Current Activities of the Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups

Fundamentals of Conducting Cooperative Group Trials Through the National Clinical Trials Network

This review discusses the benefits of performing multidisciplinary trials through the cooperative group mechanism, outlines the process from trial concept to activation, and discusses opportunities for surgeons to become involved in cancer cooperative trials.

Creating and Implementing a Principal Investigator Tool Kit for Enhancing Accrual to Late Phase Clinical Trials: Development and Usability Study

Background

Accrual to oncology clinical trials remains a challenge, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. For late phase clinical trials funded by the National Cancer Institute, the development of these research protocols is a resource-intensive process; however, mechanisms to optimize patient accrual after trial activation are underdeveloped across the National Clinical Trial Network (NCTN). Low patient accrual can lead to the premature closure of clinical trials and can ultimately delay the availability of new, potentially life-saving therapies in oncology.

Objective

The purpose of this study is to formally create an easily implemented tool kit of resources for investigators of oncology clinical trials within the NCTN, specifically the NRG Oncology cooperative group, in order to optimize patient accrual.

Methods

NRG Oncology sought to formally develop a tool kit of resources to use at specific time points during the lifetime of NRG Oncology clinical trials. The tools are clearly described and involve the facilitation of engagement of the study principal investigator with the scientific and patient advocate community during the planning, activation, and accrual periods. Social media tools are also leveraged to enhance such engagement. The principal investigator (PI) tool kit was created in 2019 and thereafter piloted with the NRG Oncology/Alliance NRG-LU005 phase II or III trial in small-cell lung cancer. The PI tool kit was developed by the NRG Oncology Protocol Operations Management committee and was tested with the NRG/Alliance LU005 randomized trial within the NCTN.

Results

NRG Oncology/Alliance NRG-LU005 has seen robust enrollment, currently 127% of the projected accrual. Importantly, many of the tool kit elements are already being used in ongoing NRG Oncology trials, with 56% of active NRG trials using at least one element of the PI tool kit and all in-development trials offered the resource. This underscores the feasibility and potential benefits of deploying the PI tool kit across all NRG Oncology trials moving forward.

Conclusions

While clinical trial accrual can be challenging, the PI tool kit has been shown to augment accrual in a low-cost and easily implementable fashion. It could be widely and consistently deployed across the NCTN to improve accrual in oncology clinical trials.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03811002; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03811002

Availability of results of academic randomized trials involving cooperative groups in oncology in France: A systematic search of clinical trial registries

BACKGROUND

Cooperative groups' involvement is increasing in academic oncological research. We aimed to assess the impact of sponsoring by cooperative groups in France on the availability of results of academic randomized trials in oncology.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search using ClinicalTrials.gov and the European Clinical Trials Register. We searched for all academic randomized trials in oncology conducted in France between January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2015. The inclusion criteria were: completed or terminated, phase 2 or 3 randomized trials with an academic (non-industry) sponsor. The main outcome was the publication of the results of trial (either as a journal article or as posting results in a registry) across each type of sponsor.

RESULTS

We included 211 randomized trials, mainly phase 3 (n = 135, 64%) and evaluating pharmacological treatments (n = 149, 71%). French cooperative groups were involved in 69 trials (33%), as part of a collaboration in one third (n = 23) of instances. Seventy-one (34%) trials were run by oncologic hospitals, 50 (23%) by university hospitals, and 21 (10%) by European organizations. Seventy-seven randomized trials (36%) had available results (published n = 73, posted n = 6). Cooperative groups were involved in half of those that have been published (37/73). The cumulative probability of results availability was 57% for cooperative groups, 41% for European organizations, 32% for oncologic hospitals, and 17% for university hospital at 10 years from the beginning of trials (p = 0.0006). In the case of collaboration with cooperative groups, the cumulative probability of results availability achieved 59% for university hospitals and 74% for oncologic hospitals.

CONCLUSION

The availability of results of randomized trials in oncology remains limited and almost exclusively through publications, but is higher when cooperative groups are involved.

POLICY SUMMARY

Sponsoring by a cooperative group should become the rule in academic trials to increase availability of trial results.

Industry Sponsor Influence in Clinical Trial Reporting in Canada: A Qualitative Interview Study

PURPOSE

Approximately 40% of randomized controlled trials are not published, leading to publication bias and less informed clinical decision-making. Qualitative interviews were conducted to understand whether and how industry sponsors of clinical trials of drugs and biologics in Canada influence decisions to report trial results.

METHODS

Participants eligible for an interview included clinical trial investigators and research coordinators with experience in drug research, research ethics board members with at least 1 year of experience in ethical review of trials, research administrators with knowledge of dissemination of clinical trial findings or relations with trial sponsors, and trial participants who had taken part in a drug trial as an adult in the 5 years before their interview. Semi-structured interviews were held in person or by telephone between March 2019 and April 2021 with participants in Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario, Canada. Qualitative analysis included coding of interview transcripts and identification of key themes.

FINDINGS

Interviews were conducted with 34 participants, including 17 clinical trial investigators, 1 clinical research coordinator, 3 research administrators, 3 research ethics board members, and 10 clinical trial participants. Participants involved in the conduct, administration, or ethical review of trials represented a range of medical disciplines. Interview participant accounts indicated that in some cases, industry sponsors influence whether results are reported. A core theme was that companies have a weaker incentive to publish trials with unfavorable findings and trials for products that they have decided not to develop further. Companies may influence reporting in various ways, including stopping trials early and not reporting results of stopped trials, owning and controlling access to data, and negotiating clinical trial agreements in multicenter trials that do not fully protect the ability of investigators to publish. Internal company trials represent an additional source of unpublished trials. More broadly, the research system creates a dependency on funding from industry sponsors that may weaken the ability of researchers and research institutions to negotiate terms with industry sponsors that would fully protect publication rights.

IMPLICATIONS

Interviews with trial investigators and others connected to trial research indicate that in some cases, industry sponsors of clinical trial research in Canada influence whether results are reported. Policies aiming to bring about full reporting of trials could benefit from considering the commercial incentives of companies and the ways in which industry sponsors may influence clinical trial reporting. Future research could examine the generalizability of these findings to other jurisdictions.