Impact of direct physician-to-physician contact on accelerating oncology clinical trial accrual

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6613-6613
Author(s):  
J. R. Eckardt ◽  
N. Ku ◽  
A. DeMaggio ◽  
M. Reese ◽  
M. Levonyak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Current Model ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Initial Assessment ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Physician Intervention ◽  
Physician Contact ◽  
Clinical Trial Accrual ◽  
Physician Awareness

6613 Background: The development of more effective oncology agents is critically dependent on the completion of clinical trials; currently, >4000 oncology trials listed in www.clinicaltrials.gov are accruing pts in the US. Unfortunately, only 3–5% of new cancer pts participate in clinical trials and most trials do not meet their projected accrual timelines. Barriers to pt accrual include physician awareness & attitudes, access to protocols, administrative burdens to conduct clinical trials, cost to physicians and pts, and pt concerns about participation in research trials. To overcome at least some of these barriers, we investigated a strategy to improve clinical trial accrual that optimizes trial placement and awareness through a direct physician to physician intervention. Methods: For each site, a customized enrollment plan is established after initial assessment of interest and accrual potential. Implementation of the enrollment plan includes clinical communications and medical support delivered through direct physician to physician interactions. From Feb 2008 to December 2008, we implemented this strategy to increase accrual to 5 oncology trials (2 placebo controlled randomized trials and 3 phase II trials in breast cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and soft tissue sarcoma). Results: The implementation of direct physician to physician intervention resulted in a measurable improvement of between 50 - 300% in the monthly accrual to each of these 5 trials. Despite being significantly behind projections, 2 of the trials have now completed accrual on schedule. In the ongoing phase III study, accrual has improved from an average of 3.8 pts/mo to 13.5 pts/mo. Conclusions: The use of our current model of optimizing trial placement and awareness through a direct physician to physician intervention has been successful in significantly accelerating clinical trial accrual in 5/5 trials initiated to date. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

A pooled analysis of phase II trials of gemcitabine (GEM)-containing doublets plus bevacizumab (BEV):  Should combination chemotherapy serve as the backbone in clinical trials of advanced pancreatic cancer (APC)?

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4038-4038
Author(s):  
Katherine Van Loon ◽  
George P. Kim ◽  
Anne Marie Espinoza ◽  
David R. Fogelman ◽  
Renuka V. Iyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Bowel Perforation ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cardiac Events ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Grade 3

4038 Background: GEM has served as the chemotherapy platform for most phase III clinical trials in APC, inc. CALGB 80303 (GEM +/- BEV). However, GEM-based combination regimens may confer superior outcomes in select pts and represent a preferred backbone in clinical trial design testing targeted agents. Methods: Data was pooled from 5 phase II trials evaluating GEM-based cytotoxic doublets plus BEV in APC. 1o endpoint was OS. 2o endpoints included ORR, CA19-9 response, and adverse events (AEs). Kaplan-Meier methods estimated time-to-event endpoints. The Cox proportional hazard model estimated univariate hazard ratios (HR) of death. Results: Of 261 pts, 90.7% were Caucasian, 95.4% had an ECOG PS 0-1, and 91.6% had metastatic disease. Median age = 60y. Pooled OS data (in mos), stratified for PS and stage, is shown in the table. ORR across all trials: CR 1.6%, PR 22.9%, SD 50.8%, PD 20.2%, NA 4.7%. HR for pts who achieved disease control (CR/PR/SD) was 0.35 vs. those with PD (95% CI 0.23-0.54, p<0.001). 76.5% of pts had elevated baseline CA19-9; of these, 62% achieved ≥50% reduction (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.34-0.73, p<0.001). BEV-related AEs ≥grade 3: HTN (10.6%), hemorrhage (9.5%), VTE (10.1%), cardiac events (3.4%), and bowel perforation (2.2%). Median OS in pts with grade 3-4 HTN was 13.4 mos vs. 9.8 mos in those without (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.48-1.24, p=0.29). Conclusions: Recognizing the limitations of single-arm phase II trial design and cross-study comparisons, these results compare favorably to those from CALGB 80303. The standard paradigm of GEM +/- drug X in clinical trial development for APC needs to be reconsidered. Based on our data as well as the recent phase III FOLFIRINOX study, building on more intensive combination chemo regimens in future trials may represent a better strategy, especially for pts with good PS. [Table: see text]

Clinical trial risk reduction in non-small cell lung cancer though the use of biomarkers and receptor-targeted therapies.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8040-8040
Author(s):  
Adam Falconi ◽  
Gilberto Lopes ◽  
Jayson L. Parker
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Drug Development ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Targeted Therapies ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Clinical Testing ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

8040 Background: We analyzed the risk of clinical trial failure duringnon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) drug development between 1998 and 2012. Methods: NSCLC drug development was investigated using trial disclosures from publically available resources. Compounds were excluded from the analysis if they began phase I clinical testing before 1998 and if they did not use treatment relevant endpoints. Analysis was conducted in regards to treatment indication, compound classification and mechanism of action. Costs of clinical drug development for advanced NSCLC were calculated using industry data and assumptions, a 9% yearly discount rate and assuming a clinical trial length of 2.5 years for phase I trials, 4 years for phase II trials, 5 years for phase III trials and an average of 5 phase I trials, 7 phase II trials, and 4 phase III trials per approved drug. All funding costs are in US dollars (USD). Results: 2,407 clinical trials met search criteria. 676 trials and 199 unique compounds met our inclusion criteria. The likelihood, or cumulative clinical trial success rate, that a new drug would pass all phases of clinical testing and be approved was found to be 11%, which is less than the expected industry aggregate rates (16.5%). The success of phase III trials was found to be the biggest obstacle for drug approval with a success rate of only 28%. Biomarker-guided targeted therapies (with a success rate of 62%) and receptor targeted therapies (with a success rate of 31%) were found to have the highest likelihood of success in clinical trials. The risk-adjusted cost for NSCLC clinical drug development was calculated to be 1.89 billion US dollars. Use of biomarkers decreased drug development cost by 26% to 1.4 billion US dollars. Potential savings may be even higher if fewer clinical trials are required for successful development. Conclusions: Physicians that enroll patients in NSCLC trials should prioritize their participation in clinical trial programs that involve either a biomarker or receptor targeted therapy, which appear to carry the best chances for a successful treatment response. Given the high adjusted cost of clinical testing alone in NSCLC, efforts to mitigate the risk of trial failure need to explore these factors more fully.

scholarly journals Unconventional Anticancer Agents: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Vickers ◽  
Joyce Kuo ◽  
Barrie R. Cassileth
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Dose Finding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Off Label

Purpose A substantial number of cancer patients turn to treatments other than those recommended by mainstream oncologists in an effort to sustain tumor remission or halt the spread of cancer. These unconventional approaches include botanicals, high-dose nutritional supplementation, off-label pharmaceuticals, and animal products. The objective of this study was to review systematically the methodologies applied in clinical trials of unconventional treatments specifically for cancer. Methods MEDLINE 1966 to 2005 was searched using approximately 200 different medical subject heading terms (eg, alternative medicine) and free text words (eg, laetrile). We sought prospective clinical trials of unconventional treatments in cancer patients, excluding studies with only symptom control or nonclinical (eg, immune) end points. Trial data were extracted by two reviewers using a standardized protocol. Results We identified 14,735 articles, of which 214, describing 198 different clinical trials, were included. Twenty trials were phase I, three were phase I and II, 70 were phase II, and 105 were phase III. Approximately half of the trials investigated fungal products, 20% investigated other botanicals, 10% investigated vitamins and supplements, and 10% investigated off-label pharmaceuticals. Only eight of the phase I trials were dose-finding trials, and a mere 20% of phase II trials reported a statistical design. Of the 27 different agents tested in phase III, only one agent had a prior dose-finding trial, and only for three agents was the definitive study initiated after the publication of phase II data. Conclusion Unconventional cancer treatments have not been subject to appropriate early-phase trial development. Future research on unconventional therapies should involve dose-finding and phase II studies to determine the suitability of definitive trials.

scholarly journals The case for introducing pre-registered confirmatory pharmacological pre-clinical studies

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 749-754 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivia Kiwanuka ◽  
Bo-Michael Bellander ◽  
Anders Hånell
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Network Analysis ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trial ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Experimental Drugs

When evaluating the design of pre-clinical studies in the field of traumatic brain injury, we found substantial differences compared to phase III clinical trials, which in part may explain the difficulties in translating promising experimental drugs into approved treatments. By using network analysis, we also found cases where a large proportion of the studies evaluating a pre-clinical treatment was performed by inter-related researchers, which is potentially problematic. Subjecting all pre-clinical trials to the rigor of a phase III clinical trial is, however, likely not practically achievable. Instead, we repeat the call for a distinction to be made between exploratory and confirmatory pre-clinical studies.

scholarly journals A Review of Phase III Clinical Trials of Prostate Cancer Chemoprevention

2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
JF Thorpe ◽  
S Jain ◽  
TH Marczylo ◽  
AJ Gescher ◽  
WP Steward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Prevention ◽  
Age Of Onset ◽  
Cancer Chemoprevention ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Prostate Cancer Prevention ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

INTRODUCTION Prostate cancer is an excellent target for chemoprevention strategies; given its late age of onset, any delay in carcinogenesis would lead to a reduction in its incidence. This article reviews all the completed and on-going phase III trials in prostate cancer chemoprevention. PATIENTS AND METHODS All phase III trials of prostate cancer chemoprevention were identified within a Medline search using the keywords ‘clinical trial, prostate cancer, chemoprevention’. RESULTS In 2003, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) became the first phase III clinical trial of prostate cancer prevention. This landmark study was terminated early due to the 24.8% reduction of prostate cancer prevalence over a 7-year period in those men taking the 5α-reductase inhibitor, finasteride. This article reviews the PCPT and the interpretation of the excess high-grade prostate cancer (HGPC) cases in the finasteride group. The lack of relationship between cumulative dose and the HGPC cases, and the possible sampling error of biopsies due to gland volume reduction in the finasteride group refutes the suggestion that this is a genuine increase in HGPC cases. The other on-going phase III clinical trials of prostate cancer chemoprevention – the REDUCE study using dutasteride, and the SELECT study using vitamin E and selenium – are also reviewed. CONCLUSIONS At present, finasteride remains the only intervention shown in long-term prospective phase III clinical trials to reduce the incidence of prostate cancer. Until we have the results of trials using alternative agents including the on-going REDUCE and SELECT trials, the advice given to men interested in prostate cancer prevention must include discussion of the results of the PCPT. The increased rate of HGPC in the finasteride group continues to generate debate; however, finasteride may still be suitable for prostate cancer prevention, particularly in men with lower urinary tract symptoms.

The role of experience and clinical decision support in clinical trial accrual within oncology.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1527-1527
Author(s):  
Waqas Haque ◽  
Ann M. Geiger ◽  
Celette Sugg Skinner ◽  
Rasmi Nair ◽  
Simon Craddock Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Principal Investigator ◽  
Physician Practices ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Future ◽  
Clinical Trial Accrual

1527 Background: Patient accrual for cancer clinical trials is suboptimal. The complexity of applying eligibility criteria and enrolling patients may deter oncologists from recommending patients for a trial. As such, there is a need to understand how experience, training, and clinical decision support impact physician practices and intentions related to trial accrual. Methods: From May to September 2017, we conducted a survey on clinical trial accrual in a national sample of medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists. The 20-minute survey assessed barriers and facilitators to clinical trial accrual, including experience (e.g., “In the past 5 years, have you been a study or site PI of a trial?”), training (e.g., “Did you receive training about trial design and recruitment as part of medical school, residency, or fellowship? After fellowship?”), and clinical decision support (e.g., “What kind of clinical decision support has your practice implemented?). We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with frequency of discussing trials (with ≥25% of patients) and likelihood of recommending a trial to a patient (likely or very likely) in the future. Results: Survey respondents (n = 1,030) were mostly medical oncologists (59%), age 35-54 years (67%), male (74%), and not in academic practice (58%). About 18% of respondents (n = 183) reported discussing trials with ≥25% of their patients, and 80% reported being likely or very likely to recommend a trial to a patient in the future. Prior experience as principal investigator of a trial was associated with both frequency of discussing trials (OR 3.27, 95% CI 2.25, 4.75) and likelihood of recommending a trial in the future (OR 5.22, 95% CI 3.71, 7.34), as was receiving additional training in clinical trials after fellowship (discussion with patients: OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.80, 3.42; recommend in future: OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.37, 2.69). Implementing clinical decision support was not associated with discussing trials with ≥25% of patients (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.76, 1.67), but was associated with being likely to recommend a trial in the future (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.11, 2.71). Conclusions: In a national survey of oncologists, we observed differences in physician practices and intention related to clinical trial accrual. Whereas the vast majority (80%) reported being likely or very likely to recommend trials in the future, far fewer (20%) reported discussing trials with their patients within the past 5 years. Implementation of clinical decision support – electronic tools intended to optimize patient care and identification of patient eligibility – was not associated with frequency of past discussion of clinical trials but was associated with recommending a trial in the future. Given the stronger association between experience as a site Principal Investigator and recommending a trial, future research should explore how improving opportunities to lead a clinical trial impact trial accrual.

scholarly journals Clinical Trial Accrual Targeting Genomic Alterations After Next-Generation Sequencing at a Non-National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Program

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. e396-e404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kalyan C. Mantripragada ◽  
Adam J. Olszewski ◽  
Andrew Schumacher ◽  
Kimberly Perez ◽  
Ariel Birnbaum ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Genomic Alterations ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Cancer Program ◽  
Clinical Trial Accrual ◽  
Generation Sequencing

Purpose: Successful clinical trial accrual targeting uncommon genomic alterations will require broad national participation from both National Cancer Institute (NCI)–designated comprehensive cancer centers and community cancer programs. This report describes the initial experience with clinical trial accrual after next-generation sequencing (NGS) from three affiliated non–NCI-designated cancer programs. Materials and Methods: Clinical trial participation was reviewed after enrollment of the first 200 patients undergoing comprehensive genomic profiling by NGS as part of an institutional intuitional review board–approved protocol at three affiliated hospitals in Rhode Island and was compared with published experience from NCI-designated cancer centers. Results: Patient characteristics included a median age of 64 years, a median of two lines of prior therapy, and a predominance of GI carcinomas (58%). One hundred sixty-four of 200 patients (82%) had adequate tumor for NGS, 95% had genomic alterations identified, and 100% had variants of unknown significance. Fifteen of 164 patients (9.2%) enrolled in genotype-directed clinical trials, and three patients (1.8%) received commercially available targeted agents off clinical trials. The reasons for nonreceipt of NGS-directed therapy were no locally available matching trial (48.6%), ineligibility (33.6%) because of comorbidities or interim clinical deterioration, physician's choice of a different therapy (6.8%), or stable disease (11%). Conclusion: This experience demonstrates that a program enrolling patients in specific targeted agent clinical trials after NGS can be implemented successfully outside of the NCI-designated cancer program network, with comparable accrual rates. This is important because targetable genes have rare mutation rates and clinical trial accrual after NGS is low.

scholarly journals Obtaining Valid Laboratory Data in Clinical Trials Conducted in Resource Diverse Settings: Lessons Learned from a Microbicide Phase III Clinical Trial

PLoS ONE ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (10) ◽  
pp. e13592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tania Crucitti ◽  
Katrien Fransen ◽  
Rashika Maharaj ◽  
Tom Tenywa ◽  
Marguerite Massinga Loembé ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Laboratory Data ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trial

Evolution of statistical methodology and design of phase II/III clinical trials in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7108-7108 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. K. Bagai ◽  
A. Dowlati
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Survival Time ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Type I ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Improvement In Survival ◽  
Phase Ii And Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Studies

7108 Background: A significant heterogeneity exists in the design and reporting of phase II and III therapeutic clinical trials in NSCLC. This has led to difficulty in interpretation of these trials leading to over- or underestimation of therapeutic efficacy. We set out to investigate the statistical methodology and design reporting of chemotherapeutic trials in NSCLC published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) over 20 years. Methods: We identified all phase II and III NSCLC chemotherapy trials published in the JCO from January 1983 to August 2005. All manuscripts were reviewed to evaluate components of statistical design that were reported, including: sample size calculation, power, type I error, single or multiple drug trials, relative response sought in phase II trials and improvement in survival time or response rate sought in phase III trials. Results: One hundred forty eight trials were identified. 52% of studies were phase III and 48% were phase II. The majority (78%) were conducted in advanced stage NSCLC. Sample size calculations were reported for only 58% of phase III studies and 31% of phase II studies. Power was reported in 66% of phase III studies and 13% of phase II trials. Type I error was reported in 47% of phase III studies and 17% in phase II studies. 60% of phase III trials defined endpoints (percentage improvement in survival time, improvement in survival time in months or increase in response rate). 41% of phase II trails defined the target response rate, ranging from response rates of 15% to 70%. The frequency of adequate reporting of statistical design was shown to increase from 31% in 1990–1995 to 64% in 2000–2005 ( table ). Conclusions: Significant heterogeneity exists in trial design and reporting of phase II and III trials in NSCLC. This impacts the ability to adequately interpret these studies. More widespread application of statistical methods in planning and reporting of lung cancer clinical trials are necessary to increase reliability of data. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Paucity of economic analyses of phase III clinical trials conducted by the cooperative oncology groups: A review of the evidence

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 17052-17052
Author(s):  
K. Fitzner ◽  
J. McKoy ◽  
C. L. Bennett
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Economic Data ◽  
Direct Medical Costs ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Need To Evaluate ◽  
Economic Analyses

17052 Background: Cancer care is expensive, accounting for $72 billion in direct medical costs. New oncology drugs are frequently costly, and can be > $100,000 per patient. Hence, assessments of the costs and cost-effectiveness of cancer pharmaceuticals alongside phase III clinical trials conducted by the NCI-sponsored cooperative oncology groups represents an important opportunity to generate relevant economic data. Methods: Review of published cost and cost-effectiveness analyses for cancer drugs conducted alongside phase III clinical trials conducted by the NCI-sponsored cooperative clinical trial groups. Results: See Table . Conclusions: Despite increasing concerns over the high costs of cancer pharmaceuticals and the need to evaluate the costs and cost-effectiveness of these agents, NCI sponsored phase III clinical trials rarely include economic assessments. Future phase III clinical trials with expensive new cancer agents conducted by cooperative clinical trials groups should include prospective economic assessments. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document