Proposal for Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points in Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trials: The STEEP System

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (15) ◽  
pp. 2127-2132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clifford A. Hudis ◽  
William E. Barlow ◽  
Joseph P. Costantino ◽  
Robert J. Gray ◽  
Kathleen I. Pritchard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Death ◽  
End Points ◽  
Breast Cancer Death ◽  
End Point ◽  
Adjuvant Breast Cancer

Purpose Standardized definitions of breast cancer clinical trial end points must be adopted to permit the consistent interpretation and analysis of breast cancer clinical trials and to facilitate cross-trial comparisons and meta-analyses. Standardizing terms will allow for uniformity in data collection across studies, which will optimize clinical trial utility and efficiency. A given end point term (eg, overall survival) used in a breast cancer trial should always encompass the same set of events (eg, death attributable to breast cancer, death attributable to cause other than breast cancer, death from unknown cause), and, in turn, each event within that end point should be commonly defined across end points and studies. Methods A panel of experts in breast cancer clinical trials representing medical oncology, biostatistics, and correlative science convened to formulate standard definitions and address the confusion that nonstandard definitions of widely used end point terms for a breast cancer clinical trial can generate. We propose standard definitions for efficacy end points and events in early-stage adjuvant breast cancer clinical trials. In some cases, it is expected that the standard end points may not address a specific trial question, so that modified or customized end points would need to be prospectively defined and consistently used. Conclusion The use of the proposed common end point definitions will facilitate interpretation of trial outcomes. This approach may be adopted to develop standard outcome definitions for use in trials involving other cancer sites.

scholarly journals Updated Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) in Adjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: STEEP Version 2.0

2021 ◽  
pp. JCO.20.03613
Author(s):  
Sara M. Tolaney ◽  
Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer ◽  
Julia White ◽  
Victoria S. Blinder ◽  
Jared C. Foster ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Invasive Disease ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Recurrence Rates ◽  
End Points ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
End Point ◽  
Adjuvant Breast Cancer ◽  
Disease Free

PURPOSE The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007, provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer clinical trial end points. Given the evolution of breast cancer clinical trials and improvements in outcomes, a panel of experts reviewed the STEEP criteria to determine whether modifications are needed. METHODS We conducted systematic searches of ClinicalTrials.gov for adjuvant systemic and local-regional therapy trials for breast cancer to investigate if the primary end points reported met STEEP criteria. On the basis of common STEEP deviations, we performed a series of simulations to evaluate the effect of excluding non–breast cancer deaths and new nonbreast primary cancers from the invasive disease–free survival end point. RESULTS Among 11 phase III breast cancer trials with primary efficacy end points, three had primary end points that followed STEEP criteria, four used STEEP definitions but not the corresponding end point names, and four used end points that were not included in the original STEEP manuscript. Simulation modeling demonstrated that inclusion of second nonbreast primary cancer can increase the probability of incorrect inferences, can decrease power to detect clinically relevant efficacy effects, and may mask differences in recurrence rates, especially when recurrence rates are low. CONCLUSION We recommend an additional end point, invasive breast cancer–free survival, which includes all invasive disease–free survival events except second nonbreast primary cancers. This end point should be considered for trials in which the toxicities of agents are well-known and where the risk of second primary cancer is small. Additionally, we provide end point recommendations for local therapy trials, low-risk populations, noninferiority trials, and trials incorporating patient-reported outcomes.

Practical Aspects of Implementing and Applying Health Care Cloud Computing Services and Informatics to Cancer Clinical Trial Data

2021 ◽  
pp. 826-832
Author(s):  
Jay G. Ronquillo ◽  
William T. Lester
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Research ◽  
Cloud Computing ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Laboratory Tests ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Oncology Research

PURPOSE Cloud computing has led to dramatic growth in the volume, variety, and velocity of cancer data. However, cloud platforms and services present new challenges for cancer research, particularly in understanding the practical tradeoffs between cloud performance, cost, and complexity. The goal of this study was to describe the practical challenges when using a cloud-based service to improve the cancer clinical trial matching process. METHODS We collected information for all interventional cancer clinical trials from ClinicalTrials.gov and used the Google Cloud Healthcare Natural Language Application Programming Interface (API) to analyze clinical trial Title and Eligibility Criteria text. An informatics pipeline leveraging interoperability standards summarized the distribution of cancer clinical trials, genes, laboratory tests, and medications extracted from cloud-based entity analysis. RESULTS There were a total of 38,851 cancer-related clinical trials found in this study, with the distribution of cancer categories extracted from Title text significantly different than in ClinicalTrials.gov ( P < .001). Cloud-based entity analysis of clinical trial criteria identified a total of 949 genes, 1,782 laboratory tests, 2,086 medications, and 4,902 National Cancer Institute Thesaurus terms, with estimated detection accuracies ranging from 12.8% to 89.9%. A total of 77,702 API calls processed an estimated 167,179 text records, which took a total of 1,979 processing-minutes (33.0 processing-hours), or approximately 1.5 seconds per API call. CONCLUSION Current general-purpose cloud health care tools—like the Google service in this study—should not be used for automated clinical trial matching unless they can perform effective extraction and classification of the clinical, genetic, and medication concepts central to precision oncology research. A strong understanding of the practical aspects of cloud computing will help researchers effectively navigate the vast data ecosystems in cancer research.

Identification of Cancer Care and Protocol Characteristics Associated With Recruitment in Breast Cancer Clinical Trials

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (27) ◽  
pp. 4458-4465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Lemieux ◽  
Pamela J. Goodwin ◽  
Kathleen I. Pritchard ◽  
Karen A. Gelmon ◽  
Louise J. Bordeleau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Cooperative Groups ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Trial Protocols ◽  
Few Data

Purpose It is estimated that only 5% of patients with cancer participate in a clinical trial. Barriers to participation may relate to available protocols, physicians, and patients, but few data exist on barriers related to cancer care environments and protocol characteristics. Methods The primary objective was to identify characteristics of cancer care environments and clinical trial protocols associated with a low recruitment into breast cancer clinical trials. Secondary objectives were to determine yearly recruitment fraction onto clinical trials from 1997 to 2002 in Ontario, Canada, and to compare recruitment fraction among years. Questionnaires were sent to hospitals requesting characteristics of cancer care environments and to cooperative groups/pharmaceutical companies for information on protocols and the number of patients recruited per hospital/year. Poisson regression was used to estimate the recruitment fraction. Results Questionnaire completion rate varied between 69% and 100%. Recruitment fraction varied between 5.4% and 8.5% according to year. More than 30% of patients were diagnosed in hospitals with no available trials. In multivariate analysis, the following characteristics were associated with recruitment: use of placebo versus not (relative risk [RR] = 0.80; P = .05), nonmetastatic versus metastatic trial (RR = 2.80; P < .01), and for nonmetastatic trials, protocol allowing an interval of 12 weeks or longer versus less than 12 weeks (from diagnosis, surgery, or end of therapy) before enrollment (RR = 1.36; P < .01). Conclusion Allowable interval of 12 weeks or longer to randomly assign patients in clinical trials could help recruitment. In our study, absence of an available clinical trial represented the largest barrier to recruitment.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncology clinical trial recruitment in an Irish cancer center.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18756-e18756
Author(s):  
Ronan Andrew McLaughlin ◽  
Valerie Madigan ◽  
Maureen O'Grady ◽  
Thamir Andrew Mahgoub ◽  
Roshni Andrew Kalachand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
The Impact

e18756 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented disruptions to cancer clinical trial research across the world due to a temporary global suspension of patients’ recruitment to cancer clinical trials. Access to clinical trials permits better treatment options and best clinical practice standards for patients with cancer. We present the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer clinical trial activity at the Cancer Clinical Trials Unit (CCTU) at the Mid-Western Cancer Centre, University Hospital Limerick (UHL). Over the last 4 years 28 clinical trials, both interventional and translational, have opened here, across a variety of primary disease sites, with 5 trials opened in 2017, 11 in 2018, 7 in 2019 but only 2 in the first 10 months of 2020 until 3 further trials were opened in December. Methods: CCTU records were reviewed to identify the number of patients screened and consented to participate in cancer clinical trials at UHL in 2020, which were compared directly with corresponding numbers for 2019. Results: In 2019, 17 clinical trials were open and recruiting at the CCTU, UHL. During 2020, 19 trials were recruiting although during the 1st surge of the COVID-19 pandemic recruitment was essentially suspended and CCTU staff were redeployed throughout the hospital. 1st Six months 2020 vs 2019 In the six months from January 2020 until the end of June 2020, 99 patients were screened and only 15 (15.2%) signed informed consent to participate in a cancer clinical trial. When these figures are directly compared with the first six months of 2019, there is a 33% reduction in patients screened for participation (147 vs 99) and a 60% reduction in patients consented (37 vs 15) to clinical trials. 12 Months 2020 vs 2019 In total during 2019, 376 patients were screened for inclusion to participate and 49 (13%) patients signed informed consent to participate in a clinical trial within CCTU at UHL. In 2020, 914 patients were screened for participation with 51 patients consented to participate (5.6%). The majority (45/51 (88%)) of patients consented to cancer clinical trials in 2020 at the CCTU, UHL were recruited to translational based studies and only 6 (12%) consented to interventional studies compared with 2019 when 30/49 (61%) consented to translational and 30/49 (39%) to interventional studies. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the percentage of patients consented to participation in a clinical trial reduced significantly, as compared to the previous year (5.6% vs 13%). Fewer interventional studies have recruited patients during 2020. As we enter the third surge of COVID-19 infections in Ireland, we must continue to monitor and identify effective strategies to navigate the ever-changing situation for cancer clinical trials, in an attempt to maintain access to high quality cancer clinical trial opportunities for our patients.

Prospective Evaluation of Cancer Clinical Trial Accrual Patterns: Identifying Potential Barriers to Enrollment

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 1728-1733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Primo N. Lara ◽  
Roger Higdon ◽  
Nelson Lim ◽  
Karen Kwan ◽  
Michael Tanaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Clinical Trial Accrual ◽  
Patient Accrual

PURPOSE: Well-conducted cancer clinical trials are essential for improving patient outcomes. Unfortunately, only 3% of new cancer patients participate in clinical trials. Barriers to patient accrual in cancer clinical trials must be identified and overcome to increase patient participation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively tracked factors that potentially affected patient accrual into cancer clinical trials at the University of California Davis Cancer Center. Oncologists seeing new outpatients were asked to complete questionnaires regarding patient characteristics and the physician’s decision-making on patient eligibility, protocol availability, and patient opinions on participation. Statistical analysis was performed to correlate these parameters with subsequent protocol accrual. RESULTS: There were 276 assessable patients. At the initial visits, physicians did not consider clinical trials in 38% (105/276) of patients principally because of a perception of protocol unavailability and poor performance status. Physicians considered 62% (171/276) of patients for participation in clinical trials. Of these, only 53% (91/171) had an appropriate protocol available for site and stage of disease. Seventy-six of 90 patients (84%) with available protocols met eligibility criteria for a particular study. Only 39 of 76 patients (51%) agreed to participate in cancer clinical trials, for an overall accrual rate of 14% (39/276). The remainder (37/76, 49%) declined trial participation despite meeting eligibility criteria. The most common reasons were a desire for other treatment (34%), distance from the cancer center (13%), patient refusal to disclose reason (11%), and insurance denial (8%). Patients with private insurance were less likely to enroll in clinical trials compared to those with government-funded insurance (OR, 0.34; P = .03; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.9). CONCLUSION: Barriers to cancer clinical trial accrual can be prospectively identified and addressed in the development and conduct of future studies, which may potentially lead to more robust clinical trials enrollment. Investigation of patient perceptions regarding the clinical trials process and the role of third party–payers is warranted.

scholarly journals YouTube Videos as a Source of Information About Clinical Trials: Observational Study (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace Clarke Hillyer ◽  
Sarah A MacLean ◽  
Melissa Beauchemin ◽  
Corey H Basch ◽  
Karen M Schmitt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Video Information ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Youtube Videos

BACKGROUND Clinical trials are essential to the advancement of cancer treatment but fewer than 5% of adult cancer patients enroll in a trial. A commonly cited barrier to participation is the lack of understanding about clinical trials. OBJECTIVE Since the internet is a popular source of health-related information and YouTube is the second most visited website in the world, we examined the content of the top 115 YouTube videos about clinical trials to evaluate clinical trial information available through this medium. METHODS YouTube videos posted prior to March 2017 were searched using selected keywords. A snowballing technique was used to identify videos wherein sequential screening of the autofill search results for each set of keywords was conducted. Video characteristics (eg, number of views and video length) were recorded. The content was broadly grouped as related to purpose, phases, design, safety and ethics, and participant considerations. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess associations between video type (cancer vs noncancer) and video characteristics and content. RESULTS In total, 115 videos were reviewed. Of these, 46/115 (40.0%) were cancer clinical trials videos and 69/115 (60.0%) were noncancer/general clinical trial videos. Most videos were created by health care organizations/cancer centers (34/115, 29.6%), were oriented toward patients (67/115, 58.3%) and the general public (68/115, 59.1%), and were informational (79/115, 68.7%); altruism was a common theme (31/115, 27.0%). Compared with noncancer videos, cancer clinical trials videos more frequently used an affective communication style and mentioned the benefits of participation. Cancer clinical trial videos were also much more likely to raise the issue of costs associated with participation (odds ratio [OR] 5.93, 95% CI 1.15-29.46) and advise patients to communicate with their physician about cancer clinical trials (OR 4.94, 95% CI 1.39-17.56). CONCLUSIONS Collectively, YouTube clinical trial videos provided information on many aspects of trials; however, individual videos tended to focus on selected topics with varying levels of detail. Cancer clinical trial videos were more emotional in style and positive in tone and provided information on the important topics of cost and communication. Patients are encouraged to verify and supplement YouTube video information in consultations with their health care professionals to obtain a full and accurate picture of cancer clinical trials to make an adequately informed decision about participation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document