Article

Preliminary evaluation of factors associated with premature trial closure and feasibility of accrual benchmarks in phase III oncology trials.

Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA.
Clinical Trials (Impact Factor: 1.94). 08/2010; 7(4):312-21. DOI: 10.1177/1740774510374973
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A major challenge for randomized phase III oncology trials is the frequent low rates of patient enrollment, resulting in high rates of premature closure due to insufficient accrual.
We conducted a pilot study to determine the extent of trial closure due to poor accrual, feasibility of identifying trial factors associated with sufficient accrual, impact of redesign strategies on trial accrual, and accrual benchmarks designating high failure risk in the clinical trials cooperative group (CTCG) setting.
A subset of phase III trials opened by five CTCGs between August 1991 and March 2004 was evaluated. Design elements, experimental agents, redesign strategies, and pretrial accrual assessment supporting accrual predictions were abstracted from CTCG documents. Percent actual/predicted accrual rate averaged per month was calculated. Trials were categorized as having sufficient or insufficient accrual based on reason for trial termination. Analyses included univariate and bivariate summaries to identify potential trial factors associated with accrual sufficiency.
Among 40 trials from one CTCG, 21 (52.5%) trials closed due to insufficient accrual. In 82 trials from five CTCGs, therapeutic trials accrued sufficiently more often than nontherapeutic trials (59% vs 27%, p = 0.05). Trials including pretrial accrual assessment more often achieved sufficient accrual than those without (67% vs 47%, p = 0.08). Fewer exclusion criteria, shorter consent forms, other CTCG participation, and trial design simplicity were not associated with achieving sufficient accrual. Trials accruing at a rate much lower than predicted (<35% actual/predicted accrual rate) were consistently closed due to insufficient accrual.
This trial subset under-represents certain experimental modalities. Data sources do not allow accounting for all factors potentially related to accrual success.
Trial closure due to insufficient accrual is common. Certain trial design factors appear associated with attaining sufficient accrual. Defining accrual benchmarks for early trial termination or redesign is feasible, but better accrual prediction methods are critically needed. Future studies should focus on identifying trial factors that allow more accurate accrual predictions and strategies that can salvage open trials experiencing slow accrual.

0 Followers
 · 
109 Views
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology 06/2014; 32(22). DOI:10.1200/JCO.2014.55.9344 · 17.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Slow recruitment in clinical trials leads to increased costs and resource utilization, which includes both the clinic staff and patient volunteers. Careful planning and monitoring of the accrual process can prevent the unnecessary loss of these resources. We propose two hierarchical extensions to the existing Bayesian constant accrual model: the accelerated prior and the hedging prior. The new proposed priors are able to adaptively utilize the researcher's previous experience and current accrual data to produce the estimation of trial completion time. The performance of these models, including prediction precision, coverage probability, and correct decision-making ability, is evaluated using actual studies from our cancer center and simulation. The results showed that a constant accrual model with strongly informative priors is very accurate when accrual is on target or slightly off, producing smaller mean squared error, high percentage of coverage, and a high number of correct decisions as to whether or not continue the trial, but it is strongly biased when off target. Flat or weakly informative priors provide protection against an off target prior but are less efficient when the accrual is on target. The accelerated prior performs similar to a strong prior. The hedging prior performs much like the weak priors when the accrual is extremely off target but closer to the strong priors when the accrual is on target or only slightly off target. We suggest improvements in these models and propose new models for future research. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Statistics in Medicine 11/2014; 34(4). DOI:10.1002/sim.6359 · 2.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A qualitative survey was carried out in six countries to gather insights into potential barriers to patient participation in cancer clinical trials (CTs) to help stakeholders develop strategies to improve recruitment and participation. While the research was exploratory in nature, the findings highlight the critical role that doctors play in terms of CTs participation. The research also indicates the need for outreach to raise awareness about CTs both outside and within the clinical research community as well as educating the general public to dispel misconceptions about CTs. The results also indicated that most patients who participated in the research believe all patients should be offered the chance to participate in CTs, wanting all available options presented to them.
    ecancermedicalscience 01/2014; 8:432. DOI:10.3332/ecancer.2014.432