. Persistence was most commonly reported at 12and 24 months; hence, pooled persistence estimates were calculated for these two time points and reported according to indication.
Persistence ranged between 58.1% (psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients regardless of treatment line) and 75.7% (biological-naïve rheumatoid arthritis patients) at 12 months; at 24 months, the range was 43% (axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) patients regardless of treatment line) and 69.6% (biological-naïve PsA patients). On the basis of data from 12 studies, persistence with golimumab treatment was either significantly higher or not significantly different from other tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).
Golimumab persistence at 24 months approximates 50%, with a lower persistence among AxSpA (43%) patients. However, as the number of studies in these populations was low, they warrant further research. In 12 studies comparing various TNFi treatments, golimumab was shown to have significantly better or equal persistence to its comparators.

OBJECTIVE: In immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRDs), persistence to treatment may be used as a surrogate marker for long-term treatment success. In previous comparisons of persistence to tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors (TNFis), a paucity of data for subcutaneous (SC) golimumab was identified. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of persistence to SC golimumab in clinical practice and contextualize these data with five-year persistence estimates from long-term open-label extension (OLE) trials of SC TNFis in IMRDs.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and conference proceedings from European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) were searched. All studies on patients treated with SC golimumab for IMRD were included if they reported data on the persistence to golimumab.
RESULTS: Of 376 available references identified through the searches, 12 studies with a total of 4,910 patients met the inclusion criteria. Furthermore, nine OLE trials were available. Among the included studies from clinical practice, at six months, one year, two years, and three years, the proportion of patients persistent to treatment ranged from 63% to 91%, 47% to 80%, 40% to 77%, and 32% to 67%, respectively. In the four studies that included comparisons to other biologics, golimumab was either statistically noninferior or statistically superior to other treatments, an observation that was supported by indirect comparisons of unadjusted point estimates of OLE trials.
CONCLUSIONS: The data reviewed in this study indicate that golimumab may have higher persistence than other TNFis, a notion that is supported by indirect comparisons of persistence data from OLEs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Furthermore, the study suggests that persistence may be lower in biologic-experienced compared with biologic-naive patients and higher in axial spondyloarthritis compared with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis.