ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2011
Challenges to accrual predictions to phase III cancer clinical trials: a survey of study chairs and lead statisticians of 248 NCI-sponsored trials.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Usefulness of prestudy assessment of patient willingness to undergo tissue biopsy for correlative studies in a melanoma vaccine trial.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2013Trial
- Clinical trial implementation and recruitment: lessons learned from the early closure of a randomized clinical trial.Contemporary clinical trials · 2012Trial
- Enrollment Success, Factors, and Prediction Models in Cancer Trials (2008-2019).JCO oncology practice · 2023Article
- Age Differences in Clinical Trial Understanding in Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients.Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia · 2022Article
- Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials: Researching the Causes of Low Accrual.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2016Article
- Predicting Low Accrual in the National Cancer Institute's Cooperative Group Clinical Trials.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2016Article
- Design-phase prediction of potential cancer clinical trial accrual success using a research data mart.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2013Article
- The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations.Journal of oncology practice · 2013Article
- Effect of medical oncologists' attitudes on accrual to clinical trials in a community setting.Journal of oncology practice · 2013Article
- Achieving sufficient accrual to address the primary endpoint in phase III clinical trials from U.S. Cooperative Oncology Groups.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2012Article
- AccrualNet: Addressing Low Accrual Via a Knowledge-Based, Community of Practice Platform.Journal of oncology practice · 2011Article
- Phase III clinical trial development: a process of chutes and ladders.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResearch on barriers to accrual has typically emphasized factors influencing participation after trial activation. PURPOSE: We sought to identify factors influencing trial design and accrual predictions prior to trial activation associated with sufficient accrual.
methodsA 30-question web-based survey was sent to the study chair and lead statistician for all 248 phase III trials open in 1993-2002 by five Clinical Trials Cooperative Groups. Questions addressed prior trial experience, trial design elements, accrual predictions, and perceived accrual influences. Accrual sufficiency categorization was derived from Clinical Trials Cooperative Group records: sufficient accrual included trials closed with complete accrual or at interim analysis, insufficient accrual included trials closed with inadequate accrual. Responses were analyzed by respondent role (study chair/lead statistician) and accrual sufficiency.
resultsThree hundred and nine eligible responses were included (response rate, 63%; lead statisticians, 81%; and study chairs, 45%), representing trials with sufficient (63%) and insufficient accruals (37%). Study chair seniority or lead statistician experience was not linked to accrual sufficiency. Literature review, study chair's personal experience, and expert opinion within Clinical Trials Cooperative Group most commonly influenced control arm selection. Clinical Trials Cooperative Group experience most influenced accrual predictions. These influences were not associated with accrual sufficiency. Among respondents citing accrual difficulties (41%), factors negatively influencing accrual were not consistently identified. Respondents credited three factors with positively influencing accrual: clinical relevance of study, lack of competing trials, and protocol paralleling normal practice. LIMITATIONS: Perceptions of lead statisticians and study chairs may not accurately reflect accrual barriers encountered by participating physicians or patients. Survey responses may be subject to recall bias.
conclusionConsistent factors explaining poor accrual were not identified, suggesting reasons for poor accrual are not well understood and warrant further study. Alternate strategies for accrual prediction are needed since Clinical Trials Cooperative Group experience is linked to successful and unsuccessful accrual.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.