Jennifer K Logan1, Chad Tang1, Zhongxing Liao1, J Jack Lee2, John V Heymach3, Stephen G Swisher4, James W Welsh1, Jianjun Zhang3, Steven H Lin1, Daniel R Gomez5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: dgomez@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Challenges can arise when attempting to maximize patient enrollment in clinical trials. There have been limited studies focusing on the barriers to enrollment and the efficacy of alternative study design to improve accrual. We analyzed barriers to clinical trial enrollment, particularly the influence of timing, in context of three prospective, randomized oncology trials where one arm was considered more aggressive than the other. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From June 2011 to March 2015, patients who were enrolled on 3 prospective institutional protocols (an oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer [NSCLC] trial and 2 proton vs intensity modulated radiation therapy trials in NSCLC and esophageal cancer) were screened for protocol eligibility. Eligible candidates were approached about trial participation, and patient characteristics (age, sex, T/N categorization) were recorded along with details surrounding trial presentation (appointment number). Fisher's exact test, Student's t tests, and multivariate analysis were performed to assess differences between enrolled and refusal patients. RESULTS: A total of 309 eligible patients were approached about trial enrollment. The enrollment success rate during this time span was 52% (n=160 patients). Enrolled patients were more likely to be presented trial information at an earlier appointment (oligometastatic protocol: 5 vs 3 appointments [P<.001]; NSCLC protocol: 4 vs 3 appointments [P=.0018]; esophageal protocol: 3 vs 2 appointments [P=.0086]). No other factors or patient characteristics significantly affected enrollment success rate. CONCLUSION: Improvement in enrollment rates for randomized control trials is possible, even in difficult accrual settings. Earlier presentation of trial information to patients is the most influential factor for success and may help overcome accrual barriers without compromising trial design.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Challenges can arise when attempting to maximize patient enrollment in clinical trials. There have been limited studies focusing on the barriers to enrollment and the efficacy of alternative study design to improve accrual. We analyzed barriers to clinical trial enrollment, particularly the influence of timing, in context of three prospective, randomized oncology trials where one arm was considered more aggressive than the other. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From June 2011 to March 2015, patients who were enrolled on 3 prospective institutional protocols (an oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer [NSCLC] trial and 2 proton vs intensity modulated radiation therapy trials in NSCLC and esophageal cancer) were screened for protocol eligibility. Eligible candidates were approached about trial participation, and patient characteristics (age, sex, T/N categorization) were recorded along with details surrounding trial presentation (appointment number). Fisher's exact test, Student's t tests, and multivariate analysis were performed to assess differences between enrolled and refusal patients. RESULTS: A total of 309 eligible patients were approached about trial enrollment. The enrollment success rate during this time span was 52% (n=160 patients). Enrolled patients were more likely to be presented trial information at an earlier appointment (oligometastatic protocol: 5 vs 3 appointments [P<.001]; NSCLC protocol: 4 vs 3 appointments [P=.0018]; esophageal protocol: 3 vs 2 appointments [P=.0086]). No other factors or patient characteristics significantly affected enrollment success rate. CONCLUSION: Improvement in enrollment rates for randomized control trials is possible, even in difficult accrual settings. Earlier presentation of trial information to patients is the most influential factor for success and may help overcome accrual barriers without compromising trial design.
Authors: P N Lara; R Higdon; N Lim; K Kwan; M Tanaka; D H Lau; T Wun; J Welborn; F J Meyers; S Christensen; R O'Donnell; C Richman; S A Scudder; J Tuscano; D R Gandara; K S Lam Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Celia P Kaplan; Anna Maria Nápoles; Daniel Dohan; E Shelley Hwang; Michelle Melisko; Dana Nickleach; Jessica Ann Quinn; Jennifer Haas Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Paula Mulvenna; Matthew Nankivell; Rachael Barton; Corinne Faivre-Finn; Paula Wilson; Elaine McColl; Barbara Moore; Iona Brisbane; David Ardron; Tanya Holt; Sally Morgan; Caroline Lee; Kathryn Waite; Neil Bayman; Cheryl Pugh; Benjamin Sydes; Richard Stephens; Mahesh K Parmar; Ruth E Langley Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-09-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Hussein H Khachfe; Joseph R Habib; Ibrahim Nassour; Hussein A Baydoun; Elie M Ghabi; Mohamad A Chahrour; Ali H Hallal; Faek R Jamali Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Morgan D Black; Lilian Esene; Richard McClelland; Heather Mayer; Stephen Welch; Glenn Bauman; Theodore Vandenberg Journal: Cureus Date: 2022-05-18
Authors: Priya Brahmbhatt; Catherine M Sabiston; Christian Lopez; Eugene Chang; Jack Goodman; Jennifer Jones; David McCready; Ian Randall; Sarah Rotstein; Daniel Santa Mina Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Nathan N O'Hara; Yasmin Degani; Debra Marvel; David Wells; C Daniel Mullins; Stephen Wegener; Katherine Frey; Tara Joseph; Jonathan Hurst; Renan Castillo; Robert V O'Toole Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Andrew R Wong; Virginia Sun; Kevin George; Jennifer Liu; Simran Padam; Brandon A Chen; Thomas George; Arya Amini; Daneng Li; Mina S Sedrak Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-04-02
Authors: Joseph M Unger; Dawn L Hershman; Cathee Till; Lori M Minasian; Raymond U Osarogiagbon; Mark E Fleury; Riha Vaidya Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506