Purpose: Use of real-world data (RWD) for external controls added to single-arm trials (SAT) is increasingly prevalent in regulatory submissions. Due to inherent differences in the data-generating mechanisms, biases can arise. This paper aims to illustrate how to use quantitative bias analysis (QBA).
Methods: Advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) serves as an example, where many small subsets of patients with molecular tumor subtypes exist. First, some sources of bias that may occur in oncology when comparing RWD to SAT are described. Second, using a hypothetical immunotherapy agent, a dataset is simulated based on expert input for survival analysis of advanced NSCLC. Finally, we illustrate the impact of three biases: missing confounder, misclassification of exposure, and outcome evaluation.
Results: For each simulated scenario, bias was induced by removing or adding data; hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated applying conventional analyses. Estimating the bias-adjusted treatment effect and uncertainty required carefully selecting the bias model and bias factors. Although the magnitude of each biased and bias-adjusted HR appeared moderate in all three hypothetical scenarios, the direction of bias was variable.
Conclusion: These findings suggest that QBA can provide an intuitive framework for bias analysis, providing a key means of challenging assumptions about the evidence. However, the accuracy of bias analysis is itself dependent on correct specification of the bias model and bias factors. Ultimately, study design should reduce bias, but QBA allows us to evaluate the impact of unavoidable bias to assess the quality of the evidence.
Keywords: bias factors; external controls; quantitative bias analysis; real‐world data; regulatory decision‐making.
© 2024 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.