From Prostate Cancer to Oncology: Has the Real-World Evidence Era Arrived?

Cancer therapy research has boomed in recent years. Major drugmakers and startups push CAR-T and antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) trials forward on multiple fronts. They deepen their focus in oncology. Yet the critical moment for translating research into clinical use has shifted. It no longer relies only on traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in tightly controlled settings. Instead, it now deeply integrates real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE). This shift tackles key challenges in the precision medicine era. These challenges arise from deeper studies of rare mutations, uncommon cancers, and complex comorbidities. This article starts with a standout 2026 prostate cancer trial. It explores the changes RWE may bring to regulatory decisions and everyday clinical practice.

Pfizer’s TALAPRO-3 Phase 3 Trial Starts from Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer ranks among the most common malignancies in men worldwide. In many countries it holds first or second place in male cancer incidence. GLOBOCAN 2022 data reports roughly 1.47 million new cases globally in 2022. Population aging and growth will drive that number to about 2.4 million by 2040.

In Taiwan, the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s 2023 Cancer Registry Report ranks prostate cancer third among men. New cases reached 9,062 in 2022. Both incidence and mortality rates have risen sharply in recent years. Early prostate cancer responds well to screening and proper treatment. Still, some patients present with metastases at diagnosis. Others relapse quickly and advance to metastatic disease. When the tumor still responds to androgen suppression therapy, doctors classify it as metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). About 20–25% of these patients carry homologous recombination repair (HRR)gene defects. This group often progresses faster and faces poorer prognosis. This trend has moved poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors forward from late-stage use.

TALAPRO-3 Trial Design

TALAPRO-3 (NCT04821622) is a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. It targets mCSPC patients who have HRR gene alterations. The study compares talazoparib plus enzalutamide against enzalutamide alone. Full results will receive further updates at this year’s ASCO meeting.

The TALAPRO-3 design builds on the biological interaction between androgen receptor (AR) signaling and DNA repair pathways in prostate cancer. Preclinical studies show AR inhibition weakens homologous recombination repair. It creates a BRCAness-like state in tumor cells. The Department of Medical Genetics at National Taiwan University Hospital notes that BRCA-mutated tumor cells display high genomic instability. They have clear defects in double-strand DNA repair. This BRCA-like defect heightens sensitivity to PARP inhibitors. Therefore the trial examines whether adding a PARP inhibitor on top of AR pathway suppression delivers extra clinical benefit at earlier disease stages.

Pfizer released preliminary results. TALAPRO-3 met its primary endpoint. The combination extends radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). It also shows a positive trend in overall survival (OS). Efficacy holds steady across different HRR gene variant subgroups. However, OS data remain early. Long-term follow-up and real-world data will confirm the exact clinical impact.

Real-World Androgen Receptor Pathway Inhibitor Therapy in mCSPC

In daily mCSPC practice, enzalutamide and apalutamide serve as main first-line androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI). Their real efficacy, treatment duration, and sequencing draw vital support from real-world evidence (RWE). This evidence fills gaps that clinical trials leave in population diversity and practical settings. It brings decisions closer to everyday patient care.

A large retrospective study from Flatiron Health’s US oncology electronic medical record database (2013–2025) included 864 patients on enzalutamide and 410 on apalutamide with mCSPC. After inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjustment, the two groups showed no meaningful differences in duration of therapy (DoT), time to next treatment (TTNT), or time to mCRPC progression. The study concludes that enzalutamide and apalutamide deliver similar results in real clinical settings for mCSPC. It supports switching between the two drugs in routine practice. It also highlights how comorbidities and adherence shape outcomes in the real world.

Large phase 3 trials such as ARCHES and TITAN already established survival gains from ARPI combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in mCSPC. Yet more real-world data keep emerging. They steadily close the gap between controlled trials and daily medical care.

FDA Reforms Lower Barriers for RWD and RWE Use

Many experts see 2026 as the turning point for large-scale regulatory adoption of RWD and RWE. Regulatory bodies, academia, and industry continue to advance together. They build stronger consensus on data transparency, methods, and real-world applications.

In December 2025 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued important signals on medical device data requirements. It adjusted earlier expectations for participant-level data submission. Industry views this change as lowering the threshold for real-world data in regulatory decisions. It also prepares the ground for future drug and biologic guidelines.

The FDA places “fit-for-purpose” at the center. It focuses on data relevance and reliability. It applies flexible evaluation according to each specific application. The agency does not limit data sources to one type. Instead it welcomes electronic health records (EHR), insurance claims, disease registries, and even digital health tools. As long as the study design is rigorous and data are verifiable and traceable, they can support regulatory decisions. Still, the FDA notes that the need for individual-level data depends on the review goal and evidence strength. It does not apply universally.

Experts across the field agree that this regulatory flexibility boosts research in oncology. It helps especially in rare mutations or small patient groups where traditional RCTs are difficult to run. In those cases RWE can act as important supplemental evidence. It supports evaluation of both efficacy and safety.

RCT vs Real-World Data/Evidence Comparison:

Author

Steven Chung

紅杏枝頭春意鬧固然是眾人所追求的風景，但我願意說，青蘿拂行衣更能湧生感嘆。 願在海量晦澀的生醫資訊中，為您點亮一座心燈塔。鐘煌翔