Answering real world questions using real world data: Understanding dynamic treatment decisions and outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Abstract

Background: The wide range of possible combinations and sequences available for mCRC treatment presents a major challenge to clinicians, who need to determine the optimal approach for an individual patient or patient subset. In the absence of clinical trial evidence, real world data are an increasingly valuable resource that can be utilized not only to understand treatment patterns and outcomes in routine practice, but also to define an optimal treatment strategy for individual patients across multiple lines of therapy. Methods: Real world data from an Australian mCRC registry were used to develop an interactive data visualization tool that displays treatment variation, customizable to different levels of detail and specific patient subsets, based on patient and disease characteristics. Next, a discrete event simulation model was developed to predict progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for first line palliative treatment with doublet chemotherapy alone or with bevacizumab, based on data of 867 patients that were treated accordingly. Results: Of 2694 Australian patients enrolled, 2057 (76%) started 1st line treatment with chemotherapy and/or a biologic agent, 1087 (40%) and 428 (16%) received 2nd and 3rd line therapy, respectively. Combined, these 3 lines of treatment accounted for 733 unique sequences. After recoding treatment to the most intensive chemotherapy and the first exposed biologic, 472 unique sequences remained. In exploratory analyses, the simulation model estimated that median 1st line PFS (95% CI) of 219 (25%) patients could be improved from 175 (156, 199) to 269 days (247, 293) by targeting a different treatment. Conclusions: This was an initial exploration of the potential for data visualization and simulation modeling to inform understanding of practice in mCRC and to guide clinical decision making. Such tools allow clinicians and health system providers to define variation in practice patterns and to identify opportunities to improve care and outcomes. Ultimately, the aim is to improve the delivery of personalized cancer care, where other applications such as conditional survival and cost-effectiveness analyses may be useful.