Kristian D Stensland1, Samuel D Kaffenberger2, Arvin K George3, Todd M Morgan2, David C Miller1, Simpa S Salami2, Rodney L Dunn4, Ganesh S Palapattu2, Jeffrey S Montgomery2, Brent K Hollenbeck1, Ted A Skolarus5. 1. Department of Urology, Dow Division of Health Services Research, University of Michigan, USA; Department of Urology, Division of Urologic Oncology, University of Michigan, USA. 2. Department of Urology, Division of Urologic Oncology, University of Michigan, USA. 3. Department of Urology, Division of Urologic Oncology, University of Michigan, USA; VA HSR&D Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, USA. 4. Department of Urology, Dow Division of Health Services Research, University of Michigan, USA. 5. Department of Urology, Dow Division of Health Services Research, University of Michigan, USA; Department of Urology, Division of Urologic Oncology, University of Michigan, USA; VA HSR&D Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, USA. Electronic address: tskolar@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: One in five cancer clinical trials fails with another third failing to meet enrollment goals. Prior efforts to improve enrollment focus on patient facing interventions, but geographic factors such as regional cancer incidence may doom trials before they even begin. For these reasons, we examined associations of regional prostate cancer incidence with trial termination, and identified scientifically-underserved areas where future trials might thrive. METHODS: We merged US phase 2-3 prostate cancer clinical trial data from ClinicalTrials.gov with prostate cancer incidence data from statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov. We matched trial information from 293 closed and 560 active trials with incidence data for 2947 counties. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified associations with trial termination. We identified 'scientifically-underserved' counties with the highest cancer incidence quintile (>61 annual cases) but lowest active trials quintile (0 or 1 trial). RESULTS: Of 293 closed trials, one in three was terminated (n = 96, 32.8%). On multivariable analysis, only lower regional prostate cancer incidence was associated with higher likelihood of premature trial termination (OR 0.98, 95% CI [0.96-0.99] for every 100 cases, p = 0.03). We identified 188 counties with >61 annual prostate cancer cases but 0 or 1 active trials, indicating potential scientifically-underserved areas. CONCLUSIONS: In this novel study, we found prostate cancer trials in areas with low prostate cancer incidence were more likely to fail. We also identified scientifically-underserved areas where trials might thrive. Our findings provide a more nuanced understanding of clinical trial feasibility and upstream opportunities for improvement. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: One in five cancer clinical trials fails with another third failing to meet enrollment goals. Prior efforts to improve enrollment focus on patient facing interventions, but geographic factors such as regional cancer incidence may doom trials before they even begin. For these reasons, we examined associations of regional prostate cancer incidence with trial termination, and identified scientifically-underserved areas where future trials might thrive. METHODS: We merged US phase 2-3 prostate cancer clinical trial data from ClinicalTrials.gov with prostate cancer incidence data from statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov. We matched trial information from 293 closed and 560 active trials with incidence data for 2947 counties. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified associations with trial termination. We identified 'scientifically-underserved' counties with the highest cancer incidence quintile (>61 annual cases) but lowest active trials quintile (0 or 1 trial). RESULTS: Of 293 closed trials, one in three was terminated (n = 96, 32.8%). On multivariable analysis, only lower regional prostate cancer incidence was associated with higher likelihood of premature trial termination (OR 0.98, 95% CI [0.96-0.99] for every 100 cases, p = 0.03). We identified 188 counties with >61 annual prostate cancer cases but 0 or 1 active trials, indicating potential scientifically-underserved areas. CONCLUSIONS: In this novel study, we found prostate cancer trials in areas with low prostate cancer incidence were more likely to fail. We also identified scientifically-underserved areas where trials might thrive. Our findings provide a more nuanced understanding of clinical trial feasibility and upstream opportunities for improvement. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Access to care; Clinical trials; Prostate cancer; Quality improvement
Authors: Matthew D Galsky; Kristian D Stensland; Russell B McBride; Asma Latif; Erin Moshier; William K Oh; Juan Wisnivesky Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Kristian Stensland; Samuel Kaffenberger; David Canes; Matthew Galsky; Ted Skolarus; Alireza Moinzadeh Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2020-07
Authors: Monica Khunger; Sagar Rakshit; Adrian V Hernandez; Vinay Pasupuleti; Kate Glass; Matthew D Galsky; Petros Grivas Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-08-01
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: Al B Benson; Alan P Venook; Mahmoud M Al-Hawary; Mustafa A Arain; Yi-Jen Chen; Kristen K Ciombor; Stacey Cohen; Harry S Cooper; Dustin Deming; Ignacio Garrido-Laguna; Jean L Grem; Andrew Gunn; Sarah Hoffe; Joleen Hubbard; Steven Hunt; Natalie Kirilcuk; Smitha Krishnamurthi; Wells A Messersmith; Jeffrey Meyerhardt; Eric D Miller; Mary F Mulcahy; Steven Nurkin; Michael J Overman; Aparna Parikh; Hitendra Patel; Katrina Pedersen; Leonard Saltz; Charles Schneider; David Shibata; John M Skibber; Constantinos T Sofocleous; Elena M Stoffel; Eden Stotsky-Himelfarb; Christopher G Willett; Alyse Johnson-Chilla; Lisa A Gurski Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: George Tran; Matthew Harker; Karen Chiswell; Joseph M Unger; Mark E Fleury; Bradford Hirsch; Kimberly Miller; Philip d'Almada; Sheri Tibbs; S Yousuf Zafar Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2020-01
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: Kristian D Stensland; Krystal DePorto; James Ryan; Samuel Kaffenberger; Lael S Reinstatler; Matthew Galsky; David Canes; Ted A Skolarus; Alireza Moinzadeh Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Alain Amstutz; Stefan Schandelmaier; Roy Frei; Jakub Surina; Arnav Agarwal; Kelechi Kalu Olu; Reem Alturki; Belinda Von Niederhäusern; Erik Von Elm; Matthias Briel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 2.692