A sense of urgency: Evaluating the link between clinical trial development time and the accrual performance of cancer therapy evaluation program (NCI-CTEP) sponsored studies

Patient Enrollment per Month (Accrual) in Clinical Trials Leading to the FDA Approval of New Cancer Drugs

BACKGROUND

Insufficient patient enrollment per month (=accrual) is the leading cause of cancer trial termination.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and quantify factors associated with patient accrual in trials leading to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of new cancer drugs.

DATA

All anti-cancer drugs with FDA approval were identified in the Drugs@FDA database (2000-2022). Data on drug indication's background-, treatment-, disease-, and trial-related factors were collected from FDA labels, clinicaltrials.gov, and the Global Burden of Disease study. The association between patient accrual and collected variables was assessed in Poisson regression models reporting adjusted rate ratios (aRR).

RESULTS

We identified 170 drugs with approval in 455 cancer indications on the basis of 292 randomized and 163 single-arm trials. Among randomized trials, median enrollment per month was 38 patients (interquartile range [IQR]: 26-54) for non-orphan, 21 (IQR: 15-38, aRR 0.88, p = 0.361) for common orphan, 20 (IQR: 10-35, aRR 0.73, p <0.001) for rare orphan, and 8 (IQR 6-12, aRR 0.30, p < 0.001) for ultra-rare orphan indications. Patient enrollment was positively associated with disease burden [aRR: 1.0003 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY), p < 0.001), trial sites (aRR: 1.001 per site, p < 0.001), participating countries (aRR: 1.02 per country, p < 0.001), and phase 3 vs. 1/2 trials (aRR: 1.64, p = 0.037). Enrollment was negatively associated with advanced-line vs. first-line treatments (aRR: 0.81, p = 0.010) and monotherapy vs. combination treatments (aRR: 0.80, p = 0.007). Patient enrollment per month was similar between indications with and without a biomarker (median: 27 vs. 32, aRR 0.80, p = 0.117). Patient enrollment per month was substantially lower in government-sponsored than industry-sponsored trials (median: 14 vs. 32, aRR 0.80, p = 0.209). Enrollment was not associated with randomization ratios, crossover, and study blinding.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease incidence and disease burden alongside the number of study sites and participating countries are the main drivers of patient enrollment in clinical trials. For rare disease trials, greater financial incentives could help expedite patient enrollment. Novel trial design features, including skewed randomization, crossover, or open-label masking, did not entice patient enrollment.

Clinical Trials in Gastroesophageal Cancers: An Analysis of the Global Landscape of Interventional Trials From ClinicalTrials.gov

PURPOSE

To describe the global landscape of clinical research into interventions for gastroesophageal cancers (GECs), with examination of trial characteristics, geographic distribution of trial sites, and factors associated with trial termination.

METHODS

We queried ClinicalTrials.gov to identify all completed or terminated phase III interventional studies investigating GECs (esophageal squamous cell carcinoma [ESCC], esophageal adenocarcinoma [EAC], gastroesophageal junctional [GEJ], and gastric adenocarcinoma). Data on all reported trial characteristics were extracted. Pearson's chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare differences in completed and terminated trials. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated predictors of termination.

RESULTS

A total of 179 trials were identified; of these, 90% were therapeutic. Most included sites in Asia (61%) and Europe (32%); few included sites in Africa (4%). Thirty percent included sites in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Most (70%) focused on gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma, 13% on EAC and ESCC, and 9% on ESCC alone. Sixteen percent (n = 29) of trials terminated prematurely. In multivariate analysis, study site number, location of recruitment sites, and patient population emerged as predictors of termination. Trials recruiting from US-based sites were more likely to terminate (odds ratio [OR], 7.22 [95% CI, 1.59 to 32.69]). Trials conducted exclusively in LMICs were less likely to terminate (OR, 0.04 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.59] v conducted in high-income countries [HICs] alone). Studies on ESCC were more likely to terminate (OR, 17.74 [95% CI, 1.49 to 210.69]).

CONCLUSION

Although 80% of GECs occur in LMICs, trial activity disproportionately occurs in HICs. Few trials focus on EAC/ESCC despite being highly fatal, highlighting an unmet need. Overall, this study highlights (1) a missed opportunity to recruit patients from high-incidence regions globally; and (2) a pressing need for increasing funding, infrastructure, and support for GEC trials in LMICs.

What Is Ailing Oncology Clinical Trials? Can We Fix Them?

Evidence from phase three clinical trials helps shape clinical practice. However, a very small minority of patients with cancer participate in clinical trials and many trials are not completed on time due to slow accrual. Issues with restrictive eligibility criteria can severely limit the patients who can access trials, without any convincing evidence that these restrictions impact patient safety. Similarly, regulatory, organizational, and institutional hurdles can delay trial activation, ultimately making some studies irrelevant. Additional issues during trial conduct (e.g., mandatory in-person visits, central confirmation of standard biomarkers, and inflexible drug dosage modification) contribute to making trials non-patient-centric. These real-life observations from experienced clinical trialists can seem nonsensical to investigators and patients alike, who are trying to bring effective drugs to patients with cancer. In this review, we delve into these issues in detail, and discuss potential solutions to make clinical trials more accessible to patients.

Evaluating a Physician Audit and Feedback Intervention to Increase Clinical Trial Enrollment in Radiation Oncology in a Multisite Tertiary Cancer Center: A Randomized Study

PURPOSE

Clinical trial participation continues to be low, slowing new cancer therapy development. Few strategies have been prospectively tested to address barriers to enrollment. We investigated the effectiveness of a physician audit and feedback report to improve clinical trial enrollment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted a randomized quality improvement study among radiation oncologists at a multisite tertiary cancer network. Physicians in the intervention group received quarterly audit and feedback reports comparing the physician's trial enrollments with those of their peers. The primary outcome was trial enrollments.

RESULTS

Among physicians randomized to receive the feedback report (n = 30), the median proportion of patients enrolled during the study period increased to 6.1% (IQR, 2.6%-9.3%) from 3.2% (IQR, 1.1%-10%) at baseline. Among those not receiving the feedback report (n = 29), the median proportion of patients enrolled increased to 4.1% (IQR, 1.3%-7.6%) from 1.6% (IQR, 0%-4.1%) at baseline. There was a nonsignificant change in the proportion of enrollments associated with receiving the feedback report (-0.6%; 95% CI, -3.0% to 1.8%; P = .6). Notably, there was an interaction between baseline trial accrual and receipt of feedback reports (P = .005), with enrollment declining among high accruers. There was an increase in enrollment throughout the study, regardless of study group (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, a positive effect of physician audit and feedback on clinical trial enrollment was not observed. Future efforts should avoid disincentivizing high accruers and might consider pairing feedback with other patient- or physician-level strategies. The increase in trial enrollment in both groups over time highlights the importance of including a comparison group in quality improvement studies to reduce confounding from secular trends.

The Next Horizon of Drug Development: External Control Arms and Innovative Tools to Enrich Clinical Trial Data

Conducting clinical trials (CTs) has become increasingly costly and complex in terms of designing and operationalizing. These challenges exist in running CTs on novel therapies, particularly in oncology and rare diseases, where CTs increasingly target narrower patient groups. In this study, we describe external control arms (ECA) and other relevant tools, such as virtualization and decentralized clinical trials (DCTs), and the ability to follow the clinical trial subjects in the real world using tokenization. ECAs are typically constructed by identifying appropriate external sources of data, then by cleaning and standardizing it to create an analysis-ready data file, and finally, by matching subjects in the external data with the subjects in the CT of interest. In addition, ECA tools also include subject-level meta-analysis and simulated subjects' data for analyses. By implementing the recent advances in digital health technologies and devices, virtualization, and DCTs, realigning of CTs from site-centric designs to virtual, decentralized, and patient-centric designs can be done, which reduces the patient burden to participate in the CTs and encourages diversity. Tokenization technology allows linking the CT data with real-world data (RWD), creating more comprehensive and longitudinal outcome measures. These tools provide robust ways to enrich the CT data for informed decision-making, reduce the burden on subjects and costs of trial operations, and augment the insights gained for the CT data.

Accrual Quality Improvement Program for clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The Early Phase Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials Program (Consortia), led by the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, supports and conducts trials assessing safety, tolerability, and cancer preventive potential of a variety of interventions. Accrual to cancer prevention trials includes the recruitment of unaffected populations, posing unique challenges related to minimizing participant burden and risk, given the less evident or measurable benefits to individual participants. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program was developed to address these challenges and better understand the multiple determinants of accrual activity throughout the life of the trial. Through continuous monitoring of accrual data, Accrual Quality Improvement Program identifies positive and negative factors in real-time to optimize enrollment rates for ongoing and future trials.

METHODS

The Accrual Quality Improvement Program provides a web-based centralized infrastructure for collecting, analyzing, visualizing, and storing qualitative and quantitative participant-, site-, and study-level data. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program approaches cancer prevention clinical trial accrual as multi-factorial, recognizing protocol design, potential participants' characteristics, and individual site as well as study-wide implementation issues.

RESULTS

The Accrual Quality Improvement Program was used across 39 Consortia trials from 2014 to 2022 to collect comprehensive trial information. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program captures data at the participant level, including number of charts reviewed, potential participants contacted and reasons why participants were not eligible for contact or did not consent to the trial or start intervention. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program also captures site-level (e.g. staffing issues) and study-level (e.g. when protocol amendments are made) data at each step of the recruitment/enrollment process, from potential participant identification to contact, consent, intervention, and study completion using a Recruitment Journal. Accrual Quality Improvement Program's functionality also includes tracking and visualization of a trial's cumulative accrual rate compared to the projected accrual rate, including a zone-based performance rating with corresponding quality improvement intervention recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The challenges associated with recruitment and timely completion of early phase cancer prevention clinical trials necessitate a data collection program capable of continuous collection and quality improvement. The Accrual Quality Improvement Program collects cumulative data across National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Prevention early phase clinical trials, providing the opportunity for real-time review of participant-, site-, and study-level data and thereby enables responsive recruitment strategy and protocol modifications for improved recruitment rates to ongoing trials. Of note, Accrual Quality Improvement Program data collected from ongoing trials will inform future trials to optimize protocol design and maximize accrual efficiency.

Choosing Wisely: Applying Value-Based Economic Principles to Population Science Research Investment

Scientific research requires a substantial investment of time, effort, and money by researchers and funders. The funding that would be needed for all meritorious proposals far exceeds available resources. Major funding organizations use a multistep process for allocating research dollars that follows and extends beyond scientific peer review with considerations including mission priority, budget, and potential duplication of past or ongoing research activities. At the level of programmatic review, the process tends to be less proscribed than scientific review, but considerations relate to and are akin to basic value-driven economic principles. We propose a framework that encompasses the elements of programmatic review and provide examples of how the economic principles of opportunity costs, diminishing marginal productivity, sunk costs, economic optimization, return on investment, and option value apply to both research planning and funding decisions. Examples use cancer control population science research, as the nature of observational and interventional research involves large population studies (large sample size, recruitment, and often long-duration follow-up costs) which demand a high level of resource utilization; the same principles can be applied throughout medical and population health research. Awareness of the aspects of programmatic review and context to focus discussion regarding funding decisions may help guide research planning, decision-making, and increase transparency of the overall review process.

Direct-to-Consumer Recruitment Methods via Traditional and Social Media to Aid in Research Accrual for Clinical Trials for Rare Diseases: Comparative Analysis Study

BACKGROUND

Recruitment into clinical trials is a challenging process, with as many as 40% of studies failing to meet their target sample sizes. The principles of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising rely upon novel marketing strategies. The ability to reach expansive audiences in the web-based realm presents a unique opportunity for researchers to overcome various barriers to enrollment in clinical trials. Research has investigated the use of individual web-based platforms to aid in recruitment and accrual into trials; however, a gap in the literature exists, whereby multiple mass communication platforms have yet to be investigated across a range of clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

There is a need to better understand how individual factors combine to collectively influence trial recruitment. We aimed to test whether DTC recruitment of potentially eligible study participants via social media platforms (eg, Facebook [Meta Platforms Inc] and Twitter [Twitter Inc]) was an effective strategy or whether this acted as an enhancement to traditional (eg, email via contact registries) recruitment strategies through established clinical research sites.

METHODS

This study tested multiple DTC web-based recruitment efforts (Facebook, Twitter, email, and patient advocacy group [PAG] involvement) across 6 national and international research studies from 5 rare disease consortia. Targeted social media messaging, social media management software, and individual study websites with prescreening questions were used in the Protocol for Increasing Accrual Using Social Media (PRISM).

RESULTS

In total, 1465 PRISM website referrals occurred across all 6 studies. Organic (unpaid) Facebook posts (676/1465, 46.14%) and Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network patient contact registry emails (461/1465, 31.47%) represented the most successful forms of engagement. PRISM was successful in accumulating a 40.1% (136/339) lead generation (those who screened positive and consented to share their contact information to be contacted by a clinical site coordinator). Despite the large number of leads generated from PRISM recruitment efforts, the number of patients who were subsequently enrolled in studies was low. Across 6 studies, 3 participants were ultimately enrolled, meaning that 97.8% (133/136) of leads dropped off.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that although accrual results were low, this is consistent with previously documented challenges of studying populations with rare diseases. Targeted messaging integrated throughout the recruitment process (eg, referral, lead, and accrual) remains an area for further research. Key elements to consider include structuring the communicative workflow in such a way that PAG involvement is central to the process, with clinical site coordinators actively involved after an individual consents to share their contact information. Customized approaches are needed for each population and research study, with observational studies best suited for social media recruitment. As evidenced by lead generation, results suggest that web-based recruitment efforts, coupled with targeted messaging and PAG partnerships, have the potential to supplement clinical trial accrual.

Review of Clinical Equipoise: Examples from Oncology Trials

BACKGROUND

The current standards that govern clinical research have been shaped over the years through many historical, social, and political events. The third principle of the Belmont Report, Justice, guides the scientific community toward the equal distribution of benefits and risks in research involving human subjects. Clinical equipoise is the status of genuine uncertainty by the investigator about the superiority of one treatment arm over the other. The term clinical equipoise was proposed to provide an ethical ground to conduct randomized controlled clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to provide the reader with an overview of the emergence of the term equipoise and its utilization in randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

In the current review article, the major oncology clinical trials and relevant patents were reviewed for the application/utilization of clinical equipoise.

RESULTS

The concept of clinical equipoise has been challenged, and different alternatives were proposed. Yet, these alternatives received numerous critiques and failed to fully replace equipoise. In addition, several patents related to anticancer agents tested in the described studies were examined. No specific reference was made as part of the patent to the status of clinical equipoise. Alternatively, a description of the study arms was provided.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for revisiting the concept of equipoise and its suggested alternatives for its ethical essence while addressing related challenges.

Can we predict trial failure among older adult-specific clinical trials using trial-level factors?

INTRODUCTION

Conducting older adult-specific clinical trials can help overcome the lack of clinical evidence for older adults due to their underrepresentation in clinical trials. Understanding factors contributing to the successful completion of such trials can help trial sponsors and researchers prioritize studies and optimize study design. We aimed to develop a model that predicts trial failure among older adult-specific cancer clinical trials using trial-level factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified phase 2-4 interventional cancer clinical trials that ended between 2008 and 2019 and had the minimum age limit of 60 years old or older using Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov data. We defined trial failure as closed early for reasons other than interim results or toxicity or completed with a sample of <85% of the targeted size. Candidate trial-level predictors were identified from a literature review. We evaluated eight types of machine learning algorithms to find the best model. Model fitting and testing were performed using 5-fold nested cross-validation. We evaluated the model performance using the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

RESULTS

Of 209 older adult-specific clinical trials, 87 were failed trials per the definition of trial failure. The model with the highest AUROC in the validation set was the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (AUROC in the test set = 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53, 0.86). Trial-level factors included in the best model were the study sponsor, the number of participating centers, the number of modalities, the level of restriction on performance score, study location, the number of arms, life expectancy restriction, and the number of target size. Among these factors, the number of centers (odds ratio [OR] = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.71, 0.94), study being in non-US only vs. US only (OR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.82), and life expectancy restriction (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.04, 4.73) were significantly associated with the trial failure.

DISCUSSION

We identified trial-level factors predictive of trial failure among older adult-specific clinical trials and developed a prediction model that can help estimate the risk of failure before a study is conducted. The study findings could aid in the design and prioritization of future older adult-specific clinical trials.

For insights into the real world, consider real-world data

Randomized control trials (RCTs) are required before drug and device approvals and have contributed to patient safety, but they have also increased the cost and time of regulatory assessments. We propose that using real-world evidence to complement or, in some settings, to replace RCTs will accelerate delivery of new drugs to patients.

Success and failure factors of patient recruitment for industry-sponsored clinical trials and the role of the electronic health records-a qualitative interview study in the Nordic countries

Background

Patient recruitment for clinical trials is challenging—only approximately one third of all trials recruit their participants as planned. The pharmaceutical industry’s views on recruitment success have not been comprehensively investigated, although the industry globally conducts almost one third of all clinical drug trials. This study explored patient recruitment success and failure factors and the role of electronic health records (EHR) in the recruitment of trial participants in the Nordic countries.

Methods

A descriptive qualitative interview study was conducted with 21 representatives of the pharmaceutical industry or contract research organizations operating in Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. The interviews covered 34 clinical pre-market drug trials. Qualitative data were analyzed using inductive content analysis.

Results

Four main categories were derived to represent both success and failure factors, whereas a fifth category represented only failure factors: (1) sponsor-related (protocol and trial preparation and feasibility evaluations), (2) site/investigator-related (access to patients, motivation, commitment and resources), (3) patient-related recruitment factors (medical need, patients’ role in their care and attitudes towards trials), (4) Sponsor—sites—patients collaboration factors, and (5) start-up related factors. EHR was the most important source of recruitment, utilized in 29 out of 34 trials discussed. Revision of the legislation regulating the secondary use of EHR was highlighted as the most effective measure to facilitate the use of EHR in recruitment of trial participants.

Conclusions

The industry representatives recognized quite well their own role in contributing to the success or failure of the recruitment: to facilitate recruitment of trial participants, many obstacles can be avoided with better trial preparation and proper feasibility evaluations. As access to patients represents one of the key success or failure factors of recruitment, and as the EHR is regarded the main source of searching for and finding patients, the development of EHR utilization appears to represent a powerful tool to improve patient recruitment.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06144-9.

Pilot Feasibility Study of a Video Intervention to Educate Patients with Breast Cancer About Clinical Trials

The purpose of this project was to develop and test the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a video about cancer clinical trials (CCTs) developed for breast cancer patients. We developed 2 brief 7-min videos that focused on breast cancer patients describing their experiences participating in CCTs, supplemented with doctors and research staff explaining key research concepts. One video was culturally tailored to Black patients and the other to White patients. To assess feasibility study, participants and their care providers completed a survey to evaluate their satisfaction with the video. Eligibility criteria for the study included ≥ 21 years of age, English-speaking, no prior experience participating in a CCT, and being potentially eligible for breast CCT enrollment. Preliminary efficacy was evaluated with a pretest-posttest design using a single item asking about intent to enroll in a clinical trial. The mean age of the patient sample (n = 50) was 53.0 years, and 50.0% were Black. Participants reported that the video was in the right length, useful, and easy to understand. Providers' evaluation (n = 5) revealed that viewing the video helped prepare patients for further CCT discussion. Preliminary efficacy showed no statistically significant difference in participant interest in CCT enrollment pre- and post-video. Changes in patients' intent in enrollment were associated with age and education. Culturally adapted video interventions can be helpful in supporting both patients and providers throughout the CCT education process but additional work is needed to improve enrollment into clinical trials.

Prediction of clinical trial enrollment rates

Clinical trials represent a critical milestone of translational and clinical sciences. However, poor recruitment to clinical trials has been a long standing problem affecting institutions all over the world. One way to reduce the cost incurred by insufficient enrollment is to minimize initiating trials that are most likely to fall short of their enrollment goal. Hence, the ability to predict which proposed trials will meet enrollment goals prior to the start of the trial is highly beneficial. In the current study, we leveraged a data set extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov that consists of 46,724 U.S. based clinical trials from 1990 to 2020. We constructed 4,636 candidate predictors based on data collected by ClinicalTrials.gov and external sources for enrollment rate prediction using various state-of-the-art machine learning methods. Taking advantage of a nested time series cross-validation design, our models resulted in good predictive performance that is generalizable to future data and stable over time. Moreover, information content analysis revealed the study design related features to be the most informative feature type regarding enrollment. Compared to the performance of models built with all features, the performance of models built with study design related features is only marginally worse (AUC = 0.78 ± 0.03 vs. AUC = 0.76 ± 0.02). The results presented can form the basis for data-driven decision support systems to assess whether proposed clinical trials would likely meet their enrollment goal.

Trial-level factors affecting accrual and completion of oncology clinical trials: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cancer is the second-leading cause of death in the United States. Clinical trials translate basic science discoveries into treatments needed by cancer patients. Inadequate accrual of trial participants is one of the most significant barriers to the completion of oncology clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate trial-level factors that affect accrual and/or completion of oncology clinical trials, identify gaps in the literature, and indicate opportunities for future research.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the literature on trial-level factors that affect accrual and/or completion of oncology clinical trials was performed. Searches in PubMed and Scopus identified 6582 studies. Based on eligibility criteria, 16 studies were selected for the review. Results were analyzed according to the following: a) background factors, b) disease-related, c) treatment-related, and d) trial design.

RESULTS

Background factors that were investigated in relation to oncology clinical trial accrual and/or completion included sponsor, number and location of participating institutions, competing trials, time of trial opening, and fast-track status. Disease-related factors included the annual incidence and type(s) of targeted cancer. Several types of treatment such as drugs, radiation and surgery were examined in the studies. Trial design factors included trial development time, eligibility criteria, randomization, sample size, trial phase, placebo use, and required protocol procedures and their timing.

CONCLUSION

With low patient participation rates in oncology clinical trials that hold promise for future treatments, it is imperative that trial-level factors affecting accrual be identified and addressed to facilitate the completion of trials.

Positive attitudes toward clinical trials among military veterans leaves unanswered questions about poor trial accrual

Participation in clinical trials is essential to bringing novel and innovative cancer treatments to the bedside but trials that specifically enroll Veterans are relatively few. Given the inherent differences between Veterans and the general United States population, we sought to investigate awareness of and attitudes toward clinical trials among Veterans diagnosed with cancer at a large, urban Veterans Administration Medical Center in Bronx, New York. The survey was administered in 2018-2019. Questions assessed sociodemographic characteristics, health literacy, and general attitudes about clinical trials. Based on key informant interviews, we also inquired about military-specific attitudes. Univariable analyses were conducted to evaluate differences in attitudes by age (<65 v ≥65 years) and race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic black v other). Of 115 Veterans approached, 67 (58.3%) completed the survey. Approximately 95% of participants were male, 59.7% were ≥65 years old, and 41.8% were non-Hispanic black. Only 58.2% reported knowing what a clinical trial is but 78.5% of Veterans stated that they trust doctors who do medical research and 87.5% reported they would strongly consider joining a trial if their VA primary care physician recommended it. Many stated that they would be part of a clinical trial if it would help fellow Veterans in the future (93.8%) and would help scientists learn how to treat other Veterans with the same disease (93.8%). Among non-Hispanic black participants, 62.5% agreed that the government has a history of using Veterans in experiments without their knowledge compared to 34.2% of Veterans of other race/ethnicity (P = 0.03). Clearly Veterans in our study were amenable to joining clinical trials. While many are aware of past misconduct in the treatment of military personnel in research, overall attitudes toward clinical trials were favorable and were especially positive when the possibility of improving cancer care for fellow Veterans was considered. In approaching Veterans regarding participation in a clinical trial we recommend education aligned with the literacy level of the Veteran, involvement of the VA primary care provider in clinical trial decisions, and awareness of a Veteran's altruism to help others.

Impact of Broadening Trial Eligibility Criteria for Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Real-World Analysis of Select ASCO-Friends Recommendations

PURPOSE

Cancer clinical trials often accrue slowly or miss enrollment targets. Strict eligibility criteria are a major reason. Restrictive criteria also limit opportunities for patient participation while compromising external validity of trial results. We examined the impact of broadening select eligibility criteria on characteristics and number of patients eligible for trials, using recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A retrospective, observational analysis used electronic health record data from ASCO's CancerLinQ Discovery database. Study cohort included patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated from 2011 to 2018. Patients were grouped by traditional criteria [no brain metastases, no other malignancies, and creatinine clearance (CrCl) ≥ 60 mL/minute] and broadened criteria (including brain metastases, other malignancies, and CrCl ≥ 30 mL/minute).

RESULTS

The analysis cohort included 10,500 patients. Median age was 68 years, and 73% of patients were White. Most patients had stage IV disease (65%). A total of 5,005 patients (48%) would be excluded from trial participation using the traditional criteria. The broadened criteria, however, would allow 98% of patients (10,346) to be potential participants. Examination of patients included by traditional criteria (5,495) versus those added (4,851) by broadened criteria showed that the number of women, patients aged 75+ years, and those with stage IV cancer was significantly greater using broadened criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of real-world data demonstrated that broadening three common eligibility criteria has the potential to double the eligible patient population and include trial participants who are more representative of those encountered in practice.See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369.

Clinical Trial Metrics: The Complexity of Conducting Clinical Trials in North American Cancer Centers

Cancer clinical trials offices (CTOs) support the investigation of cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment at cancer centers across North America. CTOs are a centralized resource for clinical trial conduct and typically use research staff with expertise in four functional areas of clinical research: finance, regulatory, clinical, and data operations. To our knowledge, there are no publicly available benchmark data sets that characterize the size, cost, volume, and efficiency of these offices, nor whether the metrics differ by National Cancer Institute (NCI) designation. The Association of American Cancer Institutes (AACI) Clinical Research Innovation (CRI) steering committee developed a survey to address this knowledge gap.

Unfinished business: Terminated cancer trials and the relevance of treatment intent, sponsors and intervention types

The aim of the study was to report on the association of trial sponsors with intervention type, treatment intent, recruitment success and reasons to terminate cancer trials. The ClinicalTrials database was searched for interventional Phase 3 cancer trials (01/2006-05/2017). Noncancer studies and ongoing studies were excluded, permanently suspended studies were counted as terminated. Trials were stratified according to sponsors (industry/nonindustry), intervention type, setting (curative/palliative) and intent of intervention (curative/symptom-control/life-extending). We identified 345 terminated trials and 1137 completed studies as a control group. The frequency of premature termination did not differ significantly between sponsors. Time to termination was shorter but recruitment per month prior to termination was higher in industry-sponsored studies (7.0 vs 2.2 patients/month; P < .001). Drug interventions were more common in industry-sponsored, all other interventions in nonindustry-sponsored settings (P < .001). Life-extending palliative interventions occurred more frequently, symptom-control interventions in a curative setting less frequently in industry-sponsored trials (both P < .001). Intervention, setting and intent were not associated with termination in industry-sponsored trials. In nonindustry-sponsored trials, the frequency of drug interventions and life-extending (noncurative) interventions were increased in terminated trials (both P < .05); symptom-control interventions in curative settings occurred more frequently in completed studies. Industry-sponsored trials were more often terminated due to toxicity/inefficacy while lack of accrual occurred more frequently in nonindustry-sponsored trials (P < .01). Interventions, treatment setting/intent and reasons for termination differed between sponsor types. In nonindustry-sponsored trials, drug interventions and life-extending (noncurative) interventions were associated with premature termination and symptom-control interventions (curative setting) were associated with trial completion.

21 Code of Federal Regulations Part 11-Compliant Digital Signature Solution for Cancer Clinical Trials: A Single-Institution Feasibility Study

PURPOSE

Inefficiencies in the clinical trial infrastructure result in protracted trial completion timelines, physician-investigator turnover, and a shrinking skilled labor force and present obstacles to research participation. Taken together, these barriers hinder scientific progress. Technological solutions to improve clinical trial efficiency have emerged, yet adoption remains slow because of concerns with cost, regulatory compliance, and implementation.

METHODS

A prospective pilot study that compared regulatory-compliant digital and traditional wet ink paper signatures was conducted over a 6.5-month period in a hospital-based health system. Staff time and effort, error rate, costs, and time to completion were measured. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare staff time and time to completion. A value analysis was conducted. A survey was administered to measure user satisfaction.

RESULTS

There where 96 participants (47 digital, 49 paper), 132 studies included (31 digital, 101 paper), and 265 documents processed (156 digital, 109 paper). A moderate reduction in staff time required to prepare documents for signature was observed (P < .0001). Error rates were reported in 5.1% of digital and 2.8% of paper documents, but this difference was not significant. Discrepancies requiring revisions included incomplete mandatory fields, inaccurate information submitted, and technical issues. A value analysis demonstrated a 19% labor savings with the use of digital signatures. Survey response rate was 57.4% (n = 27). Most participants (85.2%) preferred digital signatures. The time to complete documents was faster with digital signatures compared with paper (P = .0241).

CONCLUSION

The use of digital signatures resulted in a decrease in document completion time and regulatory burden as represented by staff hours. Additional cost and time savings and information liquidity could be realized by integrating digital signatures and electronic document management systems.

Drivers of Start-Up Delays in Global Randomized Clinical Trials

Background

Global, randomized clinical trials are extremely complex. Trial start-up is a critical phase and has many opportunities for delay which adversely impact the study timelines and budget. Understanding factors that contribute to delay may help clinical trial managers and other stakeholders to work more efficiently, hastening patient access to potential new therapies.

Methods

We reviewed the available literature related to start-up of global, Phase III clinical trials and then created a fishbone diagram detailing drivers contributing to start-up delays. The issues identified were used to craft a checklist to assist clinical trial managers in more efficient trial start-up.

Results

We identified key drivers for start-up delays in the following categories: regulatory, contracts and budgets, insurance, clinical supplies, site identification and selection, site activation, and inefficient processes/pitfalls.

Conclusion

Initiating global randomized clinical trials is a complex endeavor, and reasons for delay are well documented in the literature. By using a checklist, clinical trial managers may mitigate some delays and get clinical studies initiated as soon as possible.

Assessing Genitourinary Cancer Clinical Trial Accrual Sufficiency Using Archived Trial Data

PURPOSE

Clinical trials often fail to reach their anticipated end points, most frequently because of poor accrual. Prior studies have analyzed trial termination, but it has not been easy to assess accrual estimates using international databases such as ClinicalTrials.gov because of limitations in accessing accrual information. Specifically, it is not easy to extract both anticipated and actual accrual of clinical trials. We designed a new algorithmic approach to extracting trial accrual data from ClinicalTrials.gov and used it to estimate the sufficiency of patient accrual onto genitourinary (GU) cancer trials.

METHODS

We queried ClinicalTrials.gov for completed/terminated phase II and III clinical trials for prostate, bladder, kidney, testicular, and ureteral cancers registered after 2007. We extracted trial characteristics from available XML files. We then used a Python algorithm to access prior trial registrations on the ClinicalTrials.gov archive site and extract both anticipated and actual accrual numbers. We then compared the actual accrual of each trial to its anticipated accrual and defined sufficient accrual as 85% of anticipated accrual.

RESULTS

The algorithm was 100% accurate compared with hand extraction in a small validation subset. A total of 925 trials were included, of which 840 (91%) had both anticipated and actual accrual. Only 418 (50%) trials had sufficient accrual (≥ 85% of anticipated). Considering only trials marked as successfully completed, 395/597 (66%) reached sufficient accrual.

CONCLUSION

GU cancer trials often do not meet their anticipated accrual goals. New approaches to trial conduct are direly needed. Our reproducible and scalable approach to extracting accrual information can be applied to analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov in future analyses in the hope of improving the efficiency of the clinical trials enterprise.

The comprehensive complication index (CCI): proposal of a new reporting standard for complications in major urological surgery

PURPOSE

The comprehensive complication index (CCI) is a new tool for reporting the cumulative burden of postoperative complications on a continuous scale. This study validates the CCI for urological surgery and its benefits over the Clavien-Dindo-Classification (Clavien).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data from a prospectively maintained data base of all consecutive patients at a university care-center was analyzed. Complications after radical cystectomy (RC), radical prostatectomy (RP), and partial nephrectomy (PN) were classified using the CCI and Clavien system. Differences in complications between the CCI and the Clavien were assessed and correlation analyses performed. Sample size calculations for hypothetical clinical trials were compared between CCI and Clavien to evaluate whether the CCI would reduce the number of required patients in a clinical trial.

RESULTS

682 patients (172 RC, 297 RP, 213 PN) were analyzed. Overall, 9.4-46.6% of patients had > 1 complication cumulatively assessed with the CCI resulting in an upgrading in the Clavien classification for 2.4-32.4% of patients. Therefore, scores between the systems differed for RC: CCI (mean ± standard deviation) 26.3 ± 20.8 vs. Clavien 20.4 ± 16.7, p < 0.001; PN: CCI 8.4 ± 14.7 vs. Clavien 7.0 ± 11.8, p < 0.001 and RP: CCI 5.8 ± 11.7 vs. Clavien 5.3 ± 10.6, p = 0.102. The CCI was more accurate in predicting LOS after RC than Clavien (p < 0.001). Sample size calculations based in the CCI (for future hypothetical trials) resulted in a reduction of required patients for all procedures (- 25% RC, - 74% PN, - 80% RP).

CONCLUSION

The CCI is more accurate to assess surgical complications and reduces required sample sizes that will facilitate the conduction of clinical trials.

Evaluation of a novel blood microsampling device for clinical trial sample collection and protein biomarker analysis

Aim: Evaluation of a novel microsampling device for its use in clinical sample collection and biomarker analysis. Methodology: Matching samples were collected from 16 healthy donors (ten females, six males; age 42 ± 20) via K2EDTA touch activated phlebotomy (TAP) device and phlebotomy. The protein profile differences between sampling groups was evaluated using aptamer-based proteomic assay SomaScan and selected ELISA. Conclusion: Somascan signal concordance between phlebotomy- and TAP-generated samples was studied and comparability of protein abundances between these blood sample collection methods was demonstrated. Statistically significant correlation in selected ELISA assays also confirmed the TAP device applicability to the quantitative analysis of protein biomarkers in clinical trials.

Improving the Time to Activation of New Clinical Trials at a National Cancer Institute–Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center

PURPOSE:

The time it takes a performing site to activate a clinical trial can directly affect the ability to provide innovative and state-of-the-art care to patients. We sought to understand the process of activating an oncology clinical trial at a matrix National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center.

METHODS:

A multidisciplinary team of stakeholders within the cancer center, university, and affiliate hospitals held a retreat to map out the process of activating a clinical trial. We applied classical quality improvement and Six Sigma methodology to determine bottlenecks and non–value-added time in activating a clinical trial. During this process, attention was paid to time to pass through each step, and perceived barriers and bottlenecks were identified through group discussions.

RESULTS:

The process map identified 66 steps with 12 decision points to activate a new clinical trial. The following two steps were instituted first: allow parallel scientific committee and institutional review board (IRB) review and allow the clinical research coordination committee, a group that determines university interest and feasibility, to review protocols independent of the IRB and scientific committee approval. The clinical research coordination committee continues to track the activation time, and this framework is used to identify additional improvement steps.

CONCLUSION:

By applying quality improvement methodologies and Six Sigma principles, we were able to identify redundancies in the process to activate a clinical trial. This allowed us to redesign the process of activating a clinical trial at a matrix comprehensive cancer center. More importantly, the process map provides a framework to maintain these gains and implement additional changes and serves as an example to deploy across the campus and at other similar institutions.

Effectiveness of different recruitment strategies in an RCT of a surgical device: experience from the Endobarrier trial

Recruiting participants into clinical trials is notoriously difficult and poses the greatest challenge when planning any investigative study. Poor recruitment may not only have financial ramifications owing to increased time and resources being spent but could adversely influence the clinical impact of a study if it becomes underpowered. Herein, we present our own experience of recruiting into a nationally funded, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the Endobarrier versus standard medical therapy in obese patients with type 2diabetes. Despite these both being highly prevalent conditions, there were considerable barriers to the effectiveness of different recruitment strategies across each study site. Although recruitment from primary care proved extremely successful at one study site, this largely failed at another site prompting the implementation of multimodal recruitment strategies including a successful media campaign to ensure sufficient participants were enrolled and the study was adequately powered. From this experience, we propose where appropriate the early engagement and investment in media campaigns to enhance recruitment into clinical trials. Trial Registration: ISRCTN30845205.

Cancer Clinical Trial Patient-Participants' Perceptions about Provider Communication and Dropout Intentions

Objective: To study the relationship between cancer patient/research participants' perceptions of communication with their research nurse and doctor and (1) participants' thoughts of dropping out from their cancer clinical trials (CCTs), (2) how informed they felt before and during their clinical trial participation, and (3) trust in their researchers. Methods: We surveyed 110 adult cancer patients who were enrolled in cancer clinical trials by using 15 modified items from the Medical Communication Competence Scale measuring information exchange and relational communication. Retention was measured by two items: ever thought about dropping out (yes/no) and likelihood of remaining enrolled in the clinical trial (5-point Likert item). We asked how well informed about the trial participants felt at enrollment, at the date they filled out the survey, and about changes in the trial. Results: Patient-participants with thoughts of dropping out from their CCTs rated their communication with research doctors lower than those who did not have thoughts of dropping out (4.14 versus 4.46, t = 2.22, p = 0.03). Patient-participants' intention to remain enrolled was correlated with more favorable scores on relational communication (such as contributing to a trusting relationship and showing compassion) with research doctors (r = 0.20, p = 0.04) and nurses (r = 0.25, p = 0.01). Communication with doctors was also associated with how informed patient-participants felt during their clinical trials. Conclusions: Relational communication with research doctors and nurses was significantly related to thoughts about remaining enrolled or dropping out of a clinical trial among adult participants in cancer treatment clinical trials. Practice Implications: Relational communication with cancer patients advances retention in research.

Center-Specific Modeling Predicts Cancer Trial Accrual More Accurately Than Investigators and Random Effects Modeling at 16 Cancer Centers

PURPOSE

Clinical trials often exceed their anticipated enrollment periods, and study sites often do not meet accrual goals. We previously reported the development and validation of a single-site accrual prediction model. Here, we describe the expansion of this methodology at 16 cancer centers (CCs) and compare an overall model versus site-specific models.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from treatment and supportive care intervention studies permanently closed to accrual between 2009 and 2015 at 16 United States-based CCs. Center and ClinicalTrials.gov data were used to generate both site-specific and random effects mixed models (random effect: institution). Accrual predictions were generated from each model and compared with the accrual prediction of the disease team (DT).

RESULTS

Sixteen institutions submitted 5,787 eligible trials (range, 93 to 697 trials per institution). Local accrual ranged from 363 to 6,716 participants; 1,053 studies (18%) accrued no participants. Actual average accrual was 8.5 participants (median, four participants). Site-specific models predicted accrual at 99% of actual and correctly predicted whether a study would accrue four or more participants 73% of the time versus DT prediction of 58%. Correlation at the category level was 30%; model sensitivity and specificity were 83% and 62%, respectively. The overall model predicted accrual 93% of actual and correctly predicted accrual of four or more participants 66% of the time, with a correlation at the category level of 28%.

CONCLUSION

Both regression models predicted clinical trial accrual at least as or more accurately than DT at all but one center. Site-specific models generally performed slightly better than the random effects model. This study confirms the previous finding that this method is an accurate and objective metric that can be easily implemented to improve clinical research resource allocation across multiple centers.

Phenotyping to Facilitate Accrual for a Cardiovascular Intervention

Background

The conventional approach for clinical studies is to identify a cohort of potentially eligible patients and then screen for enrollment. In an effort to reduce the cost and manual effort involved in the screening process, several studies have leveraged electronic health records (EHR) to refine cohorts to better match the eligibility criteria, which is referred to as phenotyping. We extend this approach to dynamically identify a cohort by repeating phenotyping in alternation with manual screening.

Methods

Our approach consists of multiple screen cycles. At the start of each cycle, the phenotyping algorithm is used to identify eligible patients from the EHR, creating an ordered list such that patients that are most likely eligible are listed first. This list is then manually screened, and the results are analyzed to improve the phenotyping for the next cycle. We describe the preliminary results and challenges in the implementation of this approach for an intervention study on heart failure.

Results

A total of 1,022 patients were screened, with 223 (23%) of patients being found eligible for enrollment into the intervention study. The iterative approach improved the phenotyping in each screening cycle. Without an iterative approach, the positive screening rate (PSR) was expected to dip below the 20% measured in the first cycle; however, the cyclical approach increased the PSR to 23%.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates that dynamic phenotyping can facilitate recruitment for prospective clinical study. Future directions include improved informatics infrastructure and governance policies to enable real-time updates to research repositories, tooling for EHR annotation, and methodologies to reduce human annotation.

Effectiveness of a short video-based educational intervention on factors related to clinical trial participation in adolescents and young adults: a pre-test/post-test design

BACKGROUND

Poor clinical trial enrollment continues to be pervasive and is especially problematic among young adults and youth, and among minorities. Efforts to address barriers to enrollment have been predominantly focused on adult diseased populations. Because older adults may already have established attitudes, it is imperative to identify strategies that target adolescents and young adults. The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of an educational video on factors related to clinical trial participation among a healthy adolescent and young adult population.

METHODS

Participants completed a 49-item pre-test, viewed a 10-min video, and completed a 45-item post-test to assess changes in attitudes, knowledge, self-efficacy, receptivity to, and intention to participate (primary outcome) in clinical trials. Descriptive statistics, paired samples t-tests, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were conducted.

RESULTS

The final analyses included 935 participants. The mean age was 20.7 years, with almost 70% aged 18 to 20 years. The majority were female (73%), non-Hispanic (92.2%), white (70%), or African American (20%). Participants indicated a higher intention to participate in a clinical trial (p < 0.0001) and receptivity to hearing more about a clinical trial (p < 0.0001) after seeing the video. Intention to participate (definitely yes and probably yes) increased by an absolute 18% (95% confidence interval 15-22%). There were significant improvements in attitudes, knowledge, and self-efficacy scores for all participants (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed strong evidence for the effectiveness of a brief intervention on factors related to participation in clinical trials. This supports the use of a brief intervention, in a traditional educational setting, to impact the immediate attitudes, knowledge, self-efficacy, and intention to participate in clinical trial research among diverse, healthy adolescents and young adults.

Using a Federated Network of Real-World Data to Optimize Clinical Trials Operations

Clinical trials, whether industry, cooperative group sponsored, or investigator initiated, have an unacceptable rate of failure as a result of the inability to recruit sufficient numbers of patients. Even those trials that are completed often require time-consuming protocol amendments to achieve accrual goals. These inefficiencies in clinical trial research result in increasing costs and prolong the time needed to bring improved treatments to cancer clinical practice. TriNetX has developed a clinical research collaboration platform-deployed by a federated network of health care organizations (HCOs), pharmaceutical firms (Pharma), and contract research organizations (CROs)-to enable data-driven clinical research study design to reduce accrual failure and protocol amendment. Currently, the network extends to 55 HCOs and covers 84 million patients, mostly within the United States, but with a growing international presence. (Many of the HCOs in United States are Clinical and Translational Science Awardees and/or National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.) The TriNetX business model includes Pharma and the CROs as sponsors whose subscriptions financially support the network, including the software and hardware costs of the HCOs. Furthermore, as each HCO network member has their data harmonized with the TriNetX model upon joining, data sharing among them does not require any technical processes to establish connectivity. To date, on the basis of the data on the network, HCOs have been presented approximately 757 studies by Pharma and CROs, and four data-sharing subnetworks have been formed among member HCOs.

Accrual to Clinical Trials (ACT): A Clinical and Translational Science Award Consortium Network

The Accrual to Clinical Trials (ACT) network is a federated network of sites from the National Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium that has been created to significantly increase participant accrual to multi-site clinical trials. The ACT network represents an unprecedented collaboration among diverse CTSA sites. The network has created governance and regulatory frameworks and a common data model to harmonize electronic health record (EHR) data, and deployed a set of Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside (i2b2) data repositories that are linked by the Shared Health Research Information Network (SHRINE) platform. It provides investigators the ability to query the network in real time and to obtain aggregate counts of patients who meet clinical trial inclusion and exclusion criteria from sites across the United States. The ACT network infrastructure provides a basis for cohort discovery and for developing new informatics tools to identify and recruit participants for multi-site clinical trials.

Premature Clinical Trial Discontinuation in the Era of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial completion is critical for new cancer therapies. Premature trial termination or withdrawal is common and impairs progress. We assessed factors of early terminated/withdrawn oncology trials focusing on trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), hypothesizing that the latter may be associated with lower rates of premature discontinuation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed all adult, intervention, oncology trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (November 16, 2011, to April 16, 2015) to identify all terminated/withdrawn trials and reasons for termination. Logistics regression model was used to identify factors associated with early termination/withdrawal. Discontinuation rate was compared in trials with and without ICI.

RESULTS

We identified 12,875 trials (35% industry funded, 12% federal funded), of which 8.5% were prematurely terminated (5%) or withdrawn (3.5%); the main reasons were poor accrual (33%) and logistical (24%). ICI trials (n = 350) had a nonsignificant lower rate of termination or withdrawal compared with all other oncology trials (5.4% vs. 8.5%; p = .9) and were less likely to discontinue due to poor accrual (nonsignificant difference: 21% vs. 33%; p = .4). ICI trials were also less likely to discontinue compared with all other oncology drug trials (e.g., chemotherapy, targeted inhibitors, antiangiogenesis, biologics; 5.4% vs. 7.9%, respectively, nonsignificant difference). The 4-year cumulative incidence of failing to complete for reasons unrelated to toxicity or efficacy was 18% (95% confidence interval 16%-20%). There was no association between annual incidence across different tumor types or accrual goal and rate of trial termination.

CONCLUSION

Poor accrual represents the main cause of early cancer trial termination. Premature termination/withdrawal rate was not significantly lower in ICI compared with other trials. Clinical trial completion remains a high priority and can be influenced by provider and patient factors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Clinical trial completion is critical for new cancer therapies. Premature trial termination or withdrawal is common and impairs progress. This study assessed factors of early terminated/withdrawn oncology trials, focusing on trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), and found that poor accrual represents the main cause of early cancer trial termination. Premature termination/withdrawal rate was not significantly lower in immune checkpoint inhibitor trials compared to other trials. The discussion herein is focused on measures taken by the National Cancer Institute and other institutions to improve clinical trial accrual and prevent premature clinical trial discontinuation.

Identifying barriers to accrual in radiation oncology randomized trials

Background

Data about factors driving accrual to radiation oncology trials are limited. In oncology, 30%-40% of trials are considered unsuccessful, many because of poor accrual. The goal of the present study was to inform the design of future trials by evaluating the effects of institutional, clinician, and patient factors on accrual rates to a randomized radiation oncology trial.

Methods

Investigators participating in sabr-comet (NCT01446744), a randomized phase ii trial open in Canada, Europe, and Australia that is evaluating the role of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (sabr) in oligometastatic disease, were invited to complete a survey about factors affecting accrual. Institutional ethics approval was obtained. The primary endpoint was the annual accrual rate per institution. Univariable and multivariable linear regression analyses were used to identify factors predictive of annual accrual rates.

Results

On univariable linear regression analysis, off-trial availability of sabr (p = 0.014) and equipoise of the referring physician (p = 0.014) were found to be predictive of annual accrual rates. The annual accrual rates were lower when centres offered sabr for oligometastases off-trial (median: 3.7 patients vs. 8.4 patients enrolled) and when referring physicians felt that, compared with having equipoise, sabr was beneficial (median: 4.8 patients vs. 8.4 patients enrolled). Multivariable analysis identified perceived level of equipoise of the referring physician to be predictive of the annual accrual rate (p = 0.023).

Conclusions

The level of equipoise of referring physicians might play a key role in accrual to radiation oncology randomized controlled trials. Efforts to communicate with and educate referring physicians might therefore be beneficial for improving trial accrual rates.

Partnering around cancer clinical trials (PACCT): study protocol for a randomized trial of a patient and physician communication intervention to increase minority accrual to prostate cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Cancer clinical trials are essential for testing new treatments and represent state-of-the-art cancer treatment, but only a small percentage of patients ever enroll in a trial. Under-enrollment is an even greater problem among minorities, particularly African Americans, representing a racial/ethnic disparity in cancer care. One understudied cause is patient-physician communication, which is often of poor quality during clinical interactions between African-American patients and non-African-American physicians. Partnering Around Cancer Clinical Trials (PACCT) involves a transdisciplinary theoretical model proposing that patient and physician individual attitudes and beliefs and their interpersonal communication during racially discordant clinical interactions influence outcomes related to patients' decisions to participate in a trial. The overall goal of the study is to test a multilevel intervention designed to increase rates at which African-American and White men with prostate cancer make an informed decision to participate in a clinical trial.

METHODS/DESIGN

Data collection will occur at two NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers. Participants include physicians who treat men with prostate cancer and their African-American and White patients who are potentially eligible for a clinical trial. The study uses two distinct research designs to evaluate the effects of two behavioral interventions, one focused on patients and the other on physicians. The primary goal is to increase the number of patients who decide to enroll in a trial; secondary goals include increasing rates of physician trial offers, improving the quality of patient-physician communication during video recorded clinical interactions in which trials may be discussed, improving patients' understanding of trials offered, and increasing the number of patients who actually enroll. Aims are to 1) determine the independent and combined effects of the two interventions on outcomes; 2) compare the effects of the interventions on African-American versus White men; and 3) examine the extent to which patient-physician communication mediates the effect of the interventions on the outcomes.

DISCUSSION

PACCT has the potential to identify ways to increase clinical trial rates in a diverse patient population. The research can also improve access to high quality clinical care for African American men bearing the disproportionate burden of disparities in prostate and other cancers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT02906241 (September 8, 2016).

Formation of an international intergroup to coordinate clinical trials in head and neck cancers: HNCIG

Clinical trials in head and neck cancer (HNC) face multiple challenges including low global incidence, excessive patient comorbidity rate, high treatment-related toxicity and more recently a changing tumor biology landscape. As clinical trials evolve to address new knowledge about HNC biology, the overall pool of eligible patients for each trial becomes smaller, leading to more accrual challenges. These challenges have led to the formation of the Head and Neck Cancer Intergroup (HNCIG) comprised of large HNC international and national cooperative groups and sites with the goal of facilitating the conduct of high quality clinical trials in a timely manner to improve outcomes in HNC. This article describes the objectives, structure, and activities of the HNCIG.

Use of the Total Cancer Care System to Enrich Screening for CD30-Positive Solid Tumors for Patient Enrollment Into a Brentuximab Vedotin Clinical Trial: A Pilot Study to Evaluate Feasibility

Background

One approach to identify patients who meet specific eligibility criteria for target-based clinical trials is to use patient and tumor registries to prescreen patient populations.

Objective

Here we demonstrate that the Total Cancer Care (TCC) Protocol, an ongoing, observational study, may provide a solution for rapidly identifying patients with CD30-positive tumors eligible for CD30-targeted therapies such as brentuximab vedotin.

Methods

The TCC patient gene expression profiling database was retrospectively screened for CD30 gene expression determined using HuRSTA-2a520709 Affymetrix arrays (GPL15048). Banked tumor tissue samples were used to determine CD30 protein expression by semiquantitative immunohistochemistry. Statistical comparisons of Z- and H-scores were performed using R statistical software (The R Foundation), and the predictive value, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of CD30 gene expression versus protein expression was estimated.

Results

As of March 2015, 120,887 patients have consented to the institutional review board–approved TCC Protocol. A total of 39,157 fresh frozen tumor specimens have been collected, from which over 14,000 samples have gene expression data available. CD30 RNA was expressed in a number of solid tumors; the highest median CD30 RNA expression was observed in primary tumors from lymph node, soft tissue (many sarcomas), lung, skin, and esophagus (median Z-scores 1.011, 0.399, 0.202, 0.152, and 1.011, respectively). High level CD30 gene expression significantly enriches for CD30-positive protein expression in breast, lung, skin, and ovarian cancer; accuracy ranged from 72% to 79%, sensitivity from 75% to 100%, specificity from 70% to 76%, positive predictive value from 20% to 40%, and negative predictive value from 95% to 100%.

Conclusions

The TCC gene expression profiling database guided tissue selection that enriched for CD30 protein expression in a number of solid tumor types. Such an approach may improve screening efficiency for enrolling patients into biomarker-based clinical trials.

Academic Cancer Center Phase I Program Development

This commentary assesses the factors necessary for the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs. The metrics presented here may be useful as a rubric for new and established programs.

Multiple factors critical to the effectiveness of academic phase I cancer programs were assessed among 16 academic centers in the U.S. Successful cancer centers were defined as having broad phase I and I/II clinical trial portfolios, multiple investigator‐initiated studies, and correlative science. The most significant elements were institutional philanthropic support, experienced clinical research managers, robust institutional basic research, institutional administrative efforts to reduce bureaucratic regulatory delays, phase I navigators to inform patients and physicians of new studies, and a large cancer center patient base. New programs may benefit from a separate stand‐alone operation, but mature phase I programs work well when many of the activities are transferred to disease‐oriented teams. The metrics may be useful as a rubric for new and established academic phase I programs.

Clinical Trial Characteristics and Barriers to Participant Accrual: The MD Anderson Cancer Center Experience over 30 years, a Historical Foundation for Trial Improvement

Purpose: Slow-accruing clinical trials delay the translation of basic biomedical research, contribute to increasing health care costs, and may prohibit trials from reaching their original goals.Experimental Design: We analyzed a prospectively maintained institutional database that tracks all clinical studies at the MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX). Inclusion criteria were activated phase I-III trials, maximum projected accrual ≥10 participants, and activation prior to March 25, 2011. The primary outcome was slow accrual, defined as <2 participants per year. Correlations of trial characteristics with slow accrual were assessed with logistic regression.Results: A total of 4,269 clinical trials met inclusion criteria. Trials were activated between January 5, 1981, and March 25, 2011, with a total of 145,214 participants enrolled. Median total enrolment was 16 [interquartile range (IQR), 5-34], with an average enrolment rate of 8.7 participants per year (IQR, 3.3-17.7). There were 755 (18%) trials classified as slow accruing. On multivariable analysis, slow accrual exhibited robust associations with national cooperative group trials (OR = 4.16, P < 0.0001 vs. industry sponsored), time from trial activation to first enrolment (OR = 1.13 per month, P < 0.0001), and maximum targeted accrual (OR = 0.16 per log10 increase, P < 0.0001). Recursive partitioning analysis identified trials requiring more than 70 days (2.3 months) between activation and first participant enrolment as having higher odds of slow accrual (23% vs. 5%, OR = 5.56, P < 0.0001).Conclusions: We identified factors associated with slow trial accrual. Given the lack of data on clinical trials at the institutional level, these data will help build a foundation from which targeted initiatives may be developed to improve the clinical trial enterprise. Clin Cancer Res; 23(6); 1414-21. ©2017 AACR.

Quality evaluation of investigator-initiated trials using post-approval cancer drugs in Japan

Investigator‐initiated trials (IIT) are important aspects of medical research and have contributed substantially to modern oncology. IIT using post‐approval drugs have been conducted by domestic institutions in Japan. Data from the present study were obtained by all IIT registered clinical trials for five cancers (lung, colorectal cancer, gastric cancer, liver cancer, and breast cancer) using drugs approved from 1999 to 2009 in Japan. Kaplan–Meier method, analysis of variance (anova), and Kruskal–Wallis test were used to estimate time to enrolment completion (TTEC) and time to enrolment per patient (TTEP). Of 1222 trials eligible for analysis, 465 trials (38%) completed enrolment to the studies, and 203 trials (17%) published results. In the distribution according to trial phase, 98 (8%) were phase I, 1058 (87%) were phase I/II + II, and 66 (5%) were phase II/III + III. Accrual achievement and publication rates were higher in late‐phase than in early‐phase trials. Median TTEC was 1387 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 1302–1472). Median TTEP was 38.5 days (95% CI, 34.5–42.5). The median TTEC and TTEP were significantly different in each trial phase (P < 0.01), funding source (P < 0.01), and publication status (median TTEC published trials versus unpublished trial; 720 days vs 1672 days, median TTEP; 16 days vs 55.8 days; P < 0.001). Many IIT using approved cancer drugs have been conducted; however, the quality of the clinical trials was low in terms of accrual achievement, publication rate, and time to publication of trial results.

Experience With Direct-to-Patient Recruitment for Enrollment Into a Clinical Trial in a Rare Disease: A Web-Based Study

Background

The target sample size for clinical trials often necessitates a multicenter (center of excellence, CoE) approach with associated added complexity, cost, and regulatory requirements. Alternative recruitment strategies need to be tested against this standard model.

Objectives

The aim of our study was to test whether a Web-based direct recruitment approach (patient-centric, PC) using social marketing strategies provides a viable option to the CoE recruitment method.

Methods

PC recruitment and Web-based informed consent was compared with CoE recruitment for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of continuing versus stopping low-dose prednisone for maintenance of remission of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA).

Results

The PC approach was not as successful as the CoE approach. Enrollment of those confirmed eligible by their physician was 10 of 13 (77%) and 49 of 51 (96%) in the PC and CoE arms, respectively (P=.05). The two approaches were not significantly different in terms of eligibility with 34% of potential participants in the CoE found to be ineligible as compared with 22% in the PC arm (P=.11) nor in provider acceptance, 22% versus 26% (P=.78). There was no difference in the understanding of the trial as reflected in the knowledge surveys of individuals in the PC and CoE arms.

Conclusions

PC recruitment was substantially less successful than that achieved by the CoE approach. However, the PC approach was good at confirming eligibility and was as acceptable to providers and as understandable to patients as the CoE approach. The PC approach should be evaluated in other clinical settings to get a better sense of its potential.

Accrual Patterns for Clinical Studies Involving Quantitative Imaging: Results of an NCI Quantitative Imaging Network (QIN) Survey

Patient accrual is essential for the success of oncology clinical trials. Recruitment for trials involving the development of quantitative imaging biomarkers may face different challenges than treatment trials. This study surveyed investigators and study personnel for evaluating accrual performance and perceived barriers to accrual and for soliciting solutions to these accrual challenges that are specific to quantitative imaging-based trials. Responses for 25 prospective studies were received from 12 sites. The median percent annual accrual attained was 94.5% (range, 3%–350%). The most commonly selected barrier to recruitment (n = 11/25, 44%) was that “patients decline participation,” followed by “too few eligible patients” (n = 10/25, 40%). In a forced choice for the single greatest recruitment challenge, “too few eligible patients” was the most common response (n = 8/25, 32%). Quantitative analysis and qualitative responses suggested that interactions among institutional, physician, and patient factors contributed to accrual success and challenges. Multidisciplinary collaboration in trial design and execution is essential to accrual success, with attention paid to ensuring and communicating potential trial benefits to enrolled and future patients.

Modifying the Clinical Research Infrastructure at a Dedicated Clinical Trials Unit: Assessment of Trial Development, Activation, and Participant Accrual

Purpose: Information on processes for trials assessing investigational therapeutics is sparse. We assessed the trial development processes within the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics (ICT) at MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX) and analyzed their effects on the trial activation timeline and enrolment.Experimental Design: Data were from a prospectively maintained registry that tracks all clinical studies at MD Anderson. From this database, we identified 2,261 activated phase I-III trials; 221 were done at the ICT. ICT trials were matched to trials from other MD Anderson departments by phase, sponsorship, and submission year. Trial performance metrics were compared with paired Wilcoxon signed rank tests.Results: We identified three facets of the ICT research infrastructure: parallel processing of trial approval steps; a physician-led research team; and regular weekly meetings to foster research accountability. Separate analyses were conducted stratified by sponsorship [industry (133 ICT and 133 non-ICT trials) or institutional (68 ICT and 68 non-ICT trials)]. ICT trial development was faster from IRB approval to activation (median difference of 1.1 months for industry-sponsored trials vs. 2.3 months for institutional) and from activation to first enrolment (median difference of 0.3 months for industry vs. 1.2 months for institutional; all matched P < 0.05). ICT trials also accrued more patients (median difference of 8 participants for industry vs. 33.5 for institutional) quicker (median difference 4.8 participants/year for industry vs. 11.1 for institutional; all matched P < 0.05).Conclusions: Use of a clinical research-focused infrastructure within a large academic cancer center was associated with efficient trial development and participant accrual. Clin Cancer Res; 23(6); 1407-13. ©2016 AACR.

Approaches to modernize the combination drug development paradigm

Recent advances in genomic sequencing and omics-based capabilities are uncovering tremendous therapeutic opportunities and rapidly transforming the field of cancer medicine. Molecularly targeted agents aim to exploit key tumor-specific vulnerabilities such as oncogenic or non-oncogenic addiction and synthetic lethality. Additionally, immunotherapies targeting the host immune system are proving to be another promising and complementary approach. Owing to substantial tumor genomic and immunologic complexities, combination strategies are likely to be required to adequately disrupt intricate molecular interactions and provide meaningful long-term benefit to patients. To optimize the therapeutic success and application of combination therapies, systematic scientific discovery will need to be coupled with novel and efficient clinical trial approaches. Indeed, a paradigm shift is required to drive precision medicine forward, from the traditional "drug-centric" model of clinical development in pursuit of small incremental benefits in large heterogeneous groups of patients, to a "strategy-centric" model to provide customized transformative treatments in molecularly stratified subsets of patients or even in individual patients. Crucially, to combat the numerous challenges facing combination drug development-including our growing but incomplete understanding of tumor biology, technical and informatics limitations, and escalating financial costs-aligned goals and multidisciplinary collaboration are imperative to collectively harness knowledge and fuel continual innovation.

Future prospects of therapeutic clinical trials in acute myeloid leukemia

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a markedly heterogeneous hematological malignancy that is most commonly seen in elderly adults. The response to current therapies to AML is quite variable, and very few new drugs have been recently approved for use in AML. This review aims to discuss the issues with current trial design for AML therapies, including trial end points, patient enrollment, cost of drug discovery and patient heterogeneity. We also discuss the future directions in AML therapeutics, including intensification of conventional therapy and new drug delivery mechanisms; targeted agents, including epigenetic therapies, cell cycle regulators, hypomethylating agents and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy; and detail of the possible agents that may be incorporated into the treatment of AML in the future.

Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment in Racial and Ethnic Minority Patients With Cancer

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials that study cancer are essential for testing the safety and effectiveness of promising treatments, but most people with cancer never enroll in a clinical trial - a challenge exemplified in racial and ethnic minorities. Underenrollment of racial and ethnic minorities reduces the generalizability of research findings and represents a disparity in access to high-quality health care.

METHODS

Using a multilevel model as a framework, potential barriers to trial enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities were identified at system, individual, and interpersonal levels. Exactly how each level directly or indirectly contributes to doctor-patient communication was also reviewed. Selected examples of implemented interventions are included to help address these barriers. We then propose our own evidence-based intervention addressing barriers at the individual and interpersonal levels.

RESULTS

Barriers to enrolling a diverse population of patients in clinical trials are complex and multilevel. Interventions focused at each level have been relatively successful, but multilevel interventions have the greatest potential for success.

CONCLUSION

To increase the enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials, future interventions should address barriers at multiple levels.