Lack of timely accrual information in oncology clinical trials: a cross-sectional analysis

Recording and reporting of recruitment strategies in trial protocols, registries, and publications was nonexistent

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how trialists record and report their recruitment strategies and the recruiter details in trial protocols, registries, and publications.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective study of ovarian cancer (OC) trials between 2010 and 2021. We reviewed 154 trial publications, 30 protocols, 105 registry entries, and 26 trial websites associated with 88 phase III OC trials.

RESULTS

None of the 88 trials reviewed published a recruitment strategy or made reference to an available recruitment strategy for the trial. Only 31% (n = 28) made reference to the recruiter but this was reported only in the protocol so we have no evidence these named recruiters performed the task. None of the trials reviewed which closed early or extended recruitment timelines due to slow accrual, reported measures taken to improve recruitment rates before stoppages or changes took place. There were disparities in the reported target recruitment numbers between the protocol, the publication, and the registry.

CONCLUSION

Recruitment strategies exist, and we are sure most trial centers use recruitment strategies, but they need to be recorded and reported, as part of the supplementary material if not the main publication, so we can evaluate their effectiveness.

Electronic self-reporting of adverse events for patients undergoing cancer treatment: the eRAPID research programme including two RCTs

Background

Cancer is treated using multiple modalities (e.g. surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapies) and is frequently associated with adverse events that affect treatment delivery and quality of life. Regular adverse event reporting could improve care and safety through timely detection and management. Information technology provides a feasible monitoring model, but applied research is needed. This research programme developed and evaluated an electronic system, called eRAPID, for cancer patients to remotely self-report adverse events.

Objectives

The objectives were to address the following research questions: is it feasible to collect adverse event data from patients’ homes and in clinics during cancer treatment? Can eRAPID be implemented in different hospitals and treatment settings? Will oncology health-care professionals review eRAPID reports for decision-making? When added to usual care, will the eRAPID intervention (i.e. self-reporting with tailored advice) lead to clinical benefits (e.g. better adverse event control, improved patient safety and experiences)? Will eRAPID be cost-effective?

Design

Five mixed-methods work packages were conducted, incorporating co-design with patients and health-care professionals: work package 1 – development and implementation of the electronic platform across hospital centres; work package 2 – development of patient-reported adverse event items and advice (systematic and scoping reviews, patient interviews, Delphi exercise); work package 3 – mapping health-care professionals and care pathways; work package 4 – feasibility pilot studies to assess patient and clinician acceptability; and work package 5 – a single-centre randomised controlled trial of systemic treatment with a full health economic assessment.

Setting

The setting was three UK cancer centres (in Leeds, Manchester and Bristol).

Participants

The intervention was developed and evaluated with patients and clinicians. The systemic randomised controlled trial included 508 participants who were starting treatment for breast, colorectal or gynaecological cancer and 55 health-care professionals. The radiotherapy feasibility pilot recruited 167 patients undergoing treatment for pelvic cancers. The surgical feasibility pilot included 40 gastrointestinal cancer patients.

Intervention

eRAPID is an online system that allows patients to complete adverse event/symptom reports from home or hospital. The system provides immediate severity-graded advice based on clinical algorithms to guide self-management or hospital contact. Adverse event data are transferred to electronic patient records for review by clinical teams. Patients complete an online symptom report every week and whenever they experience symptoms.

Main outcome measures

In systemic treatment, the primary outcome was Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General, Physical Well-Being score assessed at 6, 12 and 18 weeks (primary end point). Secondary outcomes included cost-effectiveness assessed through the comparison of health-care costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Patient self-efficacy was measured (using the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Diseases 6-item Scale). The radiotherapy pilot studied feasibility (recruitment and attrition rates) and selection of outcome measures. The surgical pilot examined symptom report completeness, system actions, barriers to using eRAPID and technical performance.

Results

eRAPID was successfully developed and introduced across the treatments and centres. The systemic randomised controlled trial found no statistically significant effect of eRAPID on the primary end point at 18 weeks. There was a significant effect at 6 weeks (adjusted difference least square means 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 2.05; p = 0.028) and 12 weeks (adjusted difference least square means 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 1.98; p = 0.0395). No between-arm differences were found for admissions or calls/visits to acute oncology or chemotherapy delivery. Health economic analyses over 18 weeks indicated no statistically significant difference between the cost of the eRAPID information technology system and the cost of usual care (£12.28, 95% confidence interval –£1240.91 to £1167.69; p > 0.05). Mean differences were small, with eRAPID having a 55% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Patient self-efficacy was greater in the intervention arm (0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.83; p = 0.0073). Qualitative interviews indicated that many participants found eRAPID useful for support and guidance. Patient adherence to adverse-event symptom reporting was good (median compliance 72.2%). In the radiotherapy pilot, high levels of consent (73.2%) and low attrition rates (10%) were observed. Patient quality-of-life outcomes indicated a potential intervention benefit in chemoradiotherapy arms. In the surgical pilot, 40 out of 91 approached patients (44%) consented. Symptom report completion rates were high. Across the studies, clinician intervention engagement was varied. Both patient and staff feedback on the value of eRAPID was positive.

Limitations

The randomised controlled trial methodology led to small numbers of patients simultaneously using the intervention, thus reducing overall clinician exposure to and engagement with eRAPID. Furthermore, staff saw patients across both arms, introducing a contamination bias and potentially reducing the intervention effect. The health economic results were limited by numbers of missing data (e.g. for use of resources and EuroQol-5 Dimensions).

Conclusions

This research provides evidence that online symptom monitoring with inbuilt patient advice is acceptable to patients and clinical teams. Evidence of patient benefit was found, particularly during the early phases of treatment and in relation to self-efficacy. The findings will help improve the intervention and guide future trial designs.

Future work

Definitive trials in radiotherapy and surgical settings are suggested. Future research during systemic treatments could study self-report online interventions to replace elements of traditional follow-up care in the curative setting. Further research during modern targeted treatments (e.g. immunotherapy and small-molecule oral therapy) and in metastatic disease is recommended.

Trial registration

The systemic randomised controlled trial is registered as ISRCTN88520246. The radiotherapy trial is registered as ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02747264.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Feasibility of Cancer Clinical Trial Enrollment Goals Based on Cancer Incidence

PURPOSE

More than 20% of US clinical trials fail to accrue sufficiently. Our purpose was to provide a benchmark for better understanding clinical trial enrollment feasibility and to assess relative levels of competition for patients by cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

The Database for Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov , up to date as of September 3, 2017, was used to identify actively recruiting, interventional oncology trials with US sites. Observational studies were excluded because not all are registered. Trials were categorized through Medical Subject Headings or free-text condition terms and sorted by cancer diagnosis. Trials that included more than one cancer diagnosis were included in the overall cohort but excluded when evaluating enrollment by cancer type. Trial enrollment slot availability was estimated between September 1, 2017, and August 31, 2018. Availability was estimated from total anticipated enrollment and duration, assuming a constant recruitment rate. Estimates for studies with both foreign and domestic sites were then prorated to calculate available enrollment in the United States alone. Ratios of the number of newly diagnosed patients in the United States available per trial slot were estimated using the American Cancer Society cancer incidence estimates for 2017.

RESULTS

A total of 4,598 interventional oncology trials were identified. Overall, the estimated ratio of newly diagnosed patients available per trial slot was 12.6. Estimated ratios of patients per trial slot for six cancer diagnoses with the highest potential of 12-month US enrollment were as follows: colorectal, 24.7; lung and bronchus, 20.1; prostate, 17.6; breast (female), 13.8; leukemia, 11.6; and brain and other nervous system, 6.0.

CONCLUSION

For all cancers, successfully accruing trials currently open would require that more than one in every 13 recently diagnosed patients (7.9%) enroll. This ratio and relative difficulty of accrual varies among cancers examined.

Patient experiences of an electronic PRO tailored feedback system for symptom management following upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery

Purpose

Complications following upper gastrointestinal (UGI) surgery are common. Symptom-monitoring following discharge is not standardized. An electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) system providing feedback to patients and clinicians could support patients and improve outcomes. Little is known about patients’ experiences of using such systems. This qualitative sub-study explored patients’ perspectives of the benefits of using a novel ePRO system, developed as part of the mixed methods eRAPID pilot study, to support recovery following discharge after UGI surgery.

Methods

Patients completed the online ePRO symptom-report system post-discharge. Weekly interviews explored patients’ experiences of using ePRO, the acceptability of feedback generated and its value for supporting their recovery. Interviews were audio-recorded and targeted transcriptions were thematically analysed.

Results

Thirty-five interviews with 16 participants (11 men, mean age 63 years) were analysed. Two main themes were identified: (1) reassurance and (2) empowerment. Feelings of isolation were common; many patients felt uninformed regarding their expectations of recovery and whether their symptoms warranted clinical investigation. Participants were reassured by tailored feedback advising them to contact their care team, alleviating their anxiety. Patients reported feeling empowered by the ePRO system and in control of their symptoms and recovery.

Conclusion

Patients recovering at home following major cancer surgery regarded electronic symptom-monitoring and feedback as acceptable and beneficial. Patients perceived that the system enhanced information provision and provided a direct link to their care team. Patients felt that the system provided reassurance at a time of uncertainty and isolation, enabling them to feel in control of their symptoms and recovery.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-020-02539-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.

A real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following surgery: a pilot study in cancer-related surgery

Background

Advances in peri-operative care of surgical oncology patients result in shorter hospital stays. Earlier discharge may bring benefits, but complications can occur while patients are recovering at home. Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems may enhance remote, real-time symptom monitoring and detection of complications after hospital discharge, thereby improving patient safety and outcomes. Evidence of the effectiveness of ePRO systems in surgical oncology is lacking. This pilot study evaluated the feasibility of a real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery.

Methods

A pilot study in two UK hospitals included patients who had undergone cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery. Participants completed the ePRO symptom-report at discharge, twice in the first week and weekly post-discharge. Symptom-report completeness, system actions, barriers to using the ePRO system and technical performance were examined. The ePRO surgery system is an online symptom-report that allows clinicians to view patient symptom-reports within hospital electronic health records and was developed as part of the eRAPID project. Clinically derived algorithms provide patients with tailored self-management advice, prompts to contact a clinician or automated clinician alerts depending on symptom severity. Interviews with participants and clinicians determined the acceptability of the ePRO system to support patients and their clinical management during recovery.

Results

Ninety-one patients were approached, of which 40 consented to participate (27 male, mean age 64 years). Symptom-report response rates were high (range 63–100%). Of 197 ePRO completions analysed, 76 (39%) triggered self-management advice, 72 (36%) trigged advice to contact a clinician, 9 (5%) triggered a clinician alert and 40 (20%) did not require advice. Participants found the ePRO system reassuring, providing timely information and advice relevant to supporting their recovery. Clinicians regarded the system as a useful adjunct to usual care, by signposting patients to seek appropriate help and enhancing their understanding of patients’ experiences during recovery.

Conclusion

Use of the ePRO system for the real-time, remote monitoring of symptoms in patients recovering from cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery is feasible and acceptable. A definitive randomised controlled trial is needed to evaluate the impact of the system on patients’ wellbeing after hospital discharge.

A Real-Time Automated Patient Screening System for Clinical Trials Eligibility in an Emergency Department: Design and Evaluation

Background

One critical hurdle for clinical trial recruitment is the lack of an efficient method for identifying subjects who meet the eligibility criteria. Given the large volume of data documented in electronic health records (EHRs), it is labor-intensive for the staff to screen relevant information, particularly within the time frame needed. To facilitate subject identification, we developed a natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning–based system, Automated Clinical Trial Eligibility Screener (ACTES), which analyzes structured data and unstructured narratives automatically to determine patients’ suitability for clinical trial enrollment. In this study, we integrated the ACTES into clinical practice to support real-time patient screening.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate ACTES’s impact on the institutional workflow, prospectively and comprehensively. We hypothesized that compared with the manual screening process, using EHR-based automated screening would improve efficiency of patient identification, streamline patient recruitment workflow, and increase enrollment in clinical trials.

Methods

The ACTES was fully integrated into the clinical research coordinators’ (CRC) workflow in the pediatric emergency department (ED) at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. The system continuously analyzed EHR information for current ED patients and recommended potential candidates for clinical trials. Relevant patient eligibility information was presented in real time on a dashboard available to CRCs to facilitate their recruitment. To assess the system’s effectiveness, we performed a multidimensional, prospective evaluation for a 12-month period, including a time-and-motion study, quantitative assessments of enrollment, and postevaluation usability surveys collected from the CRCs.

Results

Compared with manual screening, the use of ACTES reduced the patient screening time by 34% (P<.001). The saved time was redirected to other activities such as study-related administrative tasks (P=.03) and work-related conversations (P=.006) that streamlined teamwork among the CRCs. The quantitative assessments showed that automated screening improved the numbers of subjects screened, approached, and enrolled by 14.7%, 11.1%, and 11.1%, respectively, suggesting the potential of ACTES in streamlining recruitment workflow. Finally, the ACTES achieved a system usability scale of 80.0 in the postevaluation surveys, suggesting that it was a good computerized solution.

Conclusions

By leveraging NLP and machine learning technologies, the ACTES demonstrated good capacity for improving efficiency of patient identification. The quantitative assessments demonstrated the potential of ACTES in streamlining recruitment workflow and improving patient enrollment. The postevaluation surveys suggested that the system was a good computerized solution with satisfactory usability.

A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results

BACKGROUND

Studies measuring the completeness and consistency of trial registration and reporting rely on linking registries with bibliographic databases. In this systematic review, we quantified the processes used to identify these links.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception to May 2016 for studies linking trial registries with bibliographic databases. The processes used to establish these links were categorised as automatic when the registration identifier was available in the bibliographic database or publication, or manual when linkage required inference or contacting of trial investigators. The number of links identified by each process was extracted where available. Linear regression was used to determine whether the proportions of links available via automatic processes had increased over time.

RESULTS

In 43 studies that examined cohorts of registry entries, 24 used automatic and manual processes to find articles; 3 only automatic; and 11 only manual (5 did not specify). Twelve studies reported results for both manual and automatic processes and showed that a median of 23% (range from 13 to 42%) included automatic links to articles, while 17% (range from 5 to 42%) of registry entries required manual processes to find articles. There was no evidence that the proportion of registry entries with automatic links had increased (R ² = 0.02, p = 0.36). In 39 studies that examined cohorts of articles, 21 used automatic and manual processes; 9 only automatic; and 2 only manual (7 did not specify). Sixteen studies reported numbers for automatic and manual processes and indicated that a median of 49% (range from 8 to 97%) of articles had automatic links to registry entries, and 10% (range from 0 to 28%) required manual processes to find registry entries. There was no evidence that the proportion of articles with automatic links to registry entries had increased (R ² = 0.01, p = 0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

The linkage of trial registries to their corresponding publications continues to require extensive manual processes. We did not find that the use of automatic linkage has increased over time. Further investigation is needed to inform approaches that will ensure publications are properly linked to trial registrations, thus enabling efficient monitoring of trial reporting.

Early termination of cardiovascular trials as a consequence of poor accrual: analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov 2006-2015

OBJECTIVES

To present a snapshot of experimental cardiovascular research with a focus on geographical and temporal patterns of early termination due to poor accrual.

SETTING

The Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) database, reflecting ClinicalTrials.gov as of 27 March 2016.

DESIGN

The AACT database was searched for all cardiovascular clinical trials that started from January 2006 up to December 2015.

RESULTS

Thirteen thousand and seven hundred twenty-nine cardiovascular trials were identified. Of these, 8900 (65%) were classified as closed studies. Globally, 11% of closed trials were terminated. This proportion varied from 9.6% to 14% for trials recruiting from Europe and Americas, respectively, with a slightly decreasing trend (p=0.02) over the study period. The most common reason for trials failing to complete was poor accrual (41%). Intercontinental trials exhibited lower figures of poor accrual as the reason for their early stopping, as compared with trials recruiting in a single continent (28% vs 44%, p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Poor accrual significantly challenges the successful completion of cardiovascular clinical trials. Findings are suggestive of a positive effect of globalisation of cardiovascular clinical research on the achievement of enrolment goals within a reasonable time frame.

Real-Time Enrollment Dashboard For Multisite Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

Achieving patient recruitment goals are critical for the successful completion of a clinical trial. We designed and developed a web-based dashboard for assisting in the management of clinical trial screening and enrollment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We use the dashboard to assist in the management of two observational studies of community-acquired pneumonia. Clinical research associates and managers using the dashboard were surveyed to determine its effectiveness as compared with traditional direct communication.

RESULTS

The dashboard has been in use since it was first introduced in May of 2014. Of the 23 staff responding to the survey, 77% felt that it was easier or much easier to use the dashboard for communication than to use direct communication.

CONCLUSION

We have designed and implemented a visualization dashboard for managing multi-site clinical trial enrollment in two community acquired pneumonia studies. Information dashboards are a useful tool for clinical trial management. They can be used as a standalone trial information tool or included into a larger management system.

Experiences of recruiting to a pilot trial of Cardiac Rehabilitation In patients with Bowel cancer (CRIB) with an embedded process evaluation: lessons learned to improve recruitment

Background

Recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a perennial problem. Calls have been made for trialists to make recruitment performance publicly available. This article presents our experience of recruiting to a pilot RCT of cardiac rehabilitation for patients with bowel cancer with an embedded process evaluation.

Methods

Recruitment took place at three UK hospitals. Recruitment figures were based on the following: i) estimated number of patient admissions, ii) number of patients likely to meet inclusion criteria from clinician input and iii) recruitment rates in previous studies. The following recruitment procedure was used:

Nurse assessed patients for eligibility.

Patients signed a screening form indicating interest in and agreement to be approached by a researcher about the study.

An appointment was made at which the patient signed a consent form and was randomised to the intervention or control group.

Information about all patients considered for the study and subsequently included or excluded at each stage of the recruitment process and reasons given were recorded.

Results

There were variations in the time taken to award Research Management approval to run the study at the three sites (45–359 days). Sixty-two percent of the original recruitment estimate was reached. The main reason for under-recruitment was due to over-estimation of the number of patient admissions; other reasons were i) not assessing all patients for eligibility, ii) not completing a screening form for eligible patients and iii) patients who signed a screening form being lost to the study before consenting and randomisation.

Conclusions

Pilot trials should not simply aim to improve recruitment estimates but should also identify factors likely to influence recruitment performance in a future trial and inform the development of that trial’s recruitment strategies. Pilot trials are a crucial part of RCT design. Nevertheless, pilot trials are likely to be small scale, involving only a small number of sites, and contextual differences between sites are likely to impact recruitment performance in any future trial. This means that ongoing monitoring and evaluation in trials are likely to be required.

Trial registration

ISRCTN63510637; UKCRN id 14092.

The impact of registration of clinical trials units: the UK experience

BACKGROUND

Over the last decade, the United Kingdom has invested significant resources in its clinical trial infrastructure. Clinical research networks have been formed, and some general oversight functions for clinical research have been centralised. One of the initiatives is a registration programme for Clinical Trials Units involved in the coordination of clinical trials. An international review panel of experts in clinical trials has been convened for three reviews over time, reviewing applications from Clinical Trials Units in the United Kingdom. The process benefited from earlier work by the National Cancer Research Institute that developed accreditation procedures for trials units involved in cancer trials. This article describes the experience with the three reviews of UK Clinical Trials Units which submitted applications.

PURPOSE

This article describes the evolution and impact of this registration process from the perspective of the current international review panel members, some of whom have served on all reviews, including two done by the National Cancer Research Institute.

PROCESS

Applications for registration were invited from all active, non-commercial Clinical Trials Units in the United Kingdom. The invitations were issued in 2007, 2009 and 2012, and applicants were asked to describe their expertise and staffing levels in specific areas. To ensure that the reviews were as objective as possible, a description of expected core competencies was developed and applicants were asked to document their compliance with meeting these. The review panel assessed each Clinical Trials Unit against the competencies. The Clinical Trials Unit registration process has evolved over time with each successive review benefiting from what was learned in earlier ones.

RESULTS

The review panel has seen positive changes over time, including an increase in the number of units applying, a greater awareness on the part of host institutions about the trials activity within their organisations, more widespread development of Standard Operating Procedures in key areas and improvements in information technology systems used to host clinical trials databases. Key funders are awarding funds only to registered units, and host institutions are implementing procedures and structures to ensure improved communication between all parties involved in trials within their organisation.

CONCLUSION

The registration process developed in the United Kingdom has helped to ensure that trials units in the United Kingdom are compliant with regulatory standards and can meet acceptable standards of quality in their conduct of clinical trials. There is an increased awareness among funders, host institutions and Clinical Trials Units themselves of the required competencies, and communication between all those involved in trials has increased. The registration process is an effective and financially viable way of ensuring that objective standards are met at a national level.