BACKGROUND: The extent to which trial-level factors differentially influence accrual to trials has not been comprehensively studied. Our objective was to evaluate the empirical relationship and predictive properties of putative risk factors for low accrual in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Cooperative Group Program, now the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). METHODS: Data from 787 phase II/III adult NCTN-sponsored trials launched between 2000 and 2011 were used to develop a logistic regression model to predict low accrual, defined as trials that closed with or were accruing at less than 50% of target; 46 trials opened between 2012 and 2013 were used for prospective validation. Candidate predictors were identified from a literature review and expert interviews; final predictors were selected using stepwise regression. Model performance was evaluated by calibration and discrimination via the area under the curve (AUC). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Eighteen percent (n = 145) of NCTN-sponsored trials closed with low accrual or were accruing at less than 50% of target three years or more after initiation. A multivariable model of twelve trial-level risk factors had good calibration and discrimination for predicting trials with low accrual (AUC in trials launched 2000-2011 = 0.739, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.696 to 0.783]; 2012-2013: AUC = 0.732, 95% CI = 0.547 to 0.917). Results were robust to different definitions of low accrual and predictor selection strategies. CONCLUSIONS: We identified multiple characteristics of NCTN-sponsored trials associated with low accrual, several of which have not been previously empirically described, and developed a prediction model that can provide a useful estimate of accrual risk based on these factors. Future work should assess the role of such prediction tools in trial design and prioritization decisions.
BACKGROUND: The extent to which trial-level factors differentially influence accrual to trials has not been comprehensively studied. Our objective was to evaluate the empirical relationship and predictive properties of putative risk factors for low accrual in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Cooperative Group Program, now the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). METHODS: Data from 787 phase II/III adult NCTN-sponsored trials launched between 2000 and 2011 were used to develop a logistic regression model to predict low accrual, defined as trials that closed with or were accruing at less than 50% of target; 46 trials opened between 2012 and 2013 were used for prospective validation. Candidate predictors were identified from a literature review and expert interviews; final predictors were selected using stepwise regression. Model performance was evaluated by calibration and discrimination via the area under the curve (AUC). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Eighteen percent (n = 145) of NCTN-sponsored trials closed with low accrual or were accruing at less than 50% of target three years or more after initiation. A multivariable model of twelve trial-level risk factors had good calibration and discrimination for predicting trials with low accrual (AUC in trials launched 2000-2011 = 0.739, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.696 to 0.783]; 2012-2013: AUC = 0.732, 95% CI = 0.547 to 0.917). Results were robust to different definitions of low accrual and predictor selection strategies. CONCLUSIONS: We identified multiple characteristics of NCTN-sponsored trials associated with low accrual, several of which have not been previously empirically described, and developed a prediction model that can provide a useful estimate of accrual risk based on these factors. Future work should assess the role of such prediction tools in trial design and prioritization decisions.
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: Anneke T Schroen; Gina R Petroni; Hongkun Wang; Monika J Thielen; Robert Gray; Jacqueline Benedetti; Xiaofei F Wang; Daniel J Sargent; Donald L Wickerham; Walter Cronin; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Craig L Slingluff Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Olivier Graesslin; Bassam S Abdulkarim; Charles Coutant; Florence Huguet; Zsolt Gabos; Limin Hsu; Olivier Marpeau; Serge Uzan; Lajos Pusztai; Eric A Strom; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Roman Rouzier; Nuhad K Ibrahim Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kristian D Stensland; Russell B McBride; Asma Latif; Juan Wisnivesky; Ryan Hendricks; Nitin Roper; Paolo Boffetta; Simon J Hall; William K Oh; Matthew D Galsky Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Dario Pasalic; Chad Tang; Reshma Jagsi; C David Fuller; Albert C Koong; Ethan B Ludmir Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 31.777
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: Junhao Liu; Jo A Wick; Dinesh Pal Mudaranthakam; Yu Jiang; Matthew S Mayo; Byron J Gajewski Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 2.486