Addressing Skepticism Around RWE in mCSPC

Panelists discuss how addressing skepticism around real-world evidence (RWE) is critical to its meaningful integration into clinical practice for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). They acknowledge that some clinicians remain hesitant to rely on retrospective or observational data, citing concerns about bias, confounding, and lack of randomization. The panel emphasizes that while these limitations exist, RWE complements—not replaces—clinical trial data by providing insight into how therapies perform across broader, more diverse patient populations that are often underrepresented in controlled studies.

Panelists discuss how to bridge this gap among colleagues by focusing on transparency, data quality, and methodological rigor. Demonstrating that modern RWE studies use advanced analytic techniques—such as propensity score matching, active comparator designs, and sensitivity analyses—helps increase confidence in the findings. Sharing peer-reviewed publications, highlighting alignment between RWE and randomized-trial outcomes, and illustrating how these data inform real-world clinical decisions can further reduce skepticism. Practical examples, such as how RWE has helped refine ARPI sequencing or manage patients with comorbidities, make the evidence more tangible and relatable for clinicians.

Panelists discuss how open dialogue and collaboration between academic and community providers strengthen trust in RWE applications. By viewing real-world data as an extension of daily experience rather than an abstract dataset, clinicians can appreciate its value in improving patient care. The panel underscores that when applied thoughtfully, RWE enhances—not challenges—the evidence hierarchy, ensuring that treatment decisions are grounded in both science and the lived realities of patients.