Djulbegović, Benjamin

Abstract Cancer is a disease of aging and, as the world's population ages, the number of older persons with cancer is increasing and will make up a growing share of the oncology population in virtually every country. Despite this, older patients remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments. Consequently, most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients, and effective strategies to improve clinical trial participation of older adults with cancer remain sparse. For this systematic review, the authors evaluated published studies regarding barriers to participation and interventions to improve participation of older adults in cancer trials. The quality of the available evidence was low and, despite a literature describing multifaceted barriers, only one intervention study aimed to increase enrollment of older adults in trials. The findings starkly amplify the paucity of evidence‐based, effective strategies to improve participation of this underrepresented population in cancer trials. Within these limitations, the authors provide their opinion on how the current cancer research infrastructure must be modified to accommodate the needs of older patients. Several underused solutions are offered to expand clinical trials to include older adults with cancer. However, as currently constructed, these recommendations alone will not solve the evidence gap in geriatric oncology, and efforts are needed to meet older and frail adults where they are by expanding clinical trials designed specifically for this population and leveraging real‐world data.

Abstract Purpose: Assessing impact of poor accrual on premature trial closure requires a relevant metric. We propose defining accrual sufficiency on apparent ability to address primary endpoints (PE) rather than attaining accrual targets. Experimental Design: All phase III trials open January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2002, by five U.S. oncology Clinical Trials Cooperative Groups (CTCG) were evaluated for accrual sufficiency and scientific results. Sufficient accrual included meeting accrual target, CTCGs documentation attesting adequate accrual, or conclusive results at interim analysis; insufficient accrual included poor accrual as cited closure reason or other reasons rendering a trial unable to address its primary endpoints. Closure rates based on our accrual sufficiency definition are compared with rates of meeting accrual targets and addressing the primary endpoints. A percentage of target accrual above which trials commonly answer the intended scientific question was identified to serve as an alternative to meeting full target accrual in designating accrual success. Results: Of 238 eligible trials, 158 (66%) closed with sufficient accrual. Among 80 trials with insufficient accrual, 70 (29%) closed specifically because of poor accrual. Inadequate accrual rates are overemphasized when defining accrual success solely by meeting accrual targets. Nearly 75% of trials conclusively addressed the primary endpoints with positive results in 39% of trials. Exceeding 80% of target accrual serves as a reliable proxy for answering the intended scientific question. Conclusions: Approximately one third of phase III trials closed with insufficient accrual to address the primary endpoints, primarily due to poor accrual. Defining accrual sufficiency broader than meeting accrual targets represents a fairer account of trial closures. Clin Cancer Res; 18(1); 256–62. ©2011 AACR.

Background Research on barriers to accrual has typically emphasized factors influencing participation after trial activation. Purpose We sought to identify factors influencing trial design and accrual predictions prior to trial activation associated with sufficient accrual. Methods A 30-question web-based survey was sent to the study chair and lead statistician for all 248 phase III trials open in 1993–2002 by five Clinical Trials Cooperative Groups. Questions addressed prior trial experience, trial design elements, accrual predictions, and perceived accrual influences. Accrual sufficiency categorization was derived from Clinical Trials Cooperative Group records: sufficient accrual included trials closed with complete accrual or at interim analysis, insufficient accrual included trials closed with inadequate accrual. Responses were analyzed by respondent role (study chair/lead statistician) and accrual sufficiency. Results Three hundred and nine eligible responses were included (response rate, 63%; lead statisticians, 81%; and study chairs, 45%), representing trials with sufficient (63%) and insufficient accruals (37%). Study chair seniority or lead statistician experience was not linked to accrual sufficiency. Literature review, study chair's personal experience, and expert opinion within Clinical Trials Cooperative Group most commonly influenced control arm selection. Clinical Trials Cooperative Group experience most influenced accrual predictions. These influences were not associated with accrual sufficiency. Among respondents citing accrual difficulties (41%), factors negatively influencing accrual were not consistently identified. Respondents credited three factors with positively influencing accrual: clinical relevance of study, lack of competing trials, and protocol paralleling normal practice. Limitations Perceptions of lead statisticians and study chairs may not accurately reflect accrual barriers encountered by participating physicians or patients. Survey responses may be subject to recall bias. Conclusion Consistent factors explaining poor accrual were not identified, suggesting reasons for poor accrual are not well understood and warrant further study. Alternate strategies for accrual prediction are needed since Clinical Trials Cooperative Group experience is linked to successful and unsuccessful accrual.

Background A major challenge for randomized phase III oncology trials is the frequent low rates of patient enrollment, resulting in high rates of premature closure due to insufficient accrual. Purpose We conducted a pilot study to determine the extent of trial closure due to poor accrual, feasibility of identifying trial factors associated with sufficient accrual, impact of redesign strategies on trial accrual, and accrual benchmarks designating high failure risk in the clinical trials cooperative group (CTCG) setting. Methods A subset of phase III trials opened by five CTCGs between August 1991 and March 2004 was evaluated. Design elements, experimental agents, redesign strategies, and pretrial accrual assessment supporting accrual predictions were abstracted from CTCG documents. Percent actual/predicted accrual rate averaged per month was calculated. Trials were categorized as having sufficient or insufficient accrual based on reason for trial termination. Analyses included univariate and bivariate summaries to identify potential trial factors associated with accrual sufficiency. Results Among 40 trials from one CTCG, 21 (52.5%) trials closed due to insufficient accrual. In 82 trials from five CTCGs, therapeutic trials accrued sufficiently more often than nontherapeutic trials (59% vs 27%, p = 0.05). Trials including pretrial accrual assessment more often achieved sufficient accrual than those without (67% vs 47%, p = 0.08). Fewer exclusion criteria, shorter consent forms, other CTCG participation, and trial design simplicity were not associated with achieving sufficient accrual. Trials accruing at a rate much lower than predicted (<35% actual/predicted accrual rate) were consistently closed due to insufficient accrual. Limitations This trial subset under-represents certain experimental modalities. Data sources do not allow accounting for all factors potentially related to accrual success. Conclusion Trial closure due to insufficient accrual is common. Certain trial design factors appear associated with attaining sufficient accrual. Defining accrual benchmarks for early trial termination or redesign is feasible, but better accrual prediction methods are critically needed. Future studies should focus on identifying trial factors that allow more accurate accrual predictions and strategies that can salvage open trials experiencing slow accrual. Clinical Trials 2010; 7: 312—321. http://ctj.sagepub.com