ArticleJCO oncology practice2023
Enrollment Success, Factors, and Prediction Models in Cancer Trials (2008-2019).
Article in JCO oncology practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and initial validation of a scale assessing sources of decision hesitation in patients with lung cancer invited to participate in drug clinical trials.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Mapping the Evidence for Surgical Care of Gastro-Entero-Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NETs): A Scoping Review.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Association of Protocol Design-Related Factors With Enrollment Duration in Clinical Trials.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Rationale and protocol for a prospective clinical trial enrollment improvement hybrid study within a trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Optimal timing of cancer treatments: a call for emerging evidence from clinical trials and real-world studies.British journal of cancer · 2025Review
- Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Clinical Trials: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Experience (Alliance A152022).Journal of clinical trials · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the enrollment success rate of cancer clinical trials conducted in 2008-2019 and various factors lowering the enrollment success rate.
methodsThis is a cross-sectional study with clinical trial information from the largest registration database ClinicalTrials.gov. Enrollment success rate was defined as actual enrollment greater or equal to 85% of the estimated enrollment goal. The association between trial characteristics and enrollment success was evaluated using the multivariable logistic regression.
resultsA total of 4,004 trials in breast, lung, and colorectal cancers were included. The overall enrollment success rate was 49.1%. Compared with 2008-2010 (51.5%) and 2011-2013 (52.1%), the enrollment success rate is lower in 2014-2016 (46.5%) and 2017-2019 (36.4%). Regression analyses found trial activation year, phase I, phase I/phase II, and phase II (
conclusionThis large-scale study supports a lower enrollment success rate over years in cancer clinical trials. Identified factors for enrollment success can be used to develop and improve recruitment strategies for future cancer trials.
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.