» Articles » PMID: 21447723

Predicting Accrual Achievement: Monitoring Accrual Milestones of NCI-CTEP-sponsored Clinical Trials

Overview
Journal Clin Cancer Res
Specialty Oncology
Date 2011 Mar 31
PMID 21447723
Citations 24
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The need to increase the number oncology clinical trials with sufficient enrollments is a well-known issue, particularly for trials targeting therapeutic applications. It is critical to identify early predictors of eventual study accrual achievement.

Experimental Design: All nonpediatric phase I, I/II, II, and III therapeutic studies supported by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (NCI-CTEP) between 2000 and 2007 (n = 764) were analyzed for accrual performance. Accrual achievement is defined as those enrolling 100% or more of the stated minimum accrual goal at the time of trial closure. Two accrual milestones were analyzed per trial: time to first patient enrollment and expected time to accrual goal. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to calculate the OR with respect to the likelihood of clinical trial accrual achievement.

Results: A total of 81.5% (n = 623) of the trials did not achieve the projected accrual goals within the anticipated accruing period. Furthermore, 37.2% (n = 284) of trials failed to achieve the minimum projected accrual at study closure regardless of time the trial was open. Trials that accrue the first enrollment beyond 2 months (n = 379, 49.6%) are significantly less likely to achieve the accrual performance than those trials that enroll patients under 2 months (OR: 0.637, 95% CI: 0.464-0.875, P = 0.005). Of the studies that are open beyond the anticipated enrollment period (n = 603), those do not achieve at least 60.0% of the projected minimum accrual (n = 391, 64.8%) have a significantly less likelihood of achieving final accruals by study closure (OR: 0.190, 95% CI: 0.055-0.652, P = 0.008).

Conclusions: The time to first patient enrollment and expected time to accrual goal are shown to be valid measures to evaluate the likelihood of achieving the minimum projected accrual.

Citing Articles

Defining methods to improve eSource site start-up practices.

Cramer A, King L, Buckley M, Casteleyn P, Ennis C, Hamidi M Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2024; 42():101391.

PMID: 39651464 PMC: 11625275. DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101391.


Consideration of factors of low accrual and methods for setting appropriate accrual periods: Japan Clinical Oncology Group study.

Sasaki K, Mizusawa J, Bando H, Nakamura K, Kataoka T, Katayama H Trials. 2024; 25(1):665.

PMID: 39375801 PMC: 11459883. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-024-08508-9.


Phase II trial of multi-kinase inhibitor ESK981 in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Heath E, Chen W, Heilbrun L, Choi J, Dobson K, Smith M Invest New Drugs. 2024; 42(5):566-574.

PMID: 39227508 PMC: 11756588. DOI: 10.1007/s10637-024-01463-x.


Improving eSource Site Start-Up Practices.

Cramer A, King L, Buckley M, Casteleyn P, Ennis C, Hamidi M Res Sq. 2024; .

PMID: 38826202 PMC: 11142311. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4414917/v1.


Creating and Implementing a Principal Investigator Tool Kit for Enhancing Accrual to Late Phase Clinical Trials: Development and Usability Study.

Higgins K, Thomas A, Soto N, Paulus R, George T, Julian T JMIR Cancer. 2022; 8(3):e38514.

PMID: 36006678 PMC: 9459930. DOI: 10.2196/38514.


References
1.
Scoggins J, Ramsey S . A national cancer clinical trials system for the 21st century: reinvigorating the NCI Cooperative Group Program. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010; 102(17):1371. PMC: 2935476. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djq291. View

2.
Dilts D, Sandler A . Invisible barriers to clinical trials: the impact of structural, infrastructural, and procedural barriers to opening oncology clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(28):4545-52. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.0104. View

3.
Cheng S, Dietrich M, Dilts D . A sense of urgency: Evaluating the link between clinical trial development time and the accrual performance of cancer therapy evaluation program (NCI-CTEP) sponsored studies. Clin Cancer Res. 2010; 16(22):5557-63. PMC: 3050630. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-0133. View

4.
Abrams J, Murgo A, Christian M . NCI's cancer therapy evaluation program: a commitment to treatment trials. Cancer Treat Res. 2007; 132:31-50. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-33225-3_3. View

5.
Ansher S, Scharf R . The Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) at the National Cancer Institute: industry collaborations in new agent development. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2002; 949:333-40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb04041.x. View