A retrospective study reveals that therapies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) may deliver even greater survival benefits in everyday clinical practice than in tightly controlled clinical trials.
The research, conducted using a vast database of patient records, suggests that real-world outcomes for these treatments often surpass expectations set by pivotal randomized clinical trials (RCTs), offering hope for improved patient care and informing future healthcare decisions.
The study, a retrospective analysis of over 4,850 mCRPC patients, focused on five drugs approved by the FDA between 2010 and 2014: abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel, sipuleucel-T, and radium-223. Researchers compared survival data from the Optum Clinformatics Extended DataMart, covering 2009 to 2020, with results from seven pivotal RCTs used for the drugs’ approvals.

The goal was to see how trial outcomes—measured by overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS)—stack up against real-world results.
In clinical trials, these drugs extended median survival to about 23 months compared to 19 months for control groups, with OS hazard ratios ranging from 0.63 to 0.81.

However, in real-world settings, survival gains were often more impressive. When compared to patients treated before the drugs’ approval (pre-launch controls), real-world survival was 22% better than RCT OS estimates and 26% better than rPFS estimates. Even more striking, these benefits grew over time: patients treated 4–6 years after a drug’s launch saw survival gains up to 52% higher than trial predictions.
Lead researchers attribute these findings to several factors. Unlike the controlled settings of RCTs, real-world patients are more diverse in age, ethnicity, and health status, and doctors may refine their ability to select ideal candidates for treatment over time. Improved management of side effects and access to newer therapies could also play a role.
The study’s use of pre-launch controls—patients treated before a drug’s approval—helped address biases from nonrandom treatment choices in real-world settings, where sicker patients might be more likely to receive new therapies. When post-launch controls were used, real-world benefits appeared smaller, highlighting the importance of careful study design.
While the findings are promising, the study has limitations. It relied on claims data from a single insurer, which may not reflect outcomes for uninsured patients or those with other insurance types. The lack of detailed lab results and socioeconomic data also poses challenges. Still, the results underscore the value of real-world evidence in complementing RCT data, especially for guiding treatment.
For patients battling mCRPC, these findings offer optimism that treatments may perform better in practice than in trials. For doctors, they highlight the need to consider how real-world factors—like physician experience and patient diversity—shape treatment success.

Source.