ArticleContemporary clinical trials2021
Prostate cancer clinical trial completion: The role of geography.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Approaches in analyzing predictors of trial failure: a scoping review and meta-epidemiological study.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Factors influencing the performance of clinical research networks to improve the success of cancer clinical trials: A scoping review and organizational analysis.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Review
- Engineering the bone metastatic prostate cancer niche through a microphysiological system to report patient-specific treatment response.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Zooming towards Rapid Qualitative Research for Implementation Science.Health behavior research · 2024Article
- Evolving a national clinical trials learning health system.Learning health systems · 2023Article
- Applying implementation frameworks to the clinical trial context.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsOne 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.
methodsWe 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).
resultsOf 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.
conclusionsIn 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.
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.