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

Steven K. Cheng, Mary S. Dietrich, David Dilts

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

61 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Postactivation barriers to oncology clinical trial accruals are well documented; however, potential barriers prior to trial opening are not. We investigate one such barrier: trial development time. Experimental Design: National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP)-sponsored trials for all therapeutic, nonpediatric phase I, I/II, II, and III studies activated between 2000 and 2004 were investigated for an 8-year period (n = 419). Successful trials were those achieving 100% of minimum accrual goal. Time to open a study was the calendar time from initial CTEP submission to trial activation. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to calculate unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (OR), controlling for study phase and size of expected accruals. Results: Among the CTEP-approved oncology trials, 37.9% (n = 221) failed to attain the minimum accrual goals, with 70.8% (n = 14) of phase III trials resulting in poor accrual. A total of 16,474 patients (42.5% of accruals) accrued to those studies were unable to achieve the projected minimum accrual goal. Trials requiring less than 12 months of development were significantly more likely to achieve accrual goals (OR, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-3.57, P = 0.003) than trials with the median development times of 12 to 18 months. Trials requiring a development time of greater than 24 months were significantly less likely to achieve accrual goals (OR, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.78; P = 0.011) than trials with the median development time. Conclusions: A large percentage of oncology clinical trials do not achieve minimum projected accruals. Trial development time appears to be one important predictor of the likelihood of successfully achieving the minimum accrual goals.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)5557-5563
Number of pages7
JournalClinical Cancer Research
Volume16
Issue number22
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 15 2010

Fingerprint

Program Evaluation
Clinical Trials
Neoplasms
Odds Ratio
Therapeutics
Confidence Intervals
National Cancer Institute (U.S.)
Research Design
Logistic Models
Regression Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

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. / Cheng, Steven K.; Dietrich, Mary S.; Dilts, David.

In: Clinical Cancer Research, Vol. 16, No. 22, 15.11.2010, p. 5557-5563.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{17facde3774e493a9881f8a16977339b,
title = "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",
abstract = "Purpose: Postactivation barriers to oncology clinical trial accruals are well documented; however, potential barriers prior to trial opening are not. We investigate one such barrier: trial development time. Experimental Design: National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP)-sponsored trials for all therapeutic, nonpediatric phase I, I/II, II, and III studies activated between 2000 and 2004 were investigated for an 8-year period (n = 419). Successful trials were those achieving 100{\%} of minimum accrual goal. Time to open a study was the calendar time from initial CTEP submission to trial activation. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to calculate unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (OR), controlling for study phase and size of expected accruals. Results: Among the CTEP-approved oncology trials, 37.9{\%} (n = 221) failed to attain the minimum accrual goals, with 70.8{\%} (n = 14) of phase III trials resulting in poor accrual. A total of 16,474 patients (42.5{\%} of accruals) accrued to those studies were unable to achieve the projected minimum accrual goal. Trials requiring less than 12 months of development were significantly more likely to achieve accrual goals (OR, 2.15; 95{\%} confidence interval, 1.29-3.57, P = 0.003) than trials with the median development times of 12 to 18 months. Trials requiring a development time of greater than 24 months were significantly less likely to achieve accrual goals (OR, 0.40; 95{\%} confidence interval, 0.20-0.78; P = 0.011) than trials with the median development time. Conclusions: A large percentage of oncology clinical trials do not achieve minimum projected accruals. Trial development time appears to be one important predictor of the likelihood of successfully achieving the minimum accrual goals.",
author = "Cheng, {Steven K.} and Dietrich, {Mary S.} and David Dilts",
year = "2010",
month = "11",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-0133",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "5557--5563",
journal = "Clinical Cancer Research",
issn = "1078-0432",
publisher = "American Association for Cancer Research Inc.",
number = "22",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A sense of urgency

T2 - Evaluating the link between clinical trial development time and the accrual performance of cancer therapy evaluation program (NCI-CTEP) sponsored studies

AU - Cheng, Steven K.

AU - Dietrich, Mary S.

AU - Dilts, David

PY - 2010/11/15

Y1 - 2010/11/15

N2 - Purpose: Postactivation barriers to oncology clinical trial accruals are well documented; however, potential barriers prior to trial opening are not. We investigate one such barrier: trial development time. Experimental Design: National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP)-sponsored trials for all therapeutic, nonpediatric phase I, I/II, II, and III studies activated between 2000 and 2004 were investigated for an 8-year period (n = 419). Successful trials were those achieving 100% of minimum accrual goal. Time to open a study was the calendar time from initial CTEP submission to trial activation. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to calculate unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (OR), controlling for study phase and size of expected accruals. Results: Among the CTEP-approved oncology trials, 37.9% (n = 221) failed to attain the minimum accrual goals, with 70.8% (n = 14) of phase III trials resulting in poor accrual. A total of 16,474 patients (42.5% of accruals) accrued to those studies were unable to achieve the projected minimum accrual goal. Trials requiring less than 12 months of development were significantly more likely to achieve accrual goals (OR, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-3.57, P = 0.003) than trials with the median development times of 12 to 18 months. Trials requiring a development time of greater than 24 months were significantly less likely to achieve accrual goals (OR, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.78; P = 0.011) than trials with the median development time. Conclusions: A large percentage of oncology clinical trials do not achieve minimum projected accruals. Trial development time appears to be one important predictor of the likelihood of successfully achieving the minimum accrual goals.

AB - Purpose: Postactivation barriers to oncology clinical trial accruals are well documented; however, potential barriers prior to trial opening are not. We investigate one such barrier: trial development time. Experimental Design: National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP)-sponsored trials for all therapeutic, nonpediatric phase I, I/II, II, and III studies activated between 2000 and 2004 were investigated for an 8-year period (n = 419). Successful trials were those achieving 100% of minimum accrual goal. Time to open a study was the calendar time from initial CTEP submission to trial activation. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to calculate unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (OR), controlling for study phase and size of expected accruals. Results: Among the CTEP-approved oncology trials, 37.9% (n = 221) failed to attain the minimum accrual goals, with 70.8% (n = 14) of phase III trials resulting in poor accrual. A total of 16,474 patients (42.5% of accruals) accrued to those studies were unable to achieve the projected minimum accrual goal. Trials requiring less than 12 months of development were significantly more likely to achieve accrual goals (OR, 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-3.57, P = 0.003) than trials with the median development times of 12 to 18 months. Trials requiring a development time of greater than 24 months were significantly less likely to achieve accrual goals (OR, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.78; P = 0.011) than trials with the median development time. Conclusions: A large percentage of oncology clinical trials do not achieve minimum projected accruals. Trial development time appears to be one important predictor of the likelihood of successfully achieving the minimum accrual goals.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78349287749&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78349287749&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-0133

DO - 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-0133

M3 - Article

C2 - 21062929

AN - SCOPUS:78349287749

VL - 16

SP - 5557

EP - 5563

JO - Clinical Cancer Research

JF - Clinical Cancer Research

SN - 1078-0432

IS - 22

ER -