PURPOSE: Recent reports have suggested that 40% or more of National Cancer Institute (NCI) -sponsored Cooperative Group phase III trials failed to achieve their accrual goals. We examine in detail the accrual experience of the Cooperative Group phase III trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All Cooperative Group phase III trials activated from 2000 to 2007 were examined for their accrual experience. For trials that stopped accrual with < 90% of their accrual goal, the reasons for having < 90% accrual were documented. We focus on trials that ended with < 90% accrual because of inadequate accrual rates rather than for other reasons, such as an interim monitoring analysis by an independent data monitoring committee that stops the trial early because one treatment is clearly superior. RESULTS: There were 191 trials activated from 2000 to 2007. We project that 22.0% of these trials will have < 90% accrual because of inadequate accrual rates. We project that there will be 176,627 patients eventually accrued on the 191 trials (current accrual, 154,579) and that 2,991 of these patients will be on trials that have < 90% accrual because of inadequate accrual rates (1.7%). For nonpediatric cancer trials, the corresponding percentages are 26.7% and 2.0%. CONCLUSION: We find that insufficient accrual rates are not as high as previously reported and that only a small proportion of patients were enrolled on trials that ended with insufficient accrual because of an inadequate accrual rate. NCI has implemented new procedures to reduce the number of trials that fail to reach their accrual goals and to minimize the number of patients accrued on these trials.
PURPOSE: Recent reports have suggested that 40% or more of National Cancer Institute (NCI) -sponsored Cooperative Group phase III trials failed to achieve their accrual goals. We examine in detail the accrual experience of the Cooperative Group phase III trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All Cooperative Group phase III trials activated from 2000 to 2007 were examined for their accrual experience. For trials that stopped accrual with < 90% of their accrual goal, the reasons for having < 90% accrual were documented. We focus on trials that ended with < 90% accrual because of inadequate accrual rates rather than for other reasons, such as an interim monitoring analysis by an independent data monitoring committee that stops the trial early because one treatment is clearly superior. RESULTS: There were 191 trials activated from 2000 to 2007. We project that 22.0% of these trials will have < 90% accrual because of inadequate accrual rates. We project that there will be 176,627 patients eventually accrued on the 191 trials (current accrual, 154,579) and that 2,991 of these patients will be on trials that have < 90% accrual because of inadequate accrual rates (1.7%). For nonpediatric cancer trials, the corresponding percentages are 26.7% and 2.0%. CONCLUSION: We find that insufficient accrual rates are not as high as previously reported and that only a small proportion of patients were enrolled on trials that ended with insufficient accrual because of an inadequate accrual rate. NCI has implemented new procedures to reduce the number of trials that fail to reach their accrual goals and to minimize the number of patients accrued on these trials.
Authors: Anneke T Schroen; Gina R Petroni; Hongkun Wang; Robert Gray; Xiaofei F Wang; Walter Cronin; Daniel J Sargent; Jacqueline Benedetti; Donald L Wickerham; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Craig L Slingluff Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Eric Winer; Julie Gralow; Lisa Diller; Beth Karlan; Patrick Loehrer; Lori Pierce; George Demetri; Patricia Ganz; Barnett Kramer; Mark Kris; Maurie Markman; Robert Mayer; David Pfister; Derek Raghavan; Scott Ramsey; Gregory Reaman; Howard Sandler; Raymond Sawaya; Lynn Schuchter; John Sweetenham; Linda Vahdat; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-12-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Caroline S Bennette; Scott D Ramsey; Cara L McDermott; Josh J Carlson; Anirban Basu; David L Veenstra Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Holly A Massett; Linda K Parreco; Rose Mary Padberg; Ellen S Richmond; Marie E Rienzo; Colleen E Ryan Leonard; Whitney Quesenbery; H William Killiam; Lenora E Johnson; David M Dilts Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2011-10-21 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Holly A Massett; Grace Mishkin; Larry Rubinstein; S Percy Ivy; Andrea Denicoff; Elizabeth Godwin; Kate DiPiazza; Jennifer Bolognese; James A Zwiebel; Jeffrey S Abrams Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Lauren M Hamel; Louis A Penner; Terrance L Albrecht; Elisabeth Heath; Clement K Gwede; Susan Eggly Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.302
Authors: Diane St Germain; Andrea M Denicoff; Eileen P Dimond; Angela Carrigan; Rebecca A Enos; Maria M Gonzalez; Kathy Wilkinson; Michelle A Mathiason; Brenda Duggan; Shaun Einolf; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Donna M Bryant; Michael A Thompson; Stephen S Grubbs; Ronald S Go Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-01-14 Impact factor: 3.840