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.
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.
Authors: David M Dilts; Alan B Sandler; Steven K Cheng; Joshua S Crites; Lori B Ferranti; Amy Y Wu; Shanda Finnigan; Steven Friedman; Margaret Mooney; Jeffrey Abrams Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anneke T Schroen; Gina R Petroni; Hongkun Wang; Monika J Thielen; Daniel Sargent; Jacqueline K Benedetti; Walter M Cronin; Donald L Wickerham; Xiaofei F Wang; Robert Gray; Wendy F Cohn; Craig L Slingluff; Benjamin Djulbegovic Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Alison M McDonald; Rosemary C Knight; Marion K Campbell; Vikki A Entwistle; Adrian M Grant; Jonathan A Cook; Diana R Elbourne; David Francis; Jo Garcia; Ian Roberts; Claire Snowdon Journal: Trials Date: 2006-04-07 Impact factor: 2.279
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: Chad Tang; Steven I Sherman; Mellanie Price; Jun Weng; Suzanne E Davis; David S Hong; James C Yao; Aman Buzdar; George Wilding; J Jack Lee Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Chad Tang; Kenneth R Hess; Dwana Sanders; Suzanne E Davis; Aman U Buzdar; Razelle Kurzrock; J Jack Lee; Funda Meric-Bernstam; David S Hong Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Katija Bonin; Merrylee McGuffin; Roseanna Presutti; Tamara Harth; Aruz Mesci; Deb Feldman-Stewart; Edward Chow; Lisa Di Prospero; Danny Vesprini; Eileen Rakovitch; Justin Lee; Lawrence Paszat; Mary Doherty; Hany Soliman; Ida Ackerman; Xingshan Cao; Alex Kiss; Ewa Szumacher Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Valentina I Petkov; Lynne T Penberthy; Bassam A Dahman; Andrew Poklepovic; Chris W Gillam; James H McDermott Journal: Exp Biol Med (Maywood) Date: 2013-10-09
Authors: Kenneth L Kehl; Neeraj K Arora; Deborah Schrag; John Z Ayanian; Steven B Clauser; Carrie N Klabunde; Katherine L Kahn; Robert H Fletcher; Nancy L Keating Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-09-13 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Charles S Kamen; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Matthew Asare; Charles E Heckler; Joseph J Guido; Jeffrey K Giguere; Kari Gilliland; Jane Jijun Liu; Jodi Geer; Scott E Delacroix; Gary R Morrow; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-10-06 Impact factor: 6.860