Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials of novel treatments for solid tumors normally measure disease progression using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. However, novel, scalable approaches to estimate disease progression using real-world data are needed to advance cancer outcomes research. The purpose of this narrative review is to summarize examples from the existing literature on approaches to estimate real-world disease progression and their relative strengths and limitations, using lung cancer as a case study. METHODS: A narrative literature review was conducted in PubMed to identify articles that used approaches to estimate real-world disease progression in lung cancer patients. Data abstracted included data source, approach used to estimate real-world progression, and comparison to a selected gold standard (if applicable). RESULTS: A total of 40 articles were identified from 2008 to 2022. Five approaches to estimate real-world disease progression were identified including manual abstraction of medical records, natural language processing of clinical notes and/or radiology reports, treatment-based algorithms, changes in tumor volume, and delta radiomics-based approaches. The accuracy of these progression approaches were assessed using different methods, including correlations between real-world endpoints and overall survival for manual abstraction (Spearman rank ρ = 0.61-0.84) and area under the curve for natural language processing approaches (area under the curve = 0.86-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Real-world disease progression has been measured in several observational studies of lung cancer. However, comparing the accuracy of methods across studies is challenging, in part, because of the lack of a gold standard and the different methods used to evaluate accuracy. Concerted efforts are needed to define a gold standard and quality metrics for real-world data.