Kristian D Stensland1, Krystal DePorto2, James Ryan2, Samuel Kaffenberger3, Lael S Reinstatler4, Matthew Galsky5, David Canes6, Ted A Skolarus3, Alireza Moinzadeh6. 1. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA. Electronic address: kstens@med.umich.edu. 2. Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA. 3. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 4. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH. 5. Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 6. Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials are pillars of modern clinical evidence generation. However, the clinical trial enterprise can be inefficient, and trials often fail before their planned endpoint is reached. We sought to estimate how often urologic oncology trials fail, why trials fail, and associations with trial failure. METHODS: We queried phase 2/3 urologic clinical trial data from ClinicalTrials.gov registered between 2007 and 2019, with status marked as active, completed, or terminated. We extracted relevant trial data, including anticipated and actual accrual, from trial records and ClinicalTrials.gov archives. We manually coded reasons given in the "why stopped" free text field for trial failure into categories (poor accrual, interim results, toxicity/adverse events, study agent unavailable, canceled by the sponsor, inadequate budget, logistics, trial no longer needed, principal investigator left, no reason given, or other). We considered trials terminated for safety or efficacy to be completed trials. Trials marked as terminated for other reasons were considered failed trials. We then estimated the rate of trial failure using competing risks methods. Finally, we assessed associations with trial failure using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 1,869 urologic oncology trials were included. Of these, 225 (12.0%) failed, and 51 (2.7%) were terminated for "good" reasons (e.g., toxicity, efficacy). Of the 225 failed trials, 122 (54%) failed due to poor accrual. Failed trials had a lower anticipated accrual than successfully completed trials (55 vs. 63 patients, P<0.001). A total of 6,832 patients were actually accrued to failed trials. The 10-year estimated risk of trial failure was 17% (95% CI 15%-22%). Single center trials, phase 3 trials, drug trials, and trials with exclusively USA sites were more likely to fail. CONCLUSION: We estimate that 17%, or roughly 1 in 6, of urologic oncology trials fail, most frequently for poor accrual. Further investigations are needed into systemic, trial, and site-specific factors that may impact accrual and successful trial completion.
OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials are pillars of modern clinical evidence generation. However, the clinical trial enterprise can be inefficient, and trials often fail before their planned endpoint is reached. We sought to estimate how often urologic oncology trials fail, why trials fail, and associations with trial failure. METHODS: We queried phase 2/3 urologic clinical trial data from ClinicalTrials.gov registered between 2007 and 2019, with status marked as active, completed, or terminated. We extracted relevant trial data, including anticipated and actual accrual, from trial records and ClinicalTrials.gov archives. We manually coded reasons given in the "why stopped" free text field for trial failure into categories (poor accrual, interim results, toxicity/adverse events, study agent unavailable, canceled by the sponsor, inadequate budget, logistics, trial no longer needed, principal investigator left, no reason given, or other). We considered trials terminated for safety or efficacy to be completed trials. Trials marked as terminated for other reasons were considered failed trials. We then estimated the rate of trial failure using competing risks methods. Finally, we assessed associations with trial failure using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 1,869 urologic oncology trials were included. Of these, 225 (12.0%) failed, and 51 (2.7%) were terminated for "good" reasons (e.g., toxicity, efficacy). Of the 225 failed trials, 122 (54%) failed due to poor accrual. Failed trials had a lower anticipated accrual than successfully completed trials (55 vs. 63 patients, P<0.001). A total of 6,832 patients were actually accrued to failed trials. The 10-year estimated risk of trial failure was 17% (95% CI 15%-22%). Single center trials, phase 3 trials, drug trials, and trials with exclusively USA sites were more likely to fail. CONCLUSION: We estimate that 17%, or roughly 1 in 6, of urologic oncology trials fail, most frequently for poor accrual. Further investigations are needed into systemic, trial, and site-specific factors that may impact accrual and successful trial completion.
Authors: Kristian Stensland; Samuel Kaffenberger; David Canes; Matthew Galsky; Ted Skolarus; Alireza Moinzadeh Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2020-07
Authors: Payal D Soni; Holly E Hartman; Robert T Dess; Ahmed Abugharib; Steven G Allen; Felix Y Feng; Anthony L Zietman; Reshma Jagsi; Matthew J Schipper; Daniel E Spratt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-03-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Monica Khunger; Sagar Rakshit; Adrian V Hernandez; Vinay Pasupuleti; Kate Glass; Matthew D Galsky; Petros Grivas Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-08-01
Authors: J Alfredo Caceres; David M Greer; Joshua N Goldstein; Anand Viswanathan; Jose I Suarez; Logan Brau; Joseph Christopher Zacko; Theodore J Lowenkopf; Chad M Miller; Qaisar A Shah; Ira Chang; Souvik Sen; Steven R Messe; Sherry H Chou; Adnan I Qureshi Journal: J Vasc Interv Neurol Date: 2014-09
Authors: Morgan R Bobb; Paul G Van Heukelom; Brett A Faine; Azeemuddin Ahmed; Jeffrey T Messerly; Gregory Bell; Karisa K Harland; Christian Simon; Nicholas M Mohr Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2016-06-18 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Nicholas D James; Matthew R Sydes; Noel W Clarke; Malcolm D Mason; David P Dearnaley; John Anderson; Richard J Popert; Karen Sanders; Rachel C Morgan; Jim Stansfeld; John Dwyer; John Masters; Mahesh K B Parmar Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Kristian D Stensland; Samuel D Kaffenberger; Arvin K George; Todd M Morgan; David C Miller; Simpa S Salami; Rodney L Dunn; Ganesh S Palapattu; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Brent K Hollenbeck; Ted A Skolarus Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Shellie D Ellis; Riha Vaidya; Joseph M Unger; Kelly Stratton; Jessie Gills; Peter Van Veldhuizen; Eileen Mederos; Emily V Dressler; Matthew F Hudson; Charles Kamen; Heather B Neuman; Anne E Kazak; Ruth C Carlos; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2022-08-14