Accrual of older adults to Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) led trials: A retrospective analysis from 1990 to 2015.

10031 Background: Older adults (OA) age 65+ make up to 60% of all newly diagnosed cancers. However, only 22-32% of patients accrued in cooperative group studies in the 1990s were age 65+. In 2003, several studies suggested that clinical trial design, in particular the presence of strict exclusion criteria, was a major barrier to accrual of OA. The objective of this study was to determine: 1) whether there has been an improvement in accrual of OA to clinical trials led by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) over time; 2) clinical trial features associated with accrual of OA to clinical trials 3) whether exclusion criteria in trials initiated 2003 or after have been relaxed. Methods: All completed randomized Phase II and III CCTG-led clinical trials initiated between 1990 or later were included. Trial characteristics including tumor type, stage, treatment type, and exclusion/inclusion criteria, as well as percentage of OA age 65+ accrued were recorded. Association between percentage of OA accrued and trial characteristics were compared using the Wilcoxin rank sum test. Assessment of exclusion criteria before and after 2003 was compared using the Chi Square test or Fisher exact test. Results: A total of 68 trials were included. Most trials were phase III (73%), chemotherapy trials (48%), opened before 2003 (70.6%), advanced disease (73%) and lung cancer was the most common tumour site (17.6%). OA accrual remains low compared to OA diagnosed with cancer in Canada (41% vs. 56%, p < 0.001). There was an improvement in accrual of OA after 2003 (47.1% vs. 34.9%, p = 0.02). Tumour site, early stage disease, more restrictive performance status, requiring a new biopsy, and having a longer consent form, were associated with lower accrual of OA (p < 0.05). There was no significant loosening of exclusion with time though patients with pulmonary comorbidities were more likely to be excluded in studies initiated in 2003 or later (p = 0.006). Conclusions: OA remain under-represented in clinical trials. There has been no relaxing of exclusion criteria; however, exclusion based on comorbidities was not significantly associated with under accrual of OA in our study.

Download Full-text

Cancer clinical trial accessibility in the United States: An analysis of travel distance.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.6540 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 6540-6540

Author(s):

Asma Latif ◽

Kristian D Stensland ◽

Ryan Hendricks ◽

Erin L. Moshier ◽

James H. Godbold ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Clinical Trial ◽

The United States ◽

Travel Distance ◽

Cancer Clinical Trial ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Tumor Type ◽

Trial Site ◽

Cancer Trials ◽

Zip Code

6540 Background: Accessibility of cancer clinical trials has been cited as a barrier to participation. While there are several dimensions to accessibility, travel distance may represent an important measure with potential socio-demographic implications. We sought to identify the driving distance from each ZIP-code in the United States to the nearest clinical trial site for four common solid tumors, and correlate ZIP-code level demographics with travel distance. Methods: The ClinicalTrials.gov database was queried on September 12, 2012 to identify all open, actively recruiting phase II and phase III therapeutic interventional trials in first-line metastatic disease for the four most common solid tumor types in the United States (prostate, breast, lung, and colorectal). Driving distance from each ZIP-code in the continental United States to the nearest trial site for each tumor type was calculated. Trial sites located within the ZIP-code were set at a travel distance of 0 miles. ZIP-code level demographics, derived from the 2010 Census, were correlated with driving distance. Results: We identified 42 prostate cancer trials with 958 sites, 81 breast cancer trials with 1,345 sites, 83 lung cancer trials with 2,249 sites, and 32 colorectal cancer trials with 566 sites which met inclusion criteria. The travel distances for each tumor type are shown in the Table. Analyses correlating driving distance with ZIP-code level demographics are ongoing. Conclusions: Substantial heterogeneity exists regarding accessibility of cancer trials in the United States as measured by driving distance. The optimal geographic distribution of trials, the burden imposed by travel, and the degree to which travel distance contributes to poor cancer clinical trial enrollment all warrant further investigation. [Table: see text]

Download Full-text

Effect of applying inclusion and exclusion criteria of phase III clinical trials to multiple sclerosis patients in routine clinical care

Multiple Sclerosis Journal ◽

10.1177/1352458520985118 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 135245852098511

Author(s):

Kris Oliver Jalusic ◽

David Ellenberger ◽

Paulus Rommer ◽

Alexander Stahmann ◽

Uwe Zettl ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Sclerosis ◽

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Clinical Care ◽

Routine Care ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Exclusion Criteria ◽

Phase Iii Clinical Trial ◽

Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽

Multiple Sclerosis Patients

Background: Newly approved, drug-modifying therapies are associated with still unknown adverse events, although clinical trials leading to approval have strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and analyse safety and efficacy. Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyse the eligibility of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients treated in routine care into the phase III clinical trial of the respective drug. Methods: In total, 3577 MS patients with 4312 therapies were analysed. Patients with primary-progressive MS were excluded. Inclusion and exclusion criteria of phase III clinical trials in relapsing–remitting MS were adopted and subsequently applied. A comparison in clinical and sociodemographic characteristics was made between patient who met the criteria and those who did not. Results: 83% of registered patients would not have been eligible to the respective phase III clinical trial. Relapse was the single most frequent criterion not fulfilled (74.7%), followed by medication history (21.2%). Conclusion: The majority of MS patients treated in routine care would not have met clinical trials criteria. Thus, the efficacy and safety of therapies in clinical trials can differ from those in the real world. Broader phase III inclusion criteria would increase their eligibility and contribute to a better generalizability of the results in clinical trials.

Download Full-text

A review of oncologic therapeutic phase III clinical trial literature: Exploring the reporting of clinical trial data of older patients with cancer.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2018.36.30_suppl.70 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽

pp. 70-70 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Karlynn BrintzenhofeSzoc ◽

Armin Shahrokni ◽

Beverly E. Canin ◽

Ira Russell Parker ◽

Jessica L. Krok-Schoen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Older Adults ◽

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Oncology ◽

Keyword Search ◽

Clinical Trial Data ◽

Trial Data ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Exclusion Criteria ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Journal Editors

70 Background: With demographic shifts leading to an aging cancer population, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has recommended that journal editors improve the reporting of clinical trial data specific to older adults. This study aimed to assess the current reporting status of clinical trial data regarding older adults with cancer. Methods: This was a review of oncologic therapeutic phase-3 clinical trial data published from 07/01/2016-06/30/2017. Based on a keyword search of EMBASE and PubMed, 929 manuscripts were identified. Removing duplicates (n = 116) and articles that did not meet this study’s cancer inclusion criteria (n = 589), a total of 224 were identified. In the pilot phase there was 85% agreement among the reviewers. Results: Thus far, 197 papers (88%), have been independently reviewed with 118 evaluated by more than one reviewer. Reviewed papers were published in 57 journals including Journal of Clinical Oncology (28, 14.2%), Lancet Oncology (25, 12.7%), and NEJM (20, 10.2%). Much of the literature focused upon the following cancer sites: Breast (33, 16.7%), Lung (27, 13.7%), Colorectal (18, 9.1%), and Prostate (12, 6.1%). 175 articles included inclusion/exclusion criteria, 32 (16.2%) had upper age exclusion criteria. Age was presented in 184 articles and data was stratified by age in 84 (42.6%). Age stratification of effectiveness and toxicity were presented in the results section in 65 (38.2%) and 21 (14.4%). Effectiveness by age was in the discussion section in 37 (18.8%) and toxicity by age in 16 (8.1%). Reviewers could not determine the proportion of study participants who were older adults in 111 articles (56.2%). In the remainder of the articles, the proportion ranged from 0% to 81%, except one in which all participants were older adults. Conclusions: A slim minority of phase-3 oncologic clinical trials included and discussed age-referenced results regarding the effectiveness and toxicity of treatments in older adults. Clinical investigators and journal editors should consider the ASCO recommendation and increase the reporting of oncologic clinical trial data specific to older adults.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism ◽

10.1177/0271678x18760109 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 38 (5) ◽

pp. 749-754 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

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.

Download Full-text

A Review of Phase III Clinical Trials of Prostate Cancer Chemoprevention

Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England ◽

10.1308/003588407x179125 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 89 (3) ◽

pp. 207-211 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

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.

Download Full-text

Modeling Clinical Trial Attrition Using Machine Intelligence: A driver analytics case study using 1,325 trials representing one million patients

10.1101/2021.11.12.21266277 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Emmette Hutchison ◽

Sreenath Nampally ◽

Imran Khan Neelufer ◽

Youyi Zhang ◽

Jim Weatherall ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Machine Intelligence ◽

Duration Of Treatment ◽

Trial Duration ◽

Major Barrier ◽

Clinical Phase ◽

Successful Execution ◽

Patient Attrition ◽

Data Driven Approach

The amount of time and resources invested in bringing novel therapeutics to market has increased year over year with fewer successful treatments reaching patients. In the lifecycle of drug development, the clinical phase is a major contributor to this decreasing efficiency in the development of clinical trials. One major barrier to the successful execution of a randomized control trial (RCT) is the attrition of patients who no longer participate in a trial either following enrollment or randomization. To address this problem, we have assembled a unique dataset by integrating multiple public databases including ClinicalTrials.gov and Aggregate Analysis of ClincalTrials.gov (AACT) to assemble a trial sponsor-independent dataset. This data spans 20 years of clinical trials and over 1 million patients (3,175 cohorts consisting of 1,020,085 patients and 79 curated features) in the respiratory domain and enabled a data-driven approach to identify top features influencing patient attrition in a trial. Top Features included Duration of Trial, Duration of Treatment, Indication, and Number of Adverse Events. We evaluated multiple machine learning models and found the best performance on the Test Set with Random Forest (Test subset: n=637 cohorts; RMSE 6.64). We envisage that our work will enable clinical trial sponsors to optimize trial run time by better anticipating and correcting for potential patient attrition using patient-centric strategies to improve patient engagement, thus enabling new therapies to be delivered to patients more quickly.

Download Full-text

Key Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrolment: A Survey of Clinical Trial Staff at an NCI Designated Cancer Center

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-126257 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 5864-5864

Author(s):

Amany R. Keruakous ◽

Adam S. Asch

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Cultural Bias ◽

Cancer Center ◽

Exclusion Criteria ◽

Strict Inclusion ◽

Trial Protocols ◽

Trial Staff ◽

Disease Site ◽

Patient Enrolment

Background: Clinical trials, key elements of the processes that account for many of the recent advances in cancer care, are becoming more complex and challenging to conduct. The Stephenson Cancer Center (SCC) has been the lead accruer to NCI-LAP trials over the past three years, and in addition, fields investigator initiated and industry sponsored trials. To identify opportunities for continued improvement in clinical trial enrolment, we sought to identify the obstacles encountered by our clinical trial staff in these activities. Method: We conducted a survey of our research staff including all research nurses and disease site coordinators who participate in recruitment, screening, consenting, data collection and compliance. The survey, sent by email to the clinical trial list-serve at SCC (90 staff member), invited respondents to enumerate obstacles to patient participation in clinical trials. We then performed a follow up meeting with our research coordinators to clarify responses. A total of 26 responses from 90 respondents were received and tabulated by disease site. Results: The most commonly reported obstacles to enrolment were, in descending order: communication/language barriers, cultural bias, time/procedure commitment, and complexity of the trial protocol, financial logistics, comorbidities, and stringent trial criteria. Respondents identified 83 obstacles as frequently encountered obstacles to enrolment. The 83 reported obstacles were classified into 9 categories and organized by disease site as presented in tabular format (below). The most commonly identified obstacles to patient enrolment were communication and language barriers. In patients for whom Spanish is the primary language this was a universal obstacle, as there is a lack of consistent Spanish consents across the clinical trial portfolio. Cultural bias, as an obstacle was manifested as a general mistrust by prospective trial participants of experimental therapies and clinical trials. After communication and cultural bias as barriers, travel requirements and the associated expenses playing a role in patients from rural areas were identified as the most commonly encountered barrier. The complexity of trial protocols and the associated large number of clinic visits, frequent laboratory and imaging tests were also identified as common obstacles. Clinical trial complexity with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and trial-specified biopsies were frequently cited. Implications: In this descriptive study, common barriers to patient enrolment in clinical trials were identified by clinical trial staff. Assessing barriers encountered by clinical trial staff is infrequently used as a metric for improving clinical trial enrolment, but provides important perspective. In our study, some obstacles are inherent in our patient populations, others appear to be actionable. Development of Spanish language consents and specific programs to overcome negative bias regarding clinical trials are potential areas for improvement. The complexity of clinical trial protocols and the increasingly strict inclusion/exclusion criteria, are issues that will require consideration and action at the level of the cooperative groups and industry. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Download Full-text

Measuring the Incremental Cost of Clinical Cancer Research

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2001.19.1.105 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

pp. 105-110 ◽

Cited By ~ 20

Author(s):

Dana P. Goldman ◽

Michael L. Schoenbaum ◽

Arnold L. Potosky ◽

Jane C. Weeks ◽

Sandra H. Berry ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Cancer Treatment ◽

Incremental Cost ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Phase Ii ◽

The United States ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Ongoing Effort ◽

Cancer Trials ◽

The Cost

PURPOSE: To summarize evidence on the costs of treating patients in clinical trials and to describe the Cost of Cancer Treatment Study, an ongoing effort to produce generalizable estimates of the incremental costs of government-sponsored cancer trials. METHODS: A retrospective study of costs will be conducted with 1,500 cancer patients recruited from a randomly selected sample of institutions in the United States. Patients accrued to either phase II or phase III National Cancer Institute–sponsored clinical trials during a 15-month period will be asked to participate in a study of their health care utilization (n = 750). Costs will be measured approximately 1 year after their trial enrollment from a combination of billing records, medical records, and an in-person survey questionnaire. Similar data will be collected for a comparable group of cancer patients not in trials (n = 750) to provide an estimate of the incremental cost. RESULTS: Evidence suggests insurers limit access to trials because of cost concerns. Public and private efforts are underway to change these policies, but their permanent status is unclear. Previous studies found that treatment costs in clinical trials are similar to costs of standard therapy. However, it is difficult to generalize from these studies because of the unique practice settings, insufficient sample sizes, and the exclusion of potentially important costs. CONCLUSION: Denials of coverage for treatment in a clinical trial limit patient access to trials and could impede clinical research. Preliminary estimates suggest changes to these policies would not be expensive, but these results are not generalizable. The Cost of Cancer Treatment Study is an ongoing effort to provide generalizable estimates of the incremental treatment cost of phase II and phase III cancer trials. The results should be of great interest to insurers and the research community as they consider permanent ways to finance cancer trials.

Download Full-text

Treatment of Lung Cancer in Medically Compromised Patients

American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book ◽

10.1200/edbk_158713 ◽

2016 ◽

pp. e484-e491

Author(s):

Jeffrey Crawford ◽

Paul Wheatley-Price ◽

Josephine Louella Feliciano

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Socioeconomic Status ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Molecular Mechanisms ◽

Early Stage ◽

Care Delivery ◽

Advanced Lung Cancer ◽

Early Stage Disease ◽

Major Barrier ◽

The Impact

Outcomes for patients with lung cancer have been improved substantially through the integration of surgery, radiation, and systemic therapy for patients with early-stage disease. Meanwhile, advances in our understanding of molecular mechanisms have substantially advanced our treatment of patients with advanced lung cancer through the introduction of targeted therapies, immune approaches, improvements in chemotherapy, and better supportive care. However, the majority of these advances have occurred among patients with good functional status, normal organ function, and with the social and economic support systems to be able to benefit most from these treatments. The aim of this article is to bring greater attention to management of lung cancer in patients who are medically compromised, which remains a major barrier to care delivery. Impaired performance status is associated with poor outcomes and correlates with the high prevalence of cachexia among patients with advanced lung cancer. CT imaging is emerging as a research tool to quantify muscle loss in patients with cancer, and new therapeutics are on the horizon that may provide important adjunctive therapy in the future. The benefits of cancer therapy for patients with organ failure are poorly understood because of their exclusion from clinical trials. The availability of targeted therapy and immunotherapy may provide alternatives that may be easier to deliver in this population, but clinical trials of these new agents in this population are vital. Patients with lower socioeconomic status are disproportionately affected by lung cancer because of higher rates of tobacco addiction and the impact of socioeconomic status on delay in diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. For all patients who are medically compromised with lung cancer, multidisciplinary approaches are particularly needed to evaluate these patients and to incorporate rapidly changing therapeutics to improve outcomes.

Download Full-text