What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to assess how poor accrual impacts the closure of phase III clinical trials in oncology and proposes a new way to define accrual sufficiency.

October 5, 2011Open Access

Achieving Sufficient Accrual to Address the Primary Endpoint in Phase III Clinical Trials from U.S. Cooperative Oncology Groups

Key Points

This research aims to assess how poor accrual impacts the closure of phase III clinical trials in oncology and proposes a new way to define accrual sufficiency.
Evaluated 238 phase III trials from U.S. Oncology Cooperative Groups between Jan 1, 1993, and Dec 31, 2002.
Defined sufficient accrual based on meeting targets, CTCGs documentation, or interim analysis results.
Compared closure rates based on accrual sufficiency with those of meeting accrual targets.
66% of trials (158 out of 238) closed with sufficient accrual.
29% of trials closed due to poor accrual specifically.
Exceeding 80% of target accrual reliably indicates a trial's ability to address its primary endpoints.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Assessing impact of poor accrual on premature trial closure requires a relevant metric. We propose defining accrual sufficiency on apparent ability to address primary endpoints (PE) rather than attaining accrual targets. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: All phase III trials open January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2002, by five U.S. oncology Clinical Trials Cooperative Groups (CTCG) were evaluated for accrual sufficiency and scientific results. Sufficient accrual included meeting accrual target, CTCGs documentation attesting adequate accrual, or conclusive results at interim analysis; insufficient accrual included poor accrual as cited closure reason or other reasons rendering a trial unable to address its primary endpoints. Closure rates based on our accrual sufficiency definition are compared with rates of meeting accrual targets and addressing the primary endpoints. A percentage of target accrual above which trials commonly answer the intended scientific question was identified to serve as an alternative to meeting full target accrual in designating accrual success. RESULTS: Of 238 eligible trials, 158 (66%) closed with sufficient accrual. Among 80 trials with insufficient accrual, 70 (29%) closed specifically because of poor accrual. Inadequate accrual rates are overemphasized when defining accrual success solely by meeting accrual targets. Nearly 75% of trials conclusively addressed the primary endpoints with positive results in 39% of trials. Exceeding 80% of target accrual serves as a reliable proxy for answering the intended scientific question. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one third of phase III trials closed with insufficient accrual to address the primary endpoints, primarily due to poor accrual. Defining accrual sufficiency broader than meeting accrual targets represents a fairer account of trial closures.

Bookmark

View Full Paper