Transportability of Overall Survival Estimates From US to Canadian Patients With Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer With Implications for Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment

Abstract

ImportanceThe external validity of survival outcomes derived from clinical practice data from US patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not known and is of potential importance because it may be used to support regulatory decision-making and health technology assessment outside of the US.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether overall survival (OS) estimates for a selected group of patients with advanced NSCLC from a large US clinical practice database are transportable to Canadian patients receiving the same systemic therapies.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective multicenter cohort study used transportability analysis to assess whether adjustment for pretreatment characteristics of eligible patient cohorts could reliably approximate OS estimated from US-based samples to Canadian populations. A total of 17 432 eligible adult patients who were diagnosed de novo with advanced NSCLC on or after January 1, 2011, were included in the analysis and followed up until September 30, 2020. Because data on race and ethnicity were available in the US database but not the Canadian database and because racial and ethnic distribution was likely to be similar between US and Canadian patients, these characteristics were not analyzed.ExposuresInitiation of platinum-doublet chemotherapy or pembrolizumab monotherapy as first-line systemic treatment for advanced NSCLC.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOS measured from the time of initiation of the respective treatment regimen.ResultsAmong 17 432 eligible patients, 15 669 patients from the US and 1763 patients from Canada were included in the analysis. Of those, 11 863 patients (sample size–weighted estimates of mean [SD] age, 68.0 [9.3] years; 6606 [55.7%] male; 10 100 from the US and 1763 from Canada) were included in the subset of patients with complete data for baseline covariates. A total of 13 532 US patients received first-line chemotherapy, and 2137 received first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy. Of those, 8447 patients (62.4%) in the first-line chemotherapy group and 1653 patients (77.3%) in the first-line pembrolizumab group had complete data on baseline covariates for outcome model estimation. A total of 1476 Canadian patients who received first-line chemotherapy and 287 patients who received first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy were identified from the target population. After standardization to baseline patient covariates in the Canadian cohorts, transported OS estimates revealed a less than 5% mean absolute difference from the observed OS in the target population (0.56% over 60 months of follow-up in the first-line chemotherapy group and 4.54% over 30 months of follow-up in the first-line pembrolizumab group). Negative control analysis using a mismatched outcome model revealed a 6.64% discrepancy and an incompatible survival curve shape. The results were robust to assumptions of random missingness for baseline covariates, to unadjusted differences in baseline metastases and comorbidities, and to differences in the standard of care between the US and Canada related to administration of second-line anti–programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 immunotherapy for patients who initiated first-line chemotherapy.Conclusions and RelevanceThe results of this cohort study suggest that, under specific circumstances, OS estimates from US clinical practice data can be adjusted using baseline clinical characteristics to closely approximate OS in selected groups of Canadian patients with advanced NSCLC. These results may have implications for regulatory decision-making and health technology assessment in target populations outside of the US.

An Overview of Current Methods for Real-world Applications to Generalize or Transport Clinical Trial Findings to Target Populations of Interest

“…With real-world data becoming increasingly available, generalizability and transportability studies can be an excellent source of real-world evidence that warrants more attention from the regulatory agencies. 89 Real-world evidence based on generalizability and transportability studies should be used in conjunction with other evidence generated from clinical trials, pragmatic trials, and other observational studies, where internal and external validity are considered jointly. 20 , 33 Investigators need to be diligent about reconciling any differences among their various sources of evidence by considering study design and other practical constraints (e.g., data availability).…”

The next generation of evidence-based medicine

“…However, the reality is that clinical trials, including RCTs, cannot be conducted in every country to generate specific evidence for that country's population. Evidence generation using transportability analysis is gaining traction and refers to the ability to generalize inferences from a study sample in one country to a target population in another country where the study was not conducted 47,48 . Transportability analyses may offer some evidence of external validity with implications for local regulatory and health technology assessments 48 .…”

A General Primer for Data Harmonization

“…For another, harmonizing data can allow researchers to assess the generalizability or transportability of a given finding 85 , 86 . Note that while the two terms are closely related, generalizability refers to whether causal effects can travel from the sample to the population under question (e.g.…”