Search

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., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Recruitment of patients into cancer research studies is exceedingly difficult, particularly for early phase trials. Payer reimbursement policies are a frequently cited barrier. We examined whether state policies that ensure coverage of routine medical care costs for cancer trial participants are associated with an increase in clinical trial enrollment., Methods: We used logistic Poisson regressions to analyze enrollment in National Cancer Institute phase II and phase III Clinical Trials Cooperative Group trials and compared changes in trial enrollment rates between 1996 and 2001 of privately insured cancer patients who resided in the four states that enacted coverage policies in 1999 with enrollment rates in states without such policies. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Trial enrollment rates increased in the coverage and noncoverage states by 24.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 22.8% to 27.0%) and 28.8% (95% CI = 27.7% to 29.8%) per year, respectively, from 1996 through 2001. After implementation of the coverage policies in 1999 in four states, there was a 21.7% (95% CI = 3.8% to 42.6%) annual increase in phase II trial enrollment in coverage states, compared with a 15.6% (95% CI = 8.8% to 21.8%) annual decrease in noncoverage states (P<.001). After accounting for secular trend, cancer type, and race in multivariable analyses, the odds ratio (OR) for a phase II trial participant residing in a coverage versus a noncoverage state after 1999 was 1.59 per year (95% CI = 1.22 to 2.07; P =.001). In a multivariable analysis of phase III trial participation, there was a decrease in the odds of residing in a coverage state after 1999 (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.84 to 0.98; P =.011)., Conclusion: State coverage policies were associated with a statistically significant increase in phase II cancer trial participation and did not increase phase III cancer trial enrollment.

Background: Payment for care provided as part of clinical research has become less predictable as a result of managed care. Because little is known at present about how entry into cancer trials affects the cost of care for cancer patients, we conducted a matched case-control comparison of the incremental medical costs attributable to participation in cancer treatment trials., Methods: Case patients were residents of Olmsted County, MN, who entered phase II or phase III cancer treatment trials at the Mayo Clinic from 1988 through 1994. Control patients were patients who did not enter trials but who were eligible on the basis of tumor registry matching and medical record review. Sixty-one matched pairs were followed for up to 5 years after the date of trial entry for case patients or from an equivalent date for control patients. Hospital, physician, and ancillary service costs were estimated from a population-based cost database developed at the Mayo Clinic., Results: Trial enrollees incurred modestly (no more than 10%) higher costs over various follow-up periods. The mean cumulative 5-year cost in 1995 inflation-adjusted U.S. dollars among trial enrollees after adjustment for censoring was $46424 compared with $44 133 for control patients. After 1 year, trial enrollee costs were $24645 compared with $23 964 for control patients., Conclusions: This study suggests that cancer chemotherapy trials may not imply budget-breaking costs. Cancer itself is a high-cost illness. Clinical protocols may add relatively little to that cost.