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.

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.

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 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.

Dedicated clinical trial tissue tracking database to improve turn-around time at high-volume center.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1543-1543
Author(s):  
Peter Blankenship ◽  
David DeLaRosa ◽  
Marc Burris ◽  
Steven Cusson ◽  
Kayla Hendricks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Tissue Sample ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Fresh Tissue ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
The Status ◽  
Unique Source

1543 Background: Tissue requirements in oncology clinical trials are increasingly complex due to prescreening protocols for patient selection and serial biopsies to understand molecular-level treatment effects. Novel solutions for tissue processing are necessary for timely tissue procurement. Based on these needs, we developed a Tissue Tracker (TT), a comprehensive database for study-related tissue tasks at our high-volume clinical trial center. Methods: In this Microsoft Access database, patients are assigned an ID within the TT that is associated with their name, medical record number, and study that follows their request to external users: pathology departments, clinical trial coordinators and data team members. To complete tasks in the TT, relevant information is required to update the status. Due to the high number of archival tissue requests from unique pathology labs, the TT has a “Follow-Up Dashboard” that organizes information needed to conduct follow-up on all archival samples with the status “Requested”. This results in an autogenerated email and pdf report sent to necessary teams. The TT also includes a kit inventory system and a real-time read only version formatted for interdepartmental communication, metric reporting, and other data-driven efforts. The primary outcome in this study was to evaluate our average turnaround time (ATAT: average time from request to shipment) for archival and fresh tissue samples before and after TT development. Results: Before implementing the TT, between March 2016 and March 2018, we processed 2676 archival requests from 235 unique source labs resulting in 2040 shipments with an ATAT of 19.29 days. We also processed 1099 fresh biopsies resulting in 944 shipments with an ATAT of 7.72 days. After TT implementation, between April 2018 and April 2020, we processed 2664 archival requests from 204 unique source labs resulting in 2506 shipments (+28.0%) with an ATAT of 14.78 days (-23.4%). During that same period, we processed 1795 fresh biopsies (+63.3%) resulting in 2006 shipments (+112.5%) with an ATAT of 6.85 days (-11.3%). Conclusions: Oncology clinical trials continue to evolve toward more extensive tissue requirements for prescreening and scientific exploration of on-treatment molecular profiling. Timely results are required to optimize patient trial participation. During the intervention period, our tissue sample volume and shipments increased, but the development and implementation of an automated tracking system allowed improvement in ATAT of both archival and fresh tissue. This automation not only improves end-user expectations and experiences for patients and trial sponsors but this allows our team to adapt to the increasing interest in tissue exploration.

Reducing patient eligibility criteria in cancer clinical trials.

1996 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 1364-1370 ◽  
Author(s):  
S L George
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eligibility Criterion ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Recent Trial ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Eligibility Requirements

PURPOSE To discuss patient eligibility criteria in phase III cancer clinical trials in the larger setting of the complexity of these trials, to review the various reasons for imposing restrictive eligibility requirements, to discuss the problems caused by these requirements, to argue that these requirements should be greatly relaxed in most cancer clinical trials, to provide some guiding principles and practical suggestions to facilitate such a relaxation, and to give an example of how eligibility requirements were reduced in a recent clinical trial in acute lymphocytic leukemia. METHODS Implicit and explicit reasons for including eligibility criteria in clinical trials are reviewed. Safety concerns and sample size issues receive special attention. The types of problems restrictive eligibility criteria cause with respect to scientific interpretation, medical applicability, complexity, costs, and patient accrual are described. RESULTS A list of three items that each eligibility criterion should meet in order to be included is proposed and applied to a recent trial in acute lymphocytic leukemia. CONCLUSION Phase III clinical trials in cancer should have much broader eligibility criteria than the traditionally restrictive criteria commonly used. Adoption of less restrictive eligibility criteria for most studies would allow broader generalizations, better mimic medical practice, reduce complexity and costs, and permit more rapid accrual without compromising patient safety or requiring major increases in sample size.

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.

Clinical trial awareness in oncology patients of diverse ethnic background: A single-institution analysis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19217-e19217
Author(s):  
Gautam Valecha ◽  
Nishitha Thumallapally ◽  
Sandy El Bitar ◽  
Terenig O. Terjanian ◽  
Louise Madrigal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clin Oncol ◽  
Tumor Stage ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Single Institution ◽  
Staten Island ◽  
Enrollment Rates ◽  
Zip Code

e19217 Background: Clinical trials offer several advantages to the patients including access to innovative treatments with improved survival rates, closer monitoring and follow-up with removal of health disparity; and aim to advance the science of medicine. Yet, worldwide enrollment rates in cancer clinical trials have been only about 5 percent, despite the fact that a significantly higher percentage of Americans have a desire to participate in clinical trials [1, 2]. We conducted a single institution study to gain knowledge about clinical trial awareness in our cancer patient population as well as to identify the barriers within provider-consumer communication that prevent enrollment. Methods: A 10-question survey was distributed by medical assistants and surveys (n=222) were collected at the end of each clinic visit. Responders included racial/ethnic minorities and underserved patients, representative of the ethnic diversity in the Staten Island Borough of New York City. Demographic data including age, gender, zip code, race and ethnicity were recorded. Additionally, Charlson comorbidity index and tumor stage was also recorded. Results: 159/222 patients (71.62%) completed the survey. Of these patients, 47 (29.55%) answered every question on the survey, while 112/159 patients (70.44%) answered only few of the questions. The completed surveys are linked by zip code to the different boroughs of Staten Island, which allows us to identify hubs with lack of clinical trial awareness knowledge. Conclusions: Despite the several advantages for patients and medical field, enrollment rates in clinical trials remain very low. Our study results help in gaining knowledge about clinical trial awareness among oncology patients, correlated to comorbidity and tumor stage. In addition, demographic hubs with lack of knowledge are identified as targets for community outreach and education. A multilevel approach will be developed to address identified barriers that exist for patients, and will be implemented at community level, to reduce ethnic bias in trial enrollment and increase trial participation among an ethnically diverse population. References: 1. Unger JM, Cook E, Tai E, Bleyer A: The Role of Clinical Trial Participation in Cancer Research: Barriers, Evidence, and Strategies. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016, 35:185-198. 10.1200/EDBK_156686 2. Comis RL, Miller JD, Aldigé CR, Krebs L, Stoval E: Public attitudes toward participation in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2003, 21:830-835. 10.1200/JCO.2003.02.105.

scholarly journals Patient Navigation As a Model to Increase Participation of African Americans in Cancer Clinical Trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 556-563 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mona N. Fouad ◽  
Aras Acemgil ◽  
Sejong Bae ◽  
Andres Forero ◽  
Nedra Lisovicz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
African American ◽  
African Americans ◽  
Patient Navigation ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Minority Participation ◽  
Navigation Support

Purpose: Less than 10% of patients enrolled in clinical trials are minorities. The patient navigation model has been used to improve access to medical care but has not been evaluated as a tool to increase the participation of minorities in clinical trials. The Increasing Minority Participation in Clinical Trials project used patient navigators (PNs) to enhance the recruitment of African Americans for and their retention in therapeutic cancer clinical trials in a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center. Methods: Lay individuals were hired and trained to serve as PNs for clinical trials. African American patients potentially eligible for clinical trials were identified through chart review or referrals by clinic nurses, physicians, and social workers. PNs provided two levels of services: education about clinical trials and tailored support for patients who enrolled in clinical trials. Results: Between 2007 and 2014, 424 African American patients with cancer were referred to the Increasing Minority Participation in Clinical Trials project. Of those eligible for a clinical trial (N = 378), 304 (80.4%) enrolled in a trial and 272 (72%) consented to receive patient navigation support. Of those receiving patient navigation support, 74.5% completed the trial, compared with 37.5% of those not receiving patient navigation support. The difference in retention rates between the two groups was statistically significant (P < .001). Participation of African Americans in therapeutic cancer clinical trials increased from 9% to 16%. Conclusion: Patient navigation for clinical trials successfully retained African Americans in therapeutic trials compared with non–patient navigation trial participation. The model holds promise as a strategy to reduce disparities in cancer clinical trial participation. Future studies should evaluate it with racial/ethnic minorities across cancer centers.

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/

Use of Communication Technology to Improve Clinical Trial Participation in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: Consensus Statement From the Children's Oncology Group Adolescent and Young Adult Responsible Investigator Network

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viswatej Avutu ◽  
Varun Monga ◽  
Nupur Mittal ◽  
Aniket Saha ◽  
Jeffrey R. Andolina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Young Adults ◽  
Consensus Statement ◽  
Adolescents And Young Adults ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Oncology Group ◽  
Tumor Boards ◽  
Remote Patient

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs; age 15-39 years) with cancer are under-represented in cancer clinical trials because of patient, provider, and institutional barriers. Health care technology is increasingly available to and highly used among AYAs and has the potential to improve cancer care delivery. The COVID-19 pandemic forced institutions to rapidly adopt novel approaches for enrollment and monitoring of patients on cancer clinical trials, many of which have the potential for improving AYA trial participation overall. This consensus statement from the Children's Oncology Group AYA Oncology Discipline Committee reviews opportunities to use technology to optimize AYA trial enrollment and study conduct, as well as considerations for widespread implementation of these practices. The use of remote patient eligibility screening, electronic informed consent, virtual tumor boards, remote study visits, and remote patient monitoring are recommended to increase AYA access to trials and decrease the burden of participation. Widespread adoption of these strategies will require new policies focusing on reimbursement for telehealth, license portability, facile communication between electronic health record systems and advanced safeguards to maintain patient privacy and security. Studies are needed to determine optimal approaches to further incorporate technology at every stage of the clinical trial process, from enrollment through study completion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document