Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT04108338

Prospective Comparisons of Clinical Trial and Real-world Outcomes in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

Study results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) usually have been found not adequately inform practice. A RCT is optimized to determine efficacy, while real-world study is conducted in a routine care setting aimed to determine effectiveness. Thus, it is necessary to evaluate the pragmatism of clinical trials for a better understanding of the external generalizability. Nonetheless, comparative pragmatic features of RCTs and real-world studies still lack well elucidation. By capitalizing on a nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC)-specific big-data, real-world database and individual patient data extracted from three landmark RCTs, investigators conducted the direct comparison of NPC cohorts receiving same treatment strategy in clinical trial versus real-world settings, and examined the comparative pragmatic features and their influences on survival outcomes, safety profile, and the probability of returning to society.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

About this study

Study results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) usually have been found not adequately inform practice. A RCT is optimized to determine efficacy. Such trials were performed with relatively small samples at sites with experienced investigators and highly selected participants, they could be overestimating benefits and underestimating harm. Real-world study is conducted in a routine care setting aimed to determine effectiveness. Thus, it is necessary to evaluate the pragmatism of clinical trials for a better understanding of the external generalizability. Nonetheless, comparative pragmatic features of RCTs and real-world studies still lack well elucidation. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a malignant head and neck cancer with the highest incidences in endemic regions such as Southern China, where over 60,600 new cases were diagnosed in 2015 representing 40% of all cases worldwide. Studies conducted in China are critical in optimizing clinical decision-making of NPC. In the past two decades, the recommendation level of induction chemotherapy (IC) + concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) has been improved evidently from Category 3 to 2A, and CCRT alone has long been a stable (Category 2B) and classic treatment option of NPC and therefore becomes the most commonly used control group in comparative studies. By capitalizing on a NPC-specific big-data, real-world database via a cancer registry in Southern China and individual patient data extracted from the three landmark RCTs, investigators conducted the direct comparison on IC+CCRT cohort or CCRT cohort of clinical trial versus real-world settings, and examined the comparative pragmatic features and their influences on survival outcomes, safety profile, and the probability of returning to society, with the aim to provide new insight into the optimization of trial design and the translation of study evidences into tangible benefits.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients treated in our center from April 2009 to December 2016;
  • All patients were pathologically diagnosed, non-metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma;
  • Only included cases staged as T3-4N1 & T1-4N2-3 according to the 6th or 7th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer / Union for International Cancer Control (AJCC/UICC) system;
  • For trial patients, treatment strategies only limited to concurrent chemoradiotherapy, induction chemotherapy combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy, or concurrent chemoradiotherapy combined with adjuvant chemotherapy;
  • For patients from real-world database, patients are permitted to receive additional targeted therapy to standard chemoradiotherapy, as far as it met clinical needs and was approved by physicians.
  • The patient's basic information, prognosis related data, and follow-up data are complete.

Exclusion criteria

  • The clinical stage of T3-4N0 was excluded;
  • Cases from large real-world databases need to exclude patients who participate in clinical trials;

Treatment and study plan

Trial setting

Other

Study results from clinical trials usually have been found not work efficiently in clinical practice. This outcome disparity may be caused by different pragmatic features of medical environment, also known as study setting such as trial setting and real-world setting, in which biases inherent to clinical trial design restrict its applicability even though all confounding factors are avoided.

Other names: Explanatory medical environment, Non-pragmatic features

Primary outcomes

  1. Overall survival

    Time frame: 5-year

    Overall survival is measured from day of diagnosis until death due to any cause or the latest known date alive.

  2. Failure-free survival (FFS)

    Time frame: 5-year

    Failure-free survival is measured from day of diagnosis to locoregional failure, distant failure, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first.

  3. Locoregional failure-free survival (LRFFS)

    Time frame: 5-year

    Locoregional failure-free survival is measured from day of diagnosis to first locoregional failure.

  4. Distant failure-free survival (DFFS)

    Time frame: 5-year

    Distant failure-free survival is measured from day of diagnosis to distant failure.

  5. Probability of studying/work stoppage caused by disease and treatment

    Time frame: 5-year

    Probability of learning (students who are in college/university/school before illness) or work (staff who are working before illness) stoppage due to illness and treatment.

  6. Probability of returning to studying/work after suspending

    Time frame: 5-year

    Probability of returning to learning (students who are in college/university/school before illness) or work (staff who are working before illness) after suspending due to illness and treatment.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Incidence of radioactive brain injury

    Time frame: 5-year

    Incidence of radioactive brain injury according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0).

  2. Incidence of hearing loss

    Time frame: 5-year

    Incidence of hearing loss according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0).

  3. Incidence of blind

    Time frame: 5-year

    Incidence of blind according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0).

  4. Incidence of decreased taste

    Time frame: 5-year

    Incidence of decreased taste according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0).

  5. Incidence of second cancer

    Time frame: 5-year

    Incidence of second cancer according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0).

  6. Incidence of dysphagia

    Time frame: 5-year

    Incidence of dysphagia according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0).

  7. Incidence of malnutrition

    Time frame: 5-year

    Incidence of malnutrition according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0).

  8. Incidence of hypothyroidism

    Time frame: 5-year

    Incidence of hypothyroidism according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0).

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Sun Yat-sen University

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Prospective Comparisons of Survival Outcomes, Safety Profile, and Probability of Returning to Society Between Three Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-world Evidence in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

Important dates

Study start
2019
Primary completion
2019
Study completion
2019
First posted
Sep 30, 2019
Registry last updated
Oct 1, 2019

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.