Dataset Information

Enrollment of adolescent and young adult patients newly diagnosed with cancer in NCI CTEP-sponsored clinical trials before and after launch of the NCI National Clinical Trials Network.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Participation of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) in oncology clinical trials is important to ensure adequate opportunities for AYA patients to contribute to, and benefit from, advances in cancer treatment.

Methods

Accrual data for National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) cooperative group-led treatment trials were examined to assess enrollment of newly diagnosed AYA patients (15-39 years) during the period 2004-2019, with particular interest in comparing enrollment before launch of the NCI National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) to after. All phase 2, 2/3, and 3 trials activated during the period between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2019, were identified (n = 1568) and reduced to a set of 304 that met predetermined criteria to focus on cooperative group-led trials that involved therapy for newly diagnosed cancer and had age eligibility overlapping the AYA range. The proportion of AYA patients relative to total accrual, along with 95% bootstrapped CI was calculated for patients enrolled pre-NCTN and post-NCTN.

Results

AYA accrual comprised 9.5% (95% CI, 7.6-11.8) pre-NCTN compared with 14.0% (95% CI, 9.9-18.3) post-NCTN. The mean difference in proportions post-NCTN compared with pre-NCTN was 4.4% (0.7%-8.3%).

Conclusions

These results indicate an increase in AYA participation in trials conducted within the NCTN relative to the pre-NCTN period. This suggests an awareness and utilization of NCTN trials for AYAs with cancer.

SUBMITTER: Sankaran H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9826149 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Enrollment of adolescent and young adult patients newly diagnosed with cancer in NCI CTEP-sponsored clinical trials before and after launch of the NCI National Clinical Trials Network.

Sankaran Hari H Finnigan Shanda R SR McShane Lisa M LM Best Ana F AF Seibel Nita L NL

Cancer 20220912 21

<h4>Background</h4>Participation of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) in oncology clinical trials is important to ensure adequate opportunities for AYA patients to contribute to, and benefit from, advances in cancer treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>Accrual data for National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) cooperative group-led treatment trials were examined to assess enrollment of newly diagnosed AYA patients (15-39 years) during the period 2004-2019, with particular i ...[more]

PMID: 36089859

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAdolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer have not seen the same improvements in survival as younger (pediatric) patients and older patients (adults 40 years old or older). This may be related to their lower participation in clinical trials.MethodsThis study examined AYA patient accrual to SWOG Cancer Research Network phase 1 to 3 clinical treatment trials for 29 cancers over 25 years (January 1996 to December 2020). Trial enrollments for AYA patients (15-39 years old) were compared with trial enrollments for older patients (40 years old or older) in SWOG and with US AYA cancer population rates derived from US Census and National Cancer Institute/Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data.ResultsIn total, 84,219 patients were enrolled in SWOG treatment trials, including 7109 AYA patients (8.4%); in contrast, AYAs constituted 3.8% of the US cancer population. By histology, the highest proportions of AYA patients were in trials for Hodgkin disease (825 of 1220; 67.6%) and acute lymphocytic leukemia (350 of 678; 51.6%), whereas breast cancer trials had the greatest number of AYA patients (3032 of 32,693; 9.3%). SWOG AYA patients were more often female (68.8% vs 58.7%; P < .001), Black (10.1% vs 8.2%; P < .001), and Hispanic (10.6% vs 5.6%; P < .001) than SWOG patients who were 40 years old or older, and they were more often female (68.8% vs 65.1%; P < .001) but less often Black (10.1% vs 11.8%; P < .001) or Hispanic (10.6% vs 12.8%; P < .001) than AYA patients in the US cancer population.ConclusionsAYA patients with cancer were well represented in SWOG clinical trials in comparison with US cancer population patients with the same cancers. The SWOG AYA population was more racially/ethnically diverse than older SWOG patients, although it was less diverse than the US AYA cancer population.Lay summaryAdolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer (aged 15-39 years) have not seen the same improvements in survival as younger (pediatric) patients and older patients (adults 40 years old or older). This may be related to their lower participation in clinical trials. This study evaluated the extent to which AYA patients were enrolled in a large, National Cancer Institute-sponsored network group over 25 years (1996-2020). Overall, 8.4% of the enrolled patients (7109 of 84,219) were AYAs; this was twice the corresponding rate of 3.8% in the US cancer population. AYA patients were also more racially/ethnically diverse than older trial patients, although they were less racially/ethnically diverse than the US AYA cancer population.

Project description:IntroductionThere has been a growing recognition on the importance of diversity in clinical trials. Existing research has highlighted a significant demographic imbalance. Amidst this renewed focus on diversity, it is crucial to acknowledge that Asia comprises over half of the world's population. Given the region's demographic significance, we sought to compare various characteristics and growth rates for trials with sites in Asia against those without any sites in Asia.MethodsWe performed comprehensive analyses of industry-sponsored phase 2 and 3 oncology trials registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, using drugs or biologics as investigational agents and executed between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2022. We applied the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) as an analytical tool to track the trial growth rates over this 5-year period.ResultsWe identified 894 industry-sponsored phase 2 and 3 cancer studies with available study location data. Out of these, 415 trials (46.42%) had study sites in Asia. Notably, these trials with sites in Asia were also more likely to be phase 3 trials (39.76% vs 6.47%, p < 0.001), include female and paediatric populations, and be randomised trials. Interestingly, lung and stomach cancers were more commonly studied in these trials, while myeloma was less commonly studied. The number of trial sites for liver cancer was not significantly higher for Asia, even though the incidence of the disease is much higher in this region. Despite an overall declining trend in the number of clinical trials in the last 5 years, we observed a transitional positive increase in the CAGR from 2020 to 2021 for trials with sites in Asia. However, East Asia, specifically China, exhibited a disproportionate overrepresentation in these trials.ConclusionsThere are notable characteristics of clinical trials with sites in Asia. Comprehending these disparities may aid in the strategic planning to enhance a balanced representation of ethnicities in trials.

Project description:ImportanceDuplicate publications of randomized clinical trials are prevalent in the health-related literature. To date, few studies have assessed the interaction between duplicate publication and the language of the original publication.ObjectiveTo assess the existence of duplicate publication and the extent to which duplicate publication is associated with the language of the original publication.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective cohort study, eligible randomized clinical trials were retrieved from trial registries, and bibliographic databases were searched to determine their publication status. Eligible randomized clinical trials were for drug interventions from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2014. The search and analysis were conducted from March 1 to August 31, 2019. The trial registries were either primary registries recognized by the World Health Organization or the Drug Clinical Trial Registry Platform sponsored by the China Food and Drug Administration.ExposuresIndividual randomized clinical trials with positive vs negative results.Main outcomes and measuresJournal articles were classified as main articles (determined by largest sample size and longest follow-up among all journal articles derived from that randomized clinical trial) and duplicates. The duplicates were classified into 4 types: (1) unreferenced subgroup analysis (article did not disclose itself as a subgroup analysis or reference its main article); (2) unreferenced republication (article did not disclose itself as a replicate of the main article or reference it); (3) unreferenced interim analysis (article did not disclose itself as an interim analysis or reference its main article); and (4) partial duplicate (article did not disclose its sharing a subset of participants with other articles or reference them).ResultsAmong 470 randomized clinical trials published by August 2019 as journal articles, 55 (11.7%) had 75 duplicates, of which 53 (70.7%) were cross-language duplicates. Of the 75 duplicates, 33 (44.0%) were unreferenced republications, 25 (33.3%) unreferenced subgroup analyses, 15 (20.0%) unreferenced interim analyses, and 2 (2.7%) partial duplicates. When the main article of a randomized clinical trial was published in Chinese, those with positive findings were 2.48 (95% CI, 1.08-5.71) times more likely to have subsequent duplicate publication than those with negative findings.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, most duplicates were cross-language duplicates and the most common type was unreferenced republication of the main article. Duplicate publication bias exists when the main articles of randomized clinical trials were published in Chinese, potentially misleading readers and compromising journals and evidence synthesis.

Project description:BackgroundMapping the international landscape of clinical trials may inform global health research governance, but no large-scale data are available. Industry or non-industry sponsorship may have a major influence in this mapping. We aimed to map the global landscape of industry- and non-industry-sponsored clinical trials and its evolution over time.MethodsWe analyzed clinical trials initiated between 2006 and 2013 and registered in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We mapped single-country and international trials by World Bank's income groups and by sponsorship (industry- vs. non- industry), including its evolution over time from 2006 to 2012. We identified clusters of countries that collaborated significantly more than expected in industry- and non-industry-sponsored international trials.Results119,679 clinical trials conducted in 177 countries were analysed. The median number of trials per million inhabitants in high-income countries was 100 times that in low-income countries (116.0 vs. 1.1). Industry sponsors were involved in three times more trials per million inhabitants than non-industry sponsors in high-income countries (75.0 vs. 24.5) and in ten times fewer trials in low- income countries (0.08 vs. 1.08). Among industry- and non-industry-sponsored trials, 30.3% and 3.2% were international, respectively. In the industry-sponsored network of collaboration, Eastern European and South American countries collaborated more than expected; in the non-industry-sponsored network, collaboration among Scandinavian countries was overrepresented. Industry-sponsored international trials became more inter-continental with time between 2006 and 2012 (from 54.8% to 67.3%) as compared with non-industry-sponsored trials (from 42.4% to 37.2%).ConclusionsBased on trials registered in the WHO ICTRP we documented a substantial gap between the globalization of industry- and non-industry-sponsored clinical research. Only 3% of academic trials but 30% of industry trials are international. The latter appeared to be conducted in preferentially selected countries.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare decisions are ideally based on clinical trial results, published in study registries, as journal articles or summarized in secondary research articles. In this research project, we investigated the impact of academically and commercially sponsored clinical trials on medical practice by measuring the proportion of trials published and cited by systematic reviews and clinical guidelines.MethodsWe examined 691 multicenter, randomized controlled trials that started in 2005 or later and were completed by the end of 2016. To determine whether sponsorship/funding and place of conduct influence a trial's impact, we created four sub-cohorts of investigator initiated trials (IITs) and industry sponsored trials (ISTs): 120 IITs and 171 ISTs with German contribution compared to 200 IITs and 200 ISTs without German contribution. We balanced the groups for study phase and place of conduct. German IITs were funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), or by another non-commercial research organization. All other trials were drawn from the German Clinical Trials Register or ClinicalTrials.gov. We investigated, to what extent study characteristics were associated with publication and impact using multivariable logistic regressions.ResultsFor 80% of the 691 trials, results were published as result articles in a medical journal and/or study registry, 52% were cited by a systematic review, and 26% reached impact in a clinical guideline. Drug trials and larger trials were associated with a higher probability to be published and to have an impact than non-drug trials and smaller trials. Results of IITs were more often published as a journal article while results of ISTs were more often published in study registries. International ISTs less often gained impact by inclusion in systematic reviews or guidelines than IITs.ConclusionAn encouraging high proportion of the clinical trials were published, and a considerable proportion gained impact on clinical practice. However, there is still room for improvement. For publishing study results, study registries have become an alternative or complement to journal articles, especially for ISTs. IITs funded by governmental bodies in Germany reached an impact that is comparable to international IITs and ISTs.

Dataset Information

Enrollment of adolescent and young adult patients newly diagnosed with cancer in NCI CTEP-sponsored clinical trials before and after launch of the NCI National Clinical Trials Network.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Enrollment of adolescent and young adult patients newly diagnosed with cancer in NCI CTEP-sponsored clinical trials before and after launch of the NCI National Clinical Trials Network.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets