Connie M Ulrich1, Snehal Deshmukh2, Stephanie L Pugh2, Alexandra Hanlon3, Christine Grady4, Deborah Watkins Bruner5, Walter Curran5. 1. University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: culrich@nursing.upenn.edu. 2. NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine individual, organizational, and protocol-specific factors associated with attrition in NRG Oncology's radiation-based clinical trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective analysis included 27,443 patients representing 134 NRG Oncology's radiation-based clinical trials .trials with primary efficacy results published from 1985-2011. Trials were separated on the basis of the primary endpoint (fixed time vs event driven). The cumulative incidence approach was used to estimate time to attrition, and cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess factors associated with attrition. RESULTS: Most patients (69%) were enrolled in an event-driven trial (n = 18,809), while 31% were enrolled in a fixed-time trial (n = 8634). Median follow-up time for patients enrolled in fixed-time trials was 4.1 months and 37.2 months for patients enrolled in event-driven trials. Fixed time trials with a duration < 6 months had a 5 month attrition rate of 4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.4%, 5.5%) and those with a duration ≥ 6 months had a 1 year attrition rate of 1.6% (95% CI: 1.2, 2.1). Event-driven trials had 1- and 5-year attrition rates of 0.5% (95% CI: 0.4%, 0.6%) and 13.6% (95% CI: 13.1%, 14.1%), respectively. Younger age, female gender, and Zubrod performance status >0 were associated with greater attrition as were enrollment by institutions in the West and South regions and participation in fixed-time trials. CONCLUSIONS: Attrition in clinical trials can have a negative effect on trial outcomes. Data on factors associated with attrition can help guide the development of strategies to enhance retention. These strategies should focus on patient characteristics associated with attrition in both fixed-time and event-driven trials as well as in differing geographic regions of the country.
PURPOSE: To determine individual, organizational, and protocol-specific factors associated with attrition in NRG Oncology's radiation-based clinical trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective analysis included 27,443 patients representing 134 NRG Oncology's radiation-based clinical trials .trials with primary efficacy results published from 1985-2011. Trials were separated on the basis of the primary endpoint (fixed time vs event driven). The cumulative incidence approach was used to estimate time to attrition, and cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess factors associated with attrition. RESULTS: Most patients (69%) were enrolled in an event-driven trial (n = 18,809), while 31% were enrolled in a fixed-time trial (n = 8634). Median follow-up time for patients enrolled in fixed-time trials was 4.1 months and 37.2 months for patients enrolled in event-driven trials. Fixed time trials with a duration < 6 months had a 5 month attrition rate of 4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.4%, 5.5%) and those with a duration ≥ 6 months had a 1 year attrition rate of 1.6% (95% CI: 1.2, 2.1). Event-driven trials had 1- and 5-year attrition rates of 0.5% (95% CI: 0.4%, 0.6%) and 13.6% (95% CI: 13.1%, 14.1%), respectively. Younger age, female gender, and Zubrod performance status >0 were associated with greater attrition as were enrollment by institutions in the West and South regions and participation in fixed-time trials. CONCLUSIONS: Attrition in clinical trials can have a negative effect on trial outcomes. Data on factors associated with attrition can help guide the development of strategies to enhance retention. These strategies should focus on patient characteristics associated with attrition in both fixed-time and event-driven trials as well as in differing geographic regions of the country.
Authors: Connie M Ulrich; Jennifer L James; Eleanor M Walker; Sharon Hartson Stine; Elizabeth Gore; Bradley Prestidge; Jeff Michalski; Clement K Gwede; Robert Chamberlain; Deborah Watkins Bruner Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2010-03-06 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Jennifer S Temel; Joseph A Greer; Alona Muzikansky; Emily R Gallagher; Sonal Admane; Vicki A Jackson; Constance M Dahlin; Craig D Blinderman; Juliet Jacobsen; William F Pirl; J Andrew Billings; Thomas J Lynch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-08-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Chiara Melloni; Jeffrey S Berger; Tracy Y Wang; Funda Gunes; Amanda Stebbins; Karen S Pieper; Rowena J Dolor; Pamela S Douglas; Daniel B Mark; L Kristin Newby Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2010-02-16
Authors: Andre T Brunetto; Joo Ern Ang; David Olmos; Daniel Tan; Jorge Barriuso; Hendrik-Tobias Arkenau; Timothy A Yap; L Rhoda Molife; Udai Banerji; Johann de Bono; Ian Judson; Stan Kaye Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-08-11 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Amy R Motomura; Sudha Amarnath; Aleksandra Jankovic; Nathan Sheets; Peter A Ubel Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860