New Benchmarks on Protocol Amendment Experience in Oncology Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: The drug development industry's focus on cancer-related treatments continues to rise, with narrow patient populations and complex procedures increasing the complexity of oncology protocols at an accelerated rate compared to non-oncology drugs. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development utilized data from a study investigating the impact of protocol amendments to compare how oncology clinical trials differ from non-oncology and identify opportunities to optimize performance in oncology clinical trials. METHODS: Sixteen drug development industry companies contributed data from 950 protocols and 2,188 amendments to a study conducted in 2022 investigating protocol amendments. Analysis compared differences in amendment impact and causes between 249 oncology and 701 non-oncology protocols. RESULTS: Compared to non-oncology, oncology protocols had a significantly higher prevalence (72.1% and 91.1%, respectively) and number (3.0 and 4.0, respectively) of protocol amendments. Oncology protocols with amendments had significantly lower participant completion rates compared to oncology protocols without amendments, while no significant differences were found among non-oncology. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the study found an increased number of substantial amendments, lower completion rates, and higher dropout rates among oncology protocols compared to before the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to prevent avoidable protocol amendments in the industry have not been effective in oncology, where increasingly complex designs are reflected in difficult to predict cycle times, barriers to recruitment and retention and an increase in protocol amendments.

Recording and reporting of recruitment strategies in trial protocols, registries, and publications was nonexistent.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how trialists record and report their recruitment strategies and the recruiter details in trial protocols, registries, and publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective study of ovarian cancer (OC) trials between 2010 and 2021. We reviewed 154 trial publications, 30 protocols, 105 registry entries, and 26 trial websites associated with 88 phase III OC trials. RESULTS: None of the 88 trials reviewed published a recruitment strategy or made reference to an available recruitment strategy for the trial. Only 31% (n = 28) made reference to the recruiter but this was reported only in the protocol so we have no evidence these named recruiters performed the task. None of the trials reviewed which closed early or extended recruitment timelines due to slow accrual, reported measures taken to improve recruitment rates before stoppages or changes took place. There were disparities in the reported target recruitment numbers between the protocol, the publication, and the registry. CONCLUSION: Recruitment strategies exist, and we are sure most trial centers use recruitment strategies, but they need to be recorded and reported, as part of the supplementary material if not the main publication, so we can evaluate their effectiveness.

A longitudinal assessment of trial protocols approved by research ethics committees: The Adherance to SPIrit REcommendations in the UK (ASPIRE-UK) study.

BACKGROUND: To assess the quality of reporting of RCT protocols approved by UK research ethics committees before and after the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline. METHODS: We had access to RCT study protocols that received ethical approval in the UK in 2012 (n=103) and 2016 (n=108). From those, we assessed the adherence to the 33 SPIRIT items (i.e. a total of 64 components of the 33 SPIRIT items). We descriptively analysed the adherence to SPIRIT guidelines as proportion of adequately reported items (median and interquartile range [IQR]) and stratified the results by year of approval and sponsor. RESULTS: The proportion of reported SPIRIT items increased from a median of 64.9% (IQR, 57.6-69.2%) in 2012 to a median of 72.5% (IQR, 65.3-78.3%) in 2016. Industry-sponsored RCTs reported more SPIRIT items in 2012 (median 67.4%; IQR, 64.1-69.4%) compared to non-industry-sponsored trials (median 59.8%; IQR, 46.5-67.7%). This gap between industry- and non-industry-sponsored trials increased in 2016 (industry-sponsored: median 75.6%; IQR, 71.2-79.0% vs non-industry-sponsored: median 65.3%; IQR, 51.6-76.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The adherence to SPIRIT guidelines has improved in the UK from 2012 to 2016 but remains on a modest level, especially for non-industry-sponsored RCTs.

Strategies to Advance Equity in Cancer Clinical Trials.

Cancer clinical trials are critical for testing new treatments, yet less than 5% of patients with cancer enroll in these trials. Minority groups, elderly individuals, and rural populations are particularly underrepresented in cancer treatment trials. Strategies for advancing equity in cancer clinical trials for these populations include (1) optimizing clinical trial matching by broadening eligibility criteria, screening all patients for trial eligibility, expanding the number of trials against which patients are screened, and following up on all patient matches with an enrollment invitation; (2) conducting site self-assessments to identify clinical-, patient-, provider-, and system-level barriers that contribute to low rates of clinical trial screening and enrollment; (3) creating a quality improvement plan that addresses the barriers to enrollment and incorporates the use of tools and strategies such as clinical trial checklists; workforce development and trainings to improve cultural competence and reduce unconscious bias; guides to promote community education, outreach and engagement with cancer clinical trials; screening and accrual logs designed to measure participation by demographics; models of informed consent that improve understanding; clinical trial designs that reduce accessibility barriers; use of cancer clinical trial patient navigators; and programs to eliminate barriers to participation and out-of-pocket expenses; and (4) working with stakeholders to develop both protocols that are inclusive of diverse populations' geographic locations, and strategies to access those trials. These actions will support greater access for populations that have remained underrepresented in cancer clinical trials and thereby increase the generalizability and efficiency of cancer research.

Assessment of clinical trial protocols for pathology content using the SPIRIT-Path guidelines highlights areas for improvement.

The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 Statement provides evidence-based recommendations for the minimum content of clinical trial protocols. The Cellular Molecular Pathology Initiative, hosted by the UK National Cancer Research Institute, developed an extension, SPIRIT-Path, describing how to effectively incorporate pathology support into clinical trial protocols. The current study assessed the inclusion of SPIRIT-Path items in protocols of active clinical trials. Publicly available clinical trial protocols were identified for assessment against the new guidelines using a single UK hospital as the 'test site'. One hundred and ninety interventional clinical trials were identified as receiving support from the pathology department. However, only 38 had publicly available full trial protocols (20%) and following application of the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 19 were assessed against the SPIRIT-Path guidelines. The reviewed clinical trial protocols showed some areas of compliance and highlighted other items that were inadequately described. The latter lacked information about the individuals responsible for the pathology content of the trial protocol, how pathology activities and roles were organised in the trial, where the laboratory work would be carried out, and the accreditation status of the laboratory. Only one trial had information specific to digital pathology, a technology certain to become more prevalent in the future. Adoption of the SPIRIT-Path checklist will facilitate comprehensive trial protocols that address all the key cellular and molecular pathology aspects of interventional clinical trials. This study highlights once again the lack of public availability of trial protocols. Full trial protocols should be available for scrutiny by the scientific community and the public who participate in the studies, increasing the transparency of clinical trial activity and improving quality.

AMYPAD Diagnostic and Patient Management Study: Rationale and design.

INTRODUCTION: Reimbursement of amyloid-positron emission tomography (PET) is lagging due to the lack of definitive evidence on its clinical utility and cost-effectiveness. The Amyloid Imaging to Prevent Alzheimer's Disease-Diagnostic and Patient Management Study (AMYPAD-DPMS) is designed to fill this gap. METHODS: AMYPAD-DPMS is a phase 4, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study. Nine hundred patients with subjective cognitive decline plus, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia possibly due to Alzheimer's disease will be randomized to ARM1, amyloid-PET performed early in the diagnostic workup; ARM2, amyloid-PET performed after 8 months; and ARM3, amyloid-PET performed whenever the physician chooses to do so. ENDPOINTS: The primary endpoint is the difference between ARM1 and ARM2 in the proportion of patients receiving a very-high-confidence etiologic diagnosis after 3 months. Secondary endpoints address diagnosis and diagnostic confidence, diagnostic/therapeutic management, health economics and patient-related outcomes, and methods for image quantitation. EXPECTED IMPACTS: AMYPAD-DPMS will supply physicians and health care payers with real-world data to plan management decisions.

Assessing methods for dealing with treatment switching in clinical trials: A follow-up simulation study.

When patients randomised to the control group of a randomised controlled trial are allowed to switch onto the experimental treatment, intention-to-treat analyses of the treatment effect are confounded because the separation of randomised groups is lost. Previous research has investigated statistical methods that aim to estimate the treatment effect that would have been observed had this treatment switching not occurred and has demonstrated their performance in a limited set of scenarios. Here, we investigate these methods in a new range of realistic scenarios, allowing conclusions to be made based upon a broader evidence base. We simulated randomised controlled trials incorporating prognosis-related treatment switching and investigated the impact of sample size, reduced switching proportions, disease severity, and alternative data-generating models on the performance of adjustment methods, assessed through a comparison of bias, mean squared error, and coverage, related to the estimation of true restricted mean survival in the absence of switching in the control group. Rank preserving structural failure time models, inverse probability of censoring weights, and two-stage methods consistently produced less bias than the intention-to-treat analysis. The switching proportion was confirmed to be a key determinant of bias: sample size and censoring proportion were relatively less important. It is critical to determine the size of the treatment effect in terms of an acceleration factor (rather than a hazard ratio) to provide information on the likely bias associated with rank-preserving structural failure time model adjustments. In general, inverse probability of censoring weight methods are more volatile than other adjustment methods.