119 A Descriptive Epidemiological Study of Clinical Trials, Comparing Trials Targeted At Older People to Adults of All Ages

2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i12-i42
Author(s):  
J P Renton ◽  
D McAllister
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Older People ◽  
Exclusion Criterion ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Icd 10

Abstract Introduction Fewer clinical trials are carried out in older people. It is unclear how representative and applicable clinical trials carried out exclusively in older people are. We compared clinical trials recruiting older people exclusively “older trials” to those recruiting adults of all ages “all age trials”, using anti-hypertensives acting on the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS drugs) as an exemplar. Method We searched the US clinical trials register 1, to identify all trials carried out exclusively in those aged over 60. From these we selected trials of RAAS drugs. These were matched in a 2:1 ratio to trials carried out in adults of all ages. Data regarding baseline characteristics, adverse events and eligibility criteria were collected from clinical trial reports and clinicaltrials.gov. Estimated associations were calculated for age, sex and adverse events. Eligibility criteria were described and ICD- 10 coded, as appropriate. Results 71 clinical trials were carried out exclusively in older people.13 related to RAAS drugs. Participants in “Older trials” had higher mean age (73.1 and 55.9 respectively), mean difference 16.17 (CI 15.31–17.02). Older trials had fewer male participants. Participants in older trials had lower mean body mass index (BMI). A higher rate of participants in older trials experienced serious adverse events. (2.07, CI 1.55–2.75.) Few older trials had upper age limits (23.1% V 27% all age trials). All trials had exclusion criteria in multiple ICD blocks. Concurrent medications were a more common exclusion criterion in older trials (61.5% v 40.9%). Conclusions Clinical trials carried out exclusively in older people are representative in terms of age, serious adverse events and eligibility. Although there are multiple exclusion criteria for clinical trial participation in both groups, this is not prohibitive. This supports carrying out more trials exclusively in older people. References 1. NIH, US national library of medicine.ClinicalTrials.gov Available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/

Barriers to clinical trial accrual: Clinical trialists' perspectives.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18156-e18156
Author(s):  
Edward S. Kim ◽  
Dax Kurbegov ◽  
Patricia A. Hurley ◽  
David Michael Waterhouse
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Contract Research Organization ◽  
The Public ◽  
Community Forum ◽  
Clinical Trial Accrual

e18156 Background: Oncology clinical trial participation rates remain at historic lows. There are many barriers that impede participation. Understanding those barriers, from the perspective of cancer clinical trialists, will help develop solutions to increase physician and site engagement, with the goal of improving accrual rates and advancing cancer treatment. Methods: Physician investigators and research staff from community-based and academic-based research sites were surveyed during ASCO’s Research Community Forum (RCF) Annual Meeting (N = 159) and through a pre-meeting survey (N = 124) in 2018. Findings and potential solutions were discussed during the meeting. Results: 84% of respondents (n = 84) reported that it took 6-8 months to open a trial and 86% (n = 81) reported that trials had unnecessary delays 70% of the time. The top 10 barriers to accrual identified were: insufficient staffing resources, restrictive eligibility criteria, physician buy-in, site access to trials, burdensome regulatory requirements, difficulty identifying patients, lack of suitable trials, sponsor and contract research organization requirements, patient barriers, and site cost-benefit. Respondents shared strategies to address these barriers. Conclusions: The current state of conducting clinical trials is not sustainable and hinders clinical trial participation. New strategies are needed to ensure patients and practices have access to trials, standardize and streamline processes, reduce inefficiencies, simplify trial activation, reduce regulatory burden, provide sufficient compensation to sites, engage the community and patients, educate the public, and increase collaborations. The ASCO RCF offers resources, available to the public, that offer practical strategies to overcome barriers to clinical trial accrual and has ongoing efforts to facilitate oncology practice participation in clinical trials.

Impact of organ function based standard exclusion criteria in diffuse large b-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients: Who gets left behind?

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14100-e14100
Author(s):  
Arushi Khurana ◽  
Raphael Mwangi ◽  
Grzegorz S. Nowakowski ◽  
Thomas Matthew Habermann ◽  
Stephen M. Ansell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Organ Function ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Impact

e14100 Background: Only 3-5% of adult cancer patients in the US enroll in clinical trials. Patients with organ dysfunction are often excluded from clinical trials, regardless of specific drug metabolism or relative function of the organ. The ASCO and the US FDA recommend modernizing criteria related to baseline organ function and comorbidities. In hematological malignancies, often the disease itself is the reason for organ function derangement. In order to better inform clinical trial eligibility and improve participation in the future, we evaluated the impact of baseline organ function on the potential eligibility for clinical trial enrollment for real world patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL. Methods: Consecutive, newly diagnosed lymphoma patients were offered enrollment from 2002-2015 into the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence. This analysis is based on 1270 DLBCL patients receiving immunochemotherapy. Baseline organ function parameters were identified from the exclusion criteria for hemoglobin, absolute neutrophil count (ANC), platelet count, creatinine, and bilirubin reported in recent frontline trials in DLBCL (Table). Abstracted clinical labs from the MER were used to determine the percent of patients that would be excluded based on the criteria. Results: We determined that 11-23% of MER DLBCL patients receiving standard of care frontline therapy would have been excluded in the various trials utilizing baseline organ function alone (Table). Hemoglobin and renal function had the greatest impact on exclusion. Conclusions: Current national and international (phase II and III) trials are excluding up to 23% of patients from clinical trial participation based on organ function alone in DLBCL. These data will be useful in future clinical trial development to meet ASCO recommendations to increase trial accrual, while balancing the drug toxicities and patient safety. An online tool was developed based on these results to aid future trial development. [Table: see text]

Transforming Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria to Reflect Practical Clinical Application

2016 ◽  
pp. 83-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward S. Kim ◽  
Jennifer Atlas ◽  
Gwynn Ison ◽  
Jennifer L. Ersek
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Diagnostic Testing ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Trial Accrual ◽  
Clinical Trial Results

Historically, oncology clinical trials have focused on comparing a new drug’s efficacy to the standard of care. However, as our understanding of molecular pathways in oncology has evolved, so has our ability to predict how patients will respond to a particular drug, and thus comparison with a standard therapy has become less important. Biomarkers and corresponding diagnostic testing are becoming more and more important to drug development but also limit the type of patient who may benefit from the therapy. Newer clinical trial designs have been developed to assess clinically meaningful endpoints in biomarker-enriched populations, and the number of modern, molecularly driven clinical trials are steadily increasing. At the same time, barriers to clinical trial enrollment have also grown. Many barriers contribute to nonenrollment in clinical trials, including patient, physician, institution, protocol, and regulatory barriers. At the protocol level, eligibility criteria have become a large roadblock to clinical trial accrual. Over time, eligibility criteria have become more and more restrictive. To accrue an adequate number of patients to molecularly driven trials, we should consider eligibility criteria carefully and attempt to reduce restrictive criteria. Reducing restrictive eligibility criteria will allow more patients to be eligible for clinical trial participation, will likely increase the speed of drug approvals, and will result in clinical trial results that more accurately reflect treatment of the population in the clinical setting.

scholarly journals Real-world effects of ACE inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers: protocol for an emulation study of the ONTARGET trial using electronic health records

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paris Baptiste ◽  
Angel YS Wong ◽  
Anna Schultze ◽  
Marianne Cunnington ◽  
Johannes FE Mann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Dual Therapy ◽  
List Type ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Specific Effects

ABSTRACTIntroductionCardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally, responsible for nearly 18 million deaths worldwide in 2017. Medications to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events are prescribed based upon evidence from clinical trials which explore treatment effects in an indicated sample of the general population. However, these results may not be fully generalisable because of trial eligibility criteria that generally restrict to younger patients with fewer comorbidities. Therefore, evidence of effectiveness of medications for groups underrepresented in clinical trials such as those over 75 years, from ethnic minority backgrounds or with low kidney function may be limited.The ONTARGET trial studied the effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) separately and in combination on cardiovascular event reduction. Using individual anonymised data from this study, in collaboration with the original trial investigators, we aim to investigate clinical trial replicability within routinely-collected patient data. If the original trial results are replicable, we will assess treatment effects and risk in groups underrepresented and excluded from the original clinical trial.Methods and analysisWe will develop a cohort analogous to the ONTARGET trial within CPRD between 1 January 2001 to 31 July 2019 using the trial eligibility criteria and propensity score matching. The primary outcome, as in the trial, is a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke and hospitalisation for congestive heart-failure, examined in a time-to-event analysis. If results from the cohort study fall within pre-specified limits, we will expand the cohort to include those with advanced kidney dysfunction and increase the proportion of elderly participants and those from ethnicity minority backgrounds.We will then compare the risk of adverse events and association with long-term outcomes in the clinical trial, with that seen in a directly comparable sample of those attending NHS primary care.STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONSStrengthsLarge cohort study giving power to look at effects within subgroups underrepresented in the clinical trialAccess to individual patient level data from a landmark trial to support creation of a trial-analogous cohortNovelty of studying treatment effects of dual therapy in real-world settingsLimitationsThere may be differences between the trial population and the observational cohort due to the level of detail on inclusion/exclusion criteria provided by the trialDrug-specific effects are unlikely to be able to be investigated due to small numbers in the dual-therapy arm: class-specific effects will be studied insteadMisclassification by primary care coding may lead to inaccurate replication of trial inclusion and exclusion criteria.

scholarly journals Re-Evaluating Eligibility Criteria for Oncology Clinical Trials: Analysis of Investigational New Drug Applications in 2015

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (33) ◽  
pp. 3745-3752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Jin ◽  
Richard Pazdur ◽  
Rajeshwari Sridhara
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Patient Population ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
New Drug ◽  
Drug Clinical Trial ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Eligibility Requirements

Clinical trial eligibility criteria are necessary to define the patient population under study and improve trial safety. However, there are concerns that eligibility criteria for cancer clinical trials are too restrictive and limit patient enrollment in clinical trials. Recently, there have been initiatives to re-examine and modernize eligibility criteria for oncology clinical trials. To assess current eligibility requirements for cancer clinical trials, we have conducted a comprehensive review of eligibility criteria for commercial investigational new drug clinical trial applications submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in 2015. Our findings suggest that eligibility criteria for current cancer clinical trials tend to narrowly define the study population and limit the study to lower-risk patients, which may not be reflective of the greater patient population outside of the study. We discuss potential areas for expanding eligibility criteria to include more patients in clinical trials and design options for clinical trials incorporating expanded eligibility criteria. The broadening of clinical trial eligibility criteria can be considered to better reflect the real-world patient population, improve clinical trial participation, and increase patient access to new investigational treatments.

Prospective Evaluation of Cancer Clinical Trial Accrual Patterns: Identifying Potential Barriers to Enrollment

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 1728-1733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Primo N. Lara ◽  
Roger Higdon ◽  
Nelson Lim ◽  
Karen Kwan ◽  
Michael Tanaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Clinical Trial Accrual ◽  
Patient Accrual

PURPOSE: Well-conducted cancer clinical trials are essential for improving patient outcomes. Unfortunately, only 3% of new cancer patients participate in clinical trials. Barriers to patient accrual in cancer clinical trials must be identified and overcome to increase patient participation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively tracked factors that potentially affected patient accrual into cancer clinical trials at the University of California Davis Cancer Center. Oncologists seeing new outpatients were asked to complete questionnaires regarding patient characteristics and the physician’s decision-making on patient eligibility, protocol availability, and patient opinions on participation. Statistical analysis was performed to correlate these parameters with subsequent protocol accrual. RESULTS: There were 276 assessable patients. At the initial visits, physicians did not consider clinical trials in 38% (105/276) of patients principally because of a perception of protocol unavailability and poor performance status. Physicians considered 62% (171/276) of patients for participation in clinical trials. Of these, only 53% (91/171) had an appropriate protocol available for site and stage of disease. Seventy-six of 90 patients (84%) with available protocols met eligibility criteria for a particular study. Only 39 of 76 patients (51%) agreed to participate in cancer clinical trials, for an overall accrual rate of 14% (39/276). The remainder (37/76, 49%) declined trial participation despite meeting eligibility criteria. The most common reasons were a desire for other treatment (34%), distance from the cancer center (13%), patient refusal to disclose reason (11%), and insurance denial (8%). Patients with private insurance were less likely to enroll in clinical trials compared to those with government-funded insurance (OR, 0.34; P = .03; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.9). CONCLUSION: Barriers to cancer clinical trial accrual can be prospectively identified and addressed in the development and conduct of future studies, which may potentially lead to more robust clinical trials enrollment. Investigation of patient perceptions regarding the clinical trials process and the role of third party–payers is warranted.

scholarly journals Evaluating the frequency of English language requirements in clinical trial eligibility criteria: A systematic analysis using ClinicalTrials.gov

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (9) ◽  
pp. e1003758
Author(s):  
Akila V. Muthukumar ◽  
Walker Morrell ◽  
Barbara E. Bierer
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Computer Program ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
English Language ◽  
The United States ◽  
English Language Proficiency ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Separate Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

Background A number of prior studies have demonstrated that research participants with limited English proficiency in the United States are routinely excluded from clinical trial participation. Systematic exclusion through study eligibility criteria that require trial participants to be able to speak, read, and/or understand English affects access to clinical trials and scientific generalizability. We sought to establish the frequency with which English language proficiency is required and, conversely, when non-English languages are affirmatively accommodated in US interventional clinical trials for adult populations. Methods and findings We used the advanced search function on ClinicalTrials.gov specifying interventional studies for adults with at least 1 site in the US. In addition, we used these search criteria to find studies with an available posted protocol. A computer program was written to search for evidence of English or Spanish language requirements, or the posted protocol, when available, was manually read for these language requirements. Of the 14,367 clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 1 January 2019 and 1 December 2020 that met baseline search criteria, 18.98% (95% CI 18.34%–19.62%; n = 2,727) required the ability to read, speak, and/or understand English, and 2.71% (95% CI 2.45%–2.98%; n = 390) specifically mentioned accommodation of translation to another language. The remaining trials in this analysis and the following sub-analyses did not mention English language requirements or accommodation of languages other than English. Of 2,585 federally funded clinical trials, 28.86% (95% CI 27.11%–30.61%; n = 746) required English language proficiency and 4.68% (95% CI 3.87%–5.50%; n = 121) specified accommodation of other languages; of the 5,286 industry-funded trials, 5.30% (95% CI 4.69%–5.90%; n = 280) required English and 0.49% (95% CI 0.30%–0.69%; n = 26) accommodated other languages. Trials related to infectious disease were less likely to specify an English requirement than all registered trials (10.07% versus 18.98%; relative risk [RR] = 0.53; 95% CI 0.44–0.64; p < 0.001). Trials related to COVID-19 were also less likely to specify an English requirement than all registered trials (8.18% versus 18.98%; RR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.33–0.56; p < 0.001). Trials with a posted protocol (n = 366) were more likely than all registered clinical trials to specify an English requirement (36.89% versus 18.98%; RR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.69–2.23; p < 0.001). A separate analysis of studies with posted protocols in 4 therapeutic areas (depression, diabetes, breast cancer, and prostate cancer) demonstrated that clinical trials related to depression were the most likely to require English (52.24%; 95% CI 40.28%–64.20%). One limitation of this study is that the computer program only searched for the terms “English” and “Spanish” and may have missed evidence of other language accommodations. Another limitation is that we did not differentiate between requirements to read English, speak English, understand English, and be a native English speaker; we grouped these requirements together in the category of English language requirements. Conclusions A meaningful percentage of US interventional clinical trials for adults exclude individuals who cannot read, speak, and/or understand English, or are not native English speakers. To advance more inclusive and generalizable research, funders, sponsors, institutions, investigators, institutional review boards, and others should prioritize translating study materials and eliminate language requirements unless justified either scientifically or ethically.

scholarly journals Provider-reported challenges and barriers to referring patients to neuro-oncology clinical trials: a report from the Society for Neuro-Oncology member survey

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-51
Author(s):  
James L Rogers ◽  
Alvina Acquaye ◽  
Elizabeth Vera ◽  
Amanda Bates ◽  
Patrick Y Wen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Geographic Area ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Electronic Survey ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Survey Sample

Abstract Background Whereas much information exists in general oncology regarding the barriers to clinical trial referral, those specific to neuro-oncology are not yet well known. Trial barriers lead to lower patient accrual, which can lead to less-efficient clinical trials and slower improvement of the standard of care, which may negatively effect patient outcomes. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine the clinical trial referral barriers that are specific to neuro-oncology to improve trial accrual rates. Methods An electronic survey was completed by 426 Society for Neuro-Oncology members, of whom 372 are included in this report. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, and proportions, were used to characterize our survey sample. Results Only 22% of participants reported that their center tracks referrals to clinical trials inside as well as outside their own institution, with an estimate of less than 30% of patients referred. The most commonly reported provider-referral barrier was finding ongoing trials in the patient’s geographic area. Providers also perceived that while considering participation in a trial their patients may not qualify for any trials, and if they do, may be unable to travel to the study site for follow-up. Additionally, practice location and provider and institution type all influenced referral patterns. Conclusion Efforts should be made to broaden trial availability and eligibility criteria, improve trial referral tracking, and ensure patients and their caregivers understand the goals and importance of clinical trials to reduce barriers and improve trial participation.

Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment

2019 ◽  
pp. 105-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan D. Nipp ◽  
Kessely Hong ◽  
Electra D. Paskett
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Financial Barriers ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment

Clinical trials are imperative for testing novel cancer therapies, advancing the science of cancer care, and determining the best treatment strategies to enhance outcomes for patients with cancer. However, barriers to clinical trial enrollment contribute to low participation in cancer clinical trials. Many factors play a role in the persistently low rates of trial participation, including financial barriers, logistical concerns, and the lack of resources for patients and clinicians to support clinical trial enrollment and retention. Furthermore, restrictive eligibility criteria often result in the exclusion of certain patient populations, which thus adds to the widening disparities seen between patients who enroll in trials and those treated in routine practice. Moreover, additional factors, such as difficulty by patients and clinicians in coping with the uncertainty inherent to clinical trial participation, contribute to low trial enrollment and represent key components of the decision-making process. Specifically, patients and clinicians may struggle to assess the risk-benefit ratio and may incorrectly estimate the probability and severity of challenges associated with clinical trial participation, thus complicating the informed consent process. Importantly, research has increasingly focused on overcoming barriers to clinical trial enrollment. A promising solution involves the use of patient navigators to help enhance clinical trial recruitment, enrollment, and retention. Although clinical trials are essential for improving and prolonging the lives of patients with cancer, barriers exist that can impede trial enrollment; yet, efforts to recognize and address these barriers and enhance trial enrollment are being investigated.

scholarly journals Understanding the Differences between Clinical Trial Participants and Real-World Patients with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2970-2970 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tolulope Fatola ◽  
Sarah C. Rutherford ◽  
John N. Allan ◽  
Jia Ruan ◽  
Richard R. Furman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Bulky Disease ◽  
History Of ◽  
Trial Participants

Abstract Introduction. Recent research in lymphoma has resulted in better outcomes for clinical trial populations. Population studies have suggested that some real-world patients (pts) have not benefited. We hypothesized that one reason for this discrepancy is the difference between trial participants and real-world pts. We aimed to: 1) Compare demographics and baseline clinical characteristics of real-world and clinical trial pts receiving first-line therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL); and 2) Compare demographics and baseline clinical characteristics of real-world DLBCL, FL, and MCL pts with clinical trial eligibility criteria. Methods. Using ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified all phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that opened between 2002-2017 and included pts with DLBCL, FL, MCL. Published trials that included front-line immunotherapy and chemotherapy were selected, and eligibility criteria recorded. We reviewed publications and recorded pt numbers and characteristics. Using the Weill Cornell Medicine (WCM) Lymphoma Database, an IRB-approved, prospective cohort which started in 2010, we identified all pts diagnosed with DLBCL, FL, and MCL and recorded baseline characteristics. Descriptive statistics were used to describe clinical trial eligibility and pt characteristics. Fisher's exact test was used to compare pt characteristics. Results. We identified 642 phase 2 and 3 trials on Clinicaltrials.gov, 37 of which met predefined criteria. The most frequent exclusion criteria were HIV infection (n=33), pregnancy (n=25), HBV infection (n=21), history of non-lymphoma cancer (n=19), ECOG>2 (n=16), HCV infection (n=16), serum creatinine >2 mg/dL or >2x ULN (n=15), active infection (n=12), history of MI (n=11), serum bilirubin >2 mg/dL or >2x ULN (n=7), congestive heart failure (n=4), hemoglobin (Hb) <10g/dL (n=4). A total of 5614 pts were enrolled in 37 trials. Pt characteristics are listed in Table 1. Of 3690 enrolled in the 23 trials that reported the number of patients screened for eligibility, 502 (14%) were excluded based on eligibility criteria. We identified 652 pts in the WCM Database with newly diagnosed DLBCL, FL, and MCL (Table 1). Key differences between clinical trial and Database populations for DLBCL included proportion of pts with stage 3-4 disease (79% vs 60%, p<0.001), presence of B symptoms (40% vs 25%, p<0.001) or bulky disease (23% vs 15%, p=0.016), and intermediate or high IPI (85% vs 66%, p<0.001); 36% of Database pts were age >70. Among FL pts, key differences between trial and Database populations included proportion with stage 3-4 disease (98% vs 56%, p<0.001), presence of B symptoms (36% vs 8%, p<0.001) or bulky disease (21% vs. 5%, p<0.001), and intermediate or high FLIPI (83% vs 58%, p<0.001). All FL trials had a median age between 50-60, whereas 30% Database pts varied in age from 27-93 years and 30% were age >70. Clinical trial vs. Database MCL pts differed in proportion with presence of B symptoms (29% vs 18%, p=0.022) or bulky disease (18% vs 5%, p=0.025), and intermediate or high MIPI (63.5% vs 79%, p=0.002); 42% of Database pts were age >70. Of all 652 pts from the Database, 190 (29%) had characteristics that may have excluded them from clinical trial participation. The most common reasons for exclusion included history of cancer (11%), cardiac arrhythmias (7%), MI (6%), active infections (6%) and Hb <10g/dL (5%). Only 19 might have been excluded due to serum creatinine >2mg/dL (1.4%), serum bilirubin >2 mg/dL (0.9%) and ECOG >2 (0.6%). Conclusions. These data suggest that real-world lymphoma pts are considerably more heterogeneous than clinical trial populations. While the average pt in WCM Database had a lower stage and/or lower prognostic risk score than a typical trial population, over 30% of database pts were > 70, a group that was uncommon in clinical trials. Likewise, almost 30% of Database pts had medical conditions that may have excluded them from clinical trial participation. Future research should focus on better defining the characteristics and outcomes of pts that either are underrepresented on clinical trials, both intentionally due to eligibility criteria and unintentionally for less clear reasons. It is likely that some eligibility criteria have little impact on treatment and outcomes and may be eliminated from prospective trials, while other trials may focus on pts that remain poorly understood. Disclosures Allan: Acerta: Consultancy; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Furman:Verastem: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Gilead: Consultancy. Leonard:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy. Martin:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document