Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38770644›Full record

ReviewCancer medicine2024

Strategies for increasing accrual in cancer clinical trials: What is the evidence?

Margo Michaels, Elisa S Weiss, Maria Sae-Hau, Dora Illei, Bethany Lilly, Leah Szumita, Brian Connell, Marialanna Lee, Eric Cooks, Melissa McPheeters

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A Model for Clinician and Staff Education in the Engagement of American Indians in Genomic Research.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Listening to Australians with ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional survey investigating clinical trials awareness, information access and participation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Margo MichaelsHealth Access and Action Consulting, Newton, Massachusetts, USA.
Elisa S WeissThe Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, New York, New York, USA.
Maria Sae-HauThe Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, New York, New York, USA.
Dora IlleiRTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Bethany LillyThe Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, New York, New York, USA.
Leah SzumitaThe Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, New York, New York, USA.
Brian ConnellThe Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, New York, New York, USA.
Marialanna LeeThe Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, New York, New York, USA.
Eric CooksThe Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, New York, New York, USA.
Melissa McPheetersRTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4423-797X

Funding

The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite the importance of clinical trial participation among cancer patients, few participate-and even fewer patients from ethnic and racial minoritized groups. It is unclear whether suggested approaches to increase accrual are successful. We conducted a scoping review to identify evidence-based approaches to increase participation in cancer treatment clinical trials that demonstrated clear increases in accrual. Notably, more stringent than other published reviews, only those studies with comparison data to measure a difference in accrual rates were included.

methodsWe searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science for English-language articles published from January 1, 2012, to August 8, 2022. Studies were included if they were conducted in the United States, described single or multicomponent interventions, and provided data to measure accrual relative to baseline levels or that compared accrual rates with other interventions.

resultsSixteen articles were included: six with interventions addressing patient barriers, two addressing provider barriers, seven describing institutional change, and one describing policy change. Key themes emerged, such as a focus on patient education, cultural competency, and building the capacity of clinics. Few studies provide comparative accrual data, making it difficult to identify with certainty any effective, evidence-based approaches for increasing accrual. Some patient- and system-level interventions studies showed modest increases in accrual primarily through pre-post measurement.

conclusionDespite an extensive body of literature about the barriers that impede cancer treatment trial accrual, along with numerous recommendations for how to overcome these barriers, results reveal surprisingly little evidence published in the last 10 years on interventions that increase accrual relative to baseline levels or compared with other interventions. As clinical trials are a primary vehicle through which we improve cancer care, it is critical that evidence-based approaches are used to inform all efforts to increase accrual. Strategies for increasing participation in cancer clinical trials must be developed and rigorously evaluated so that these strategies can be disseminated, participation in trials can increase and become more equitable, and trial results can become more generalizable.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicNeoplasmsPatient SelectionHumansPatient Participationaccrualclinical trials

Identifiers

PMID38770644
PMCPMC11106681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.