ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2025
Evaluating the impact of delayed study startup on accrual in cancer studies.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Drug development in cancer medicine relies on high-quality clinical trials, and the success of these trials depends on the design, optimization, and execution. Delays often arise from the study startup process, which can take 6 months or more. Complex challenges, including regulatory hurdles, contract negotiations, and inefficiencies in site activation, contribute to these delays. Streamlining these processes is critical to accelerating patients' access to potentially life-saving therapies. Method: Data from the University of Kansas Cancer Center (KUCC) were used to analyze studies initiated between 2018 and 2022. The accrual percentage was computed based on the number of enrolled participants and the desired accrual goal. Accrual success was determined by comparing the enrollment rate to predefined threshold values (50 %, 70 %, or 90 %). Results: Studies that achieve or surpass the 70 % accrual threshold typically exhibit a median activation time of 140.5 days. In contrast, studies that fall short of the accrual goal tend to have a median activation time of 187 days, indicating shorter median activation times are associated with successful studies. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test (W = 13,607, p = 0.001) indicated that early-phase studies had significantly longer activation times than late-phase studies. We also conducted the study with 50 % and 90 % accrual thresholds; our findings remained consistent. Conclusions: Longer activation times are associated with lower project success, and early-phase studies tend to be more successful than late-phase studies. Therefore, by reducing impediments to the approval process, we can facilitate quicker approvals, increasing the success of studies regardless of phase.
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.