Generalizing RWE Outcomes and Patient Communication in mCSPC

Panelists discuss how generalizability is one of the most important considerations when applying real-world evidence (RWE) findings to everyday management of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). They note that while large database studies capture outcomes across diverse clinical settings, they can still underrepresent certain patient groups—such as those in rural regions, racial and ethnic minorities, or individuals treated outside major academic centers. Variability in access to imaging, supportive care, and follow-up resources can affect how outcomes translate from data to practice. Understanding these differences helps clinicians interpret whether study findings truly reflect their own patient populations.

Panelists discuss how to interpret comparative RWE responsibly, particularly in the absence of head-to-head randomized trials. Real-world studies often complement, but cannot replace, prospective data. Clinicians are encouraged to evaluate the quality of RWE by considering sample size, cohort balance, and the rigor of statistical adjustments. When counseling patients, providers should emphasize that RWE reflects real clinical practice—showing how therapies perform among people with different health profiles and circumstances—while randomized trials define efficacy under controlled conditions. Communicating these nuances strengthens patient trust and supports informed decision-making.

Panelists discuss how transparent communication transforms complex evidence into actionable guidance. By framing real-world data as an extension of trial knowledge—rather than a contradiction—clinicians can help patients understand why certain therapies are preferred and what outcomes they might realistically expect. This balanced approach allows data to inform, not overwhelm, patients, reinforcing shared decision-making and improving satisfaction with care.