MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303446297 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064458

What drives cancer clinical trial accrual? An empirical analysis of studies leading to FDA authorisation (2015–2020)

2022· article· en· W4303446297 on OpenAlexaff
Kristina Jenei, Alyson Haslam, Timothée Olivier, Miloš D. Miljković, Vinay Prasad

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersArnold Ventures
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialClinical endpointAccrualPopulationInternal medicineBlindingEnvironmental healthAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine factors associated with accrual rate in industry sponsored clinical trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cancer drug approvals from 2015 to 2020. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cross-sectional study included 194 pivotal trials supporting cancer drug approvals by the US FDA from 2015 to 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Clinical trials were analysed for the type of blinding, primary endpoint, whether crossover was specified in the publication, study phase, line of therapy, response rate, investigational sites, manufacturer and randomisation ratio. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was the rate of accrual, which is the number of patients accrued in the study per open month of enrolment. RESULTS: The study consisted of 133 randomised (68%) and 61 (32%) non-randomised clinical trials. In randomised studies, we found the accrual rate was higher in trials investigating first and second line drugs (adjusted rate ratios (aRR): 1.55, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.09), phase III trials (aRR: 2.13, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.99), and for studies sponsored by Merck (aRR: 1.47, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.37), adjusting for other covariates. In contrast, the primary endpoint of a study, presence of crossover, single agent response rate, the number of investigational sites, population disease burden and skewed randomisation ratios were not associated with the rate of accrual. In the non-randomised adjusted model, the accrual rate was 2.03 higher (95% CI 1.10 to 3.92) for clinical trials sponsored by manufacturer, specifically Merck. Primary endpoint, crossover, trial phase, response rate, the number of investigational sites, disease burden or line of therapy were not associated with the rate of accrual. CONCLUSION: In this cross-sectional study, line of therapy, study phase and manufacturer were the only factors associated with accrual rate. These findings suggest many proffered factors for speedy trial accrual are not associated with greater enrolment rates.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.503
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.832
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5030.832
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.008
Bibliometrics0.0070.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.892
GPT teacher head0.786
Teacher spread0.106 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207