Ovarian cancer clinical trials: Study the studies to terminate the terminations.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6069-6069
Author(s):  
Daniel Spinosa ◽  
Elizabeth Howell ◽  
D'Erryl Williams ◽  
Catherine Watson ◽  
Tomi F. Akinyemiju ◽  
...  

6069 Background: Clinical trials safely expand the arsenal of treatments available to future patients while providing hope to current patients, particularly ovarian cancer patients who often have poor prognoses. Trial termination for lack of efficacy or unacceptable toxicity are consistent with the aim of protecting patients in the pursuit of knowledge, but those are not the only reasons trials terminate early. Understanding why some clinical trials do not achieve their stated goals may aid in the design of future trials. Methods: Data were gathered from clinical trials registered to ClinicalTrials.gov. Included trials were interventional (as opposed to observational), were closed between 2004 and 2019, enrolled ovarian cancer patients, had submitted results, and were open at one or more domestic sites. For each trial, data were captured regarding study completion, reason for non-completion (if applicable), sites, phase, sponsor (defined as the study initiator, not necessarily the funder), and intervention type. Results: A total of 313 trials were examined, of which 262 met inclusion criteria. Of the 262 evaluable trials, 189 (72%) were completed and 72 (27%) terminated early. The most common reasons for early termination were low accrual (27 trials, 38%), lack of efficacy (15 trials, 21%), or insufficient funding (9 trials, 13%). Five trials (7%) were terminated early due to toxicity. Early phase trials are less likely to complete enrollment, with 11 out of 16 (65%) phase 1 trials, 135 out of 180 (75%) phase 2 trials, and 15 out of 16 (94%) phase 3 trials completed. Trials initiated by an academic center were twice as likely to be terminated early (41/103, 40%) as those initiated by industry (16/80, 20%), with remaining trials initiated by consortia, NCI, or non-academic oncology practices. Terminated trials were open at an average of 11 sites (range 1-317), while completed trials were open at an average of 27 sites (range 1-632). Trials that had multiple types of interventions, for instance a drug and a procedure, had a 34% early termination rate which was higher than the rate for trials with any single type of intervention. Conclusions: More than one in four ovarian cancer clinical trials are terminated early, rarely due to treatment efficacy or tolerability. Trials terminated for reasons other than patient outcomes represent a misallocation of resources or a missed opportunity for innovation. Further research is needed to understand the circumstances that allow for clinical trial completion such that available resources maximize patient benefit.

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 1801-1805 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Harter ◽  
A. du Bois ◽  
C. Schade-Brittinger ◽  
A. Burges ◽  
K. Wollschlaeger ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 1198-1206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dylan J. Martini ◽  
Yuan Liu ◽  
Julie M. Shabto ◽  
Colleen Lewis ◽  
Meredith R. Kline ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gwendolyn P. Quinn ◽  
Susan T. Vadaparampil ◽  
Clement K. Gwede ◽  
Cathy D. Meade ◽  
Teresita M. Antonia ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah A. Zajchowski ◽  
Jenny Gross ◽  
Beth Y. Karlan ◽  
Ken Bloom ◽  
David Loesch ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 1077-1083
Author(s):  
Betty Ferrell ◽  
Vincent Chung ◽  
Marianna Koczywas ◽  
Tami Borneman ◽  
Terry L. Irish ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6543-6543
Author(s):  
K. P. Weinfurt ◽  
D. M. Seils ◽  
J. P. Tzeng ◽  
K. L. Compton ◽  
D. P. Sulmasy ◽  
...  

6543 Background: Participants in early-phase clinical trials have reported high expectations of benefit from their participation. There is concern that participants misunderstand the trials to which they have consented. Such concerns are based on assumptions about what patients mean when they respond to questions about likelihood of benefit. In this study, we explored some of these assumptions. Methods: Participants were 27 women and 18 men in phase 1 or 2 oncology trials and randomized to 1 of 3 interview protocols corresponding to 3 target questions about likelihood of benefit: frequency-type (‘Out of 100 patients who participate in this study, how many do you expect will have their cancer controlled as a result of the experimental therapy?‘); belief-type (‘How confident are you that the experimental therapy will control your cancer?‘); and vague (‘What is the chance that the experimental therapy will control cancer?‘). In semistructured interviews, we queried participants about how they understood and answered the target question. Each participant then answered and discussed one of the other target questions. Results: Participants tended to provide higher expectations in response to the belief-type question (median, 80) than in response to the frequency-type or vague questions (medians, 50) (P=.02). Only 7 (16%) participants said their answers were based on what they were told during the consent process. The most common justifications for responses involved positive attitude (n=27 [60%]) and references to physical health (n=23 [51%]). References to positive attitude were most common among participants with high (>70%) expectations of benefit (n=11 [85%]) and least common among those with low (<50%) expectations of benefit (n=3 [27%]) (P=.04). Conclusions: We identified two factors that should be considered when determining whether high expectations of benefit are signs of misunderstanding. First, participants report different expectations of benefit depending on how the question is asked. Second, the justifications participants give for their answers suggest that many participants use their responses to express hope rather than to describe their understanding of the clinical trial. These findings should inform methods for evaluating the quality of informed consent in early-phase trials. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document