This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
PURPOSE The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 disrupted the conduct of cancer clinical trials. In response, federal agencies allowed more flexibility for trial recruitment and patient follow-up. A key question is whether the benefits of adopting these strategies outweigh the potential detriments to quality metrics. METHODS A joint ASCO and Friends of Cancer Research task force invited industry and National Cancer Institute trial sponsors to contribute deidentified trial-level aggregate data on enrollment, major protocol deviations, dropouts, and severe adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3-5). These quality metrics were examined as proportions of participants at risk during the pre–COVID-19 (January 2017-February, 2020), initial wave (March-April, 2020), initial recovery (May-December, 2020), and secondary recovery (January 2021-December 2022) periods. Multilevel beta-regression was used, adjusting for phase; study and sponsor were treated as random effects. Indicator variables were used with pre–COVID-19 as the reference. RESULTS Ten sponsors contributed 67 analyzable trials with N = 12,000 US-based participants. Enrollment odds decreased 49% in the initial wave (odds ratio [OR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.86], P = .01) but recovered to pre–COVID-19 levels by 2021-2022 (OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.81], P = .97). Major protocol deviations, dropouts, and severe toxicity all had a lower incidence in the initial wave compared with pre–COVID-19; these outcomes were also less frequent ( P < .05) in the initial recovery period but returned to pre–COVID-19 levels by 2021-2022. CONCLUSION In this multicollaborator evaluation, large declines in enrollment, major protocol deviations, dropouts, and severe toxicity during the acute phase of the pandemic all returned to pre–COVID-19 levels by 2021-2022. These findings highlight the impact of the temporary disruption to trial conduct during the pandemic's peak, but suggest that pandemic-related procedural flexibility did not result in long-term reduced data quality. Sponsors and regulators should consider broader adaptation of trial flexibilities moving forward.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Unger et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: