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.

Current Challenges Faced by Cancer Clinical Trials in Addressing the Problem of Under-Representation of Older Adults: A Narrative Review

The number of older adults living with cancer is increasing. There is a clear lack of representation of older adults in clinical trials, including cancer trials. Reasons for this are multifactorial and complex and include protocol, patient and sponsor factors. Potential solutions to overcome issues with trial design include varied methods of recruitment with flexible inclusion criteria. Possible alternatives to randomised trials include prospective cohort studies, pragmatic trials and the use of national population-based data sets. Patient factors may be addressed by integration of geriatric assessment, so patients can be randomised or treated based on their individual needs. Additionally, standard protocols for including older adults with cognitive impairment should be developed, rather than automatic exclusion. Increased effort is needed from sponsors and governing health care bodies to make recruitment of older adults to clinical trials standard.

Two-stage optimal designs based on exact variance for a single-arm trial with survival endpoints

Sample size calculation based on normal approximations is often associated with the loss of statistical power for a single-arm trial with a time-to-event endpoint. Recently, Wu (2015) derived the exact variance for the one-sample log-rank test under the alternative and showed that a single-arm one-stage study based on exact variance often has power above the nominal level while the type I error rate is controlled. We extend this approach to a single-arm two-stage design by using exact variances of the one-sample log-rank test for the first stage and the two stages combined. The empirical power of the proposed two-stage optimal designs is often not guaranteed under a two-stage design setting, which could be due to the asymptotic bi-variate normal distribution used to estimate the joint distribution of the test statistics. We adjust the nominal power level in the design search to guarantee the simulated power of the identified optimal design being above the nominal level. The sample size and the study time savings of the proposed two-stage designs are substantial as compared to the one-stage design.

Missing tumor measurement (TM) data in the search for alternative TM-based endpoints in cancer clinical trials

PURPOSE

Missing data commonly occur in cancer clinical trials (CCT) and may hinder the search for alternative trial endpoints. We consider reasons for missing tumor measurement (TM) data in CCT and how missing TM data are typically handled. We explore the potential impact of missing TM data on predictive ability of a set of TM-based endpoints.

METHODS

Literature review identifies reasons for and approaches to handling missing TM data. Data from 3 actual clinical trials were used for illustration. A sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of missing TM data was performed by comparing overall survival (OS) predictive ability of alternative endpoints using observed and imputed data.

RESULTS

Reasons for missing TM data in CCT are presented, based on the literature review and the three trials. Although missing TM data impacted individual objective status (e.g. 12-week status changed for 53% of patients in one imputation set), it surprisingly only minimally impacted endpoint predictive ability (e.g. median c-indices of 500 imputed datasets ranged from 0.566 to 0.570 for N9741, 0.592-0.616 for N9841, and 0.542-0.624 for N0026).

CONCLUSION

By understanding the reasons for missingness, we can better anticipate them and minimize their occurrence. Our preliminary analysis suggests missing TM data may not impact endpoint predictive ability, but could impact objective response status classification; however these findings require further validation. With response status accepted as an important phase II endpoint in the development of new cancer therapies (including immunotherapy), we urge that in CCT complete TM data collection and adherence to protocol-defined disease evaluation as closely as possible be a priority.

Patient Preferences for Use of Archived Biospecimens from Oncology Trials When Adequacy of Informed Consent Is Unclear

BACKGROUND

Oncology research increasingly involves biospecimen collection and data sharing. Ethical challenges emerge when researchers seek to use archived biospecimens for purposes that were not well defined in the original informed consent document (ICD). We sought to inform ongoing policy debates by assessing patient views on these issues.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We administered a cross-sectional self-administered survey to patients with cancer at an academic medical center. Survey questions addressed attitudes toward cancer research, willingness to donate biospecimens, expectations regarding use of biospecimens, and preferences regarding specific ethical dilemmas.

RESULTS

Among 240 participants (response rate 69%), virtually all (94%) indicated willingness to donate tissue for research. Most participants (86%) expected that donated tissue would be used for any research deemed scientifically important, and virtually all (94%) expected that the privacy of their health information would be protected. Broad use of stored biospecimens and data sharing with other researchers increased willingness to donate tissue. For three scenarios in which specific consent for proposed biobank research was unclear within the ICD, a majority of patient's favored allowing the research to proceed: 76% to study a different cancer, 88% to study both inherited (germline) and tumor specific (somatic) mutations, and 70% to permit data sharing. A substantial minority believed that research using stored biospecimens should only proceed with specific consent.

CONCLUSION

When debates arise over appropriate use of archived biospecimens, the interests of the research participants in seeing productive use of their blood or tissue should be considered, in addition to addressing concerns about potential risks and lack of specific consent.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This survey evaluated views of patients with cancer regarding the permissible use of stored biospecimens from cancer trials when modern scientific methods are not well described in the original informed consent document. The vast majority of patients support translational research and expect that any biospecimens they donate will be used to advance knowledge. When researchers, policy makers, and those charged with research oversight debate use of stored biospecimens, it is important to recognize that research participants have an interest in productive use of their blood, tissue, or data, in addition to considerations of risks and the adequacy of documented consent.

Can routine data be used to support cancer clinical trials? A historical baseline on which to build: retrospective linkage of data from the TACT (CRUK 01/001) breast cancer trial and the National Cancer Data Repository

BACKGROUND

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating new cancer treatments. They are, however, expensive to conduct, particularly where long-term follow-up of participants is required. Tracking participants via routine datasets could provide a cost-effective alternative for ascertaining follow-up information required to evaluate disease outcomes. This project explores the potential for routine data to inform cancer trials, using, the historical National Cancer Data Repository (NCDR) for English NHS sites and, for validation, mature data available from the TACT trial.

METHODS

Datasets were matched using patients' NHS number, date of birth (dob) and name/initials. Demographics, clinical characteristics and outcomes were assessed for agreement and completeness. Overall survival was compared between NCDR and TACT.

RESULTS

A total of 3151 patients underwent linkage; 3047 (96.7%) of which had matched records. Extensive cleaning was required for some registry data fields, e.g. cause of death, whilst others had large amounts of missing data, e.g. tumour size (22.1%). Other data had high levels of matching such as dob (99.6%) and date of death (89.6%). There was no evidence of differential survival rates (8-year survival: TACT = 75% (95% CI 73, 76); NCDR = 76% (95% CI 74, 77)).

CONCLUSIONS

Data quality and completeness requires improvement before routine data could be used for RCTs. Introduction of new routine datasets, including COSD, is welcomed although reporting of disease-recurrence events remains a concern. Prospective validation of such datasets is required before RCTs can confidently switch patient follow-up to utilise routinely collected NHS-based data.

TACT TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00033683 , registered on 9 April 2002; ISRCTN79718493 , registered on 1 July 2001.

Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Emerging evidence suggests that patient-reported outcome (PRO)-specific information may be omitted in trial protocols and that PRO results are poorly reported, limiting the use of PRO data to inform cancer care. This study aims to evaluate the standards of PRO-specific content in UK cancer trial protocols and their arising publications and to highlight examples of best-practice PRO protocol content and reporting where they occur. The objective of this study is to determine if these early findings are generalisable to UK cancer trials, and if so, how best we can bring about future improvements in clinical trials methodology to enhance the way PROs are assessed, managed and reported.

HYPOTHESIS

Trials in which the primary end point is based on a PRO will have more complete PRO protocol and publication components than trials in which PROs are secondary end points.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Completed National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio Cancer clinical trials (all cancer specialities/age-groups) will be included if they contain a primary/secondary PRO end point. The NIHR portfolio includes cancer trials, supported by a range of funders, adjudged as high-quality clinical research studies. The sample will be drawn from studies completed between 31 December 2000 and 1 March 2014 (n=1141) to allow sufficient time for completion of the final trial report and publication. Two reviewers will then review the protocols and arising publications of included trials to: (1) determine the completeness of their PRO-specific protocol content; (2) determine the proportion and completeness of PRO reporting in UK Cancer trials and (3) model factors associated with PRO protocol and reporting completeness and with PRO reporting proportion.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the ethics committee at University of Birmingham (ERN_15-0311). Trial findings will be disseminated via presentations at local, national and international conferences, peer-reviewed journals and social media including the CPROR twitter account and UOB departmental website (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpro0r).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42016036533.

Clinical trial spots for cancer patients by tumour type: The cancer trials portfolio at clinicaltrials.gov

BACKGROUND

Although participation in cancer clinical trials is low, little is known about the number of available clinical trials, and open spots for patients. Moreover, it is unclear what the relationship is between clinical trial openings and the incidence and mortality of cancer subtypes.

METHODOLOGY

We identified the number of phase I, phase II and phase III registered at clinicaltrials.gov by cancer (tumour) type. All counts were over the preceding 5 years (2008-2013). We compared these counts against the incidence and prevalence of disease reported by Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database for 32 common cancers.

RESULTS

From 2008 to 2013, 3879 phase I trials, 4982 phase II trials and 1379 phase III trials concerning a cancer subtype were registered in clinicaltrials.gov. These trials had a cumulative proposed recruitment of 203,396, 421,502 and 697,787 patients, respectively. Trial enrollment varied by tumour type, with both over and under-representation occurring.

CONCLUSION

Opportunities to enroll in clinical trials vary by phase and tumour type. Oncologists must remain committed to clinical trials.