TY - JOUR
T1 - Estimating the rate and reasons of clinical trial failure in urologic oncology
AU - Stensland, Kristian D.
AU - DePorto, Krystal
AU - Ryan, James
AU - Kaffenberger, Samuel
AU - Reinstatler, Lael S.
AU - Galsky, Matthew
AU - Canes, David
AU - Skolarus, Ted A.
AU - Moinzadeh, Alireza
N1 - Funding Information:
Dr. Stensland is supported by the National Cancer Institute T32CA180984 . The views expressed in this article do not reflect the views of the federal government. Dr. Stensland was also supported for this work in part by a Lahey Clinic Robert E. Wise Foundation grant.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2021/3
Y1 - 2021/3
N2 - Objectives: Clinical trials are pillars of modern clinical evidence generation. However, the clinical trial enterprise can be inefficient, and trials often fail before their planned endpoint is reached. We sought to estimate how often urologic oncology trials fail, why trials fail, and associations with trial failure. Methods: We queried phase 2/3 urologic clinical trial data from ClinicalTrials.gov registered between 2007 and 2019, with status marked as active, completed, or terminated. We extracted relevant trial data, including anticipated and actual accrual, from trial records and ClinicalTrials.gov archives. We manually coded reasons given in the “why stopped” free text field for trial failure into categories (poor accrual, interim results, toxicity/adverse events, study agent unavailable, canceled by the sponsor, inadequate budget, logistics, trial no longer needed, principal investigator left, no reason given, or other). We considered trials terminated for safety or efficacy to be completed trials. Trials marked as terminated for other reasons were considered failed trials. We then estimated the rate of trial failure using competing risks methods. Finally, we assessed associations with trial failure using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: A total of 1,869 urologic oncology trials were included. Of these, 225 (12.0%) failed, and 51 (2.7%) were terminated for “good” reasons (e.g., toxicity, efficacy). Of the 225 failed trials, 122 (54%) failed due to poor accrual. Failed trials had a lower anticipated accrual than successfully completed trials (55 vs. 63 patients, P<0.001). A total of 6,832 patients were actually accrued to failed trials. The 10-year estimated risk of trial failure was 17% (95% CI 15%–22%). Single center trials, phase 3 trials, drug trials, and trials with exclusively USA sites were more likely to fail. Conclusion: We estimate that 17%, or roughly 1 in 6, of urologic oncology trials fail, most frequently for poor accrual. Further investigations are needed into systemic, trial, and site-specific factors that may impact accrual and successful trial completion.
AB - Objectives: Clinical trials are pillars of modern clinical evidence generation. However, the clinical trial enterprise can be inefficient, and trials often fail before their planned endpoint is reached. We sought to estimate how often urologic oncology trials fail, why trials fail, and associations with trial failure. Methods: We queried phase 2/3 urologic clinical trial data from ClinicalTrials.gov registered between 2007 and 2019, with status marked as active, completed, or terminated. We extracted relevant trial data, including anticipated and actual accrual, from trial records and ClinicalTrials.gov archives. We manually coded reasons given in the “why stopped” free text field for trial failure into categories (poor accrual, interim results, toxicity/adverse events, study agent unavailable, canceled by the sponsor, inadequate budget, logistics, trial no longer needed, principal investigator left, no reason given, or other). We considered trials terminated for safety or efficacy to be completed trials. Trials marked as terminated for other reasons were considered failed trials. We then estimated the rate of trial failure using competing risks methods. Finally, we assessed associations with trial failure using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: A total of 1,869 urologic oncology trials were included. Of these, 225 (12.0%) failed, and 51 (2.7%) were terminated for “good” reasons (e.g., toxicity, efficacy). Of the 225 failed trials, 122 (54%) failed due to poor accrual. Failed trials had a lower anticipated accrual than successfully completed trials (55 vs. 63 patients, P<0.001). A total of 6,832 patients were actually accrued to failed trials. The 10-year estimated risk of trial failure was 17% (95% CI 15%–22%). Single center trials, phase 3 trials, drug trials, and trials with exclusively USA sites were more likely to fail. Conclusion: We estimate that 17%, or roughly 1 in 6, of urologic oncology trials fail, most frequently for poor accrual. Further investigations are needed into systemic, trial, and site-specific factors that may impact accrual and successful trial completion.
KW - Clinical trials
KW - Evidence generation
KW - Trial accrual
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85097097523&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.10.070
DO - 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.10.070
M3 - Review article
C2 - 33257221
AN - SCOPUS:85097097523
SN - 1078-1439
VL - 39
SP - 154
EP - 160
JO - Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
JF - Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
IS - 3
ER -