Examining external control arms in oncology: A scoping review of applications to date
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating the comparative efficacy and safety of new cancer therapies. However, enrolling patients in control arms of clinical trials can be challenging for rare cancers, particularly in the context of precision oncology and targeted therapies. External Control Arms (ECAs) are a potential solution to address these challenges in clinical research design. We conducted a scoping review to explore the use of ECAs in oncology. METHODS: We systematically searched four databases, namely MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligible articles focusing on patients undergoing therapy for cancer, employing ECAs, and reporting clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 629 articles screened, 23 were included in this review. The earliest included studies were published in 1996, while most studies were published in the past 5 years. 44% (10/23) of ECAs were employed in blood-related cancer studies. Geographically, 30% (7/23) of studies were conducted in the United States, 22% (5/23) in Japan, and 9% (2/23) in South Korea. The primary data sources used to construct the ECAs involved pooled data from previous trials (35%, 8/23), administrative health databases (17%, 4/23) and electronic medical records (17%, 4/23). While 52% (12/23) of the studies employed methods to align treatment and ECAs characteristics, 48% (11/23) lacked explicit strategies. CONCLUSION: ECAs offer a valuable approach in oncology research, particularly when alternative designs are not feasible. However, careful methodological planning and detailed reporting are essential for meaningful and reliable results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.117 | 0.353 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.044 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".