  PURPOSE Providing rapid answers and early acces to patients to innovative
treatments without randomized clinical trial (RCT) is growing, with benefit
estimated from single-arm trials. This has become common in oncology, impacting
the approval pathway of health technology assessment agencies. We aimed to
provide some guidance for indirect comparison to external controls to improve
the level of evidence following such uncontrolled designs. METHODS We used the
illustrative example of blinatumomab, a bispecific antibody for the treatment
of B-cell ALL in complete remission (CR) with persistent minimal residual
disease (MRD). Its approval relied on a single-arm trial conducted in 86 adults
with B-cell ALL in CR, with undetectable MRD after one cycle as the main
endpoint. To maximize the validity of indirect comparisons, a 3-step process
for incorporating external control data to such single-arm trial data is
proposed and detailed, with emphasis on the example. RESULTS The first step
includes the definition of estimand, i.e. the treatment effect reflecting the
clinical question. The second step relies on the adequate selection of external
controls, from previous RCT or real-world data (RWD) obtained from patient
cohort, registries, or electronic patient files. The third step consists in
chosing the statistical approach targeting the treatment effect of interest,
either in the whole population or restricted to the single-arm trial or the
external controls, and depending on the available individual-level or
aggregrated external data. CONCLUSION Validity of treatment effect derived from
indirect comparisons heavily depends on carefull methodological considerations
that are included in the proposed 3-step procedure. Because the level of
evidence of a well conducted RCT cannot be guaranteed, post-market
authorization evaluation is even more important than in standard settings.
