Should criteria for inclusion in cancer clinical trials be expanded?

Abstract

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness ResearchVol. 4, No. 4 EditorialFree AccessShould criteria for inclusion in cancer clinical trials be expanded?David E Gerber, Sandi L Pruitt & Ethan A HalmDavid E Gerber*Author for correspondence: E-mail Address: david.gerber@utsouthwestern.edu Division of Hematology-Oncology, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, 8852, Dallas, TX 75390-8852, USA Harold C Simmons Cancer Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, 8590, Dallas, TX 75390-8590, USASearch for more papers by this author, Sandi L Pruitt Harold C Simmons Cancer Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, 8590, Dallas, TX 75390-8590, USA Department of Clinical Sciences, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, 9066, Dallas, TX 75390-9066, USASearch for more papers by this author & Ethan A Halm Harold C Simmons Cancer Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, 8590, Dallas, TX 75390-8590, USA Department of Clinical Sciences, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, 9066, Dallas, TX 75390-9066, USA Division of General Internal Medicine, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, 8548, Dallas, TX 75390-8548, USASearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:14 Aug 2015https://doi.org/10.2217/cer.15.27AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Keywords: accrualcancerclinical trialseligibilityenrollmentexclusion criteriaImagine the following: a 58-year-old surgeon recently diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer comes to see you for clinical trial options. He is otherwise in excellent health, and he takes no medications. He is highly motivated to receive cutting-edge treatments, has a thorough understanding of the nature of the disease and potential therapies, and states he will be strictly adherent to any recommended treatment regimen. However, he is not eligible for any clinical trial available at your institution due to a history of localized prostate cancer treated surgically 3 years previously.In recent years, eligibility criteria for cancer clinical trials have come under heightened scrutiny. Critics cite increasingly restrictive eligibility criteria as a key reason for low study accrual rates [1–4]. In turn, low accrual rates prolong study duration, result in premature study termination, limit the number of patients exposed to potentially beneficial experimental therapies, and leave important clinical questions unanswered. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria also reduce generalizability of results. Furthermore, criteria are variably applied across studies, suggesting lack of clear rationale or justification [5].These concerns are not limited to oncology clinical trials. A study of more than 20,000 Medicare beneficiaries from acute care hospitals with a principal diagnosis of heart failure found that only 13–25% met enrollment criteria of three landmark randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have shaped the treatment of that disease [6]. An analysis of 283 RCTs (encompassing 2709 exclusion criteria) published in high-impact medical journals found that 37% of all exclusion criteria were poorly justified, and that 84% of all trials had at least one poorly justified exclusion criterion [7].Why do clinical trials have eligibility criteria? Traditionally, RCTs have predominantly focused on assessing an intervention's efficacy rather than effectiveness. These studies represent a make-or-break step in the development of drugs, devices, and other interventions, so optimizing internal validity is critical. The clinic serves as the researchers’ laboratory. Maximal control of experimental conditions – including patient characteristics – is sought. This approach may increase the ability to detect a modest real treatment benefit by studying a homogeneous population that differs only by study drug exposure. Although such stringent circumstances may differ substantially from real-world clinical medicine, if efficacy in a tightly controlled environment is not demonstrated, investigators may never even have an opportunity to assess the intervention's external validity in broader populations. Investigators also face regulatory, funding and publishing biases, with tightly and thoroughly defined research populations expected by institutional review boards, industry partners, government and foundation funding agencies, and journal editors.Trial enrollment criteria may also be driven by the desire to protect patients from potential excessive toxicity, as the case for minimum performance status, blood count and organ function requirements. Patient safety concerns also drive the exclusion of women who are or may become pregnant, patients taking medications that potentially interact with the study agent, or individuals with baseline abnormal electrocardiogram readings.Clinical trial eligibility criteria fall into several domains. These include demographics, disease characteristics, prior treatments and overall illness burden and physiological reserve. They also include nonclinical logistical factors designed to streamline study accrual and conduct – such as language proficiency, distance from study site, and transportation availability – that may indirectly favor certain socioeconomic groups. Expert opinions on these and other criteria vary widely, but strong consensus indicates the need for clear justification for restricting eligibility [7]. Accomplishing this, however, may not be a straightforward undertaking. The rationale for a particular eligibility factor will vary by disease, intervention and population of interest.The time is right to take a more evidence-based approach to assessing the validity of many traditional exclusion criteria for cancer clinical trials. For example, inspired by real-world examples such as the case described above, we recently evaluated the longstanding and widespread practice of excluding patients with prior cancer from lung cancer clinical trials [8,9]. First, we systematically reviewed the prevalence of this practice by examining lung cancer clinical trial protocols sponsored or endorsed by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG; n = 51; total enrollment = 13,072). Overall, 78% of protocols excluded patients with a prior cancer diagnosis as follows: any prior (i.e., lifetime prior cancer history; 16%), within 5 years (39%), within 2 or 3 years (7%), or ‘active’ cancer (16%). While trials with an overall survival end point were more likely to have prior cancer exclusions (89%), we found that 70% of clinical trials with nonsurvival end points (such as response rate, toxicity and feasibility) also excluded patients with prior cancer.Next, to understand the potential impact of prior cancer on trial accrual, we used comparative effectiveness research (CER) techniques – including multiple methods to control for potential biases inherent in observational data – in an analysis of nationally representative Surveillance Epidemiology and End Result (SEER)-Medicare linked data (n = 210,509). We estimated the proportion and absolute number of potential subjects for each ECOG clinical trial who would be excluded due to a prior cancer diagnosis. Our findings were sobering. The proportion of potential subjects excluded due to prior cancer per trial ranged up to 18%, with the estimated absolute number of excluded subjects per trial ranging up to 207.Finally, we examined the rationale for the ongoing exclusion of patients with prior cancer from lung cancer clinical trials. Presumably, this practice reflects concerns that a prior cancer diagnosis conveys worse prognosis. However, the impact of prior cancer on survival in lung cancer had not been clearly documented. To answer this question empirically, we examined patients with stage 4 (metastatic) lung cancer in the SEER-Medicare dataset (n = 102,929), 15% of whom had a history of prior cancer. Over half of the prior cancers were diagnosed less than 5 years before the stage 4 lung cancer diagnosis (and would, therefore, be excluded from trials employing the common 5-year exclusion window), and more than 75% of prior cancers were localized or regional stage. In the overall population and every subgroup examined (according to stage, type and timing of prior cancer), prior cancer did not convey an adverse effect on all-cause and lung cancer-specific survival. In fact, these patients appeared to do slightly better than those without a prior cancer in both raw and propensity score-adjusted analyses. Whether this trend represents early detection bias, higher quality of clinical care, or a physiologic survivor effect is not clear.In sum, we found broad but highly variable application of prior cancer exclusion criteria in lung cancer clinical trials. This practice results in exclusion of a substantial proportion of patients. However, there does not appear to be a clear justification for this policy. Could prior cancer impact other relevant clinical end points aside from survival, such as tolerability of study treatment? Absolutely. However, it seems that such concerns could be addressed through other eligibility criteria, such as blood counts, organ function, performance status and the type and timing of any prior cancer treatment. Can our findings be generalized to other lung cancer stages, or to other cancer types? No. The prevalence and prognostic impact of a prior cancer diagnosis will vary according to the individual cancer type and stage in question. Future research in those populations will be needed. For these efforts, large-scale observational studies using SEER-Medicare or similar datasets represent an attractive approach, as they permit the empiric assessment of selected factors on treatment-outcomes relationships in real-world practice. Such studies provide an alternative to randomizing or stratifying on these factors prospectively, which may not be feasible due to the patient numbers and resources required. In the meanwhile, it seems reasonable to reconsider the reflexive exclusion of patients with a prior cancer diagnosis from clinical trials for stage 4 lung cancer. Already, ECOG has revised its prior cancer exclusion policies for metastatic lung cancer clinical trials as a result of our work.Clinical research in cancer and other fields represents a balancing act. Scientific yield, feasibility, cost and generalizability must all be taken into consideration. A step-wise approach incorporating different types of studies may provide the needed framework to advance the evidence base for cancer therapy. As a first step, traditional RCTs assess efficacy in homogeneous populations and optimal clinical settings, thereby maximizing efficacy signals and minimizing potential toxicity. Subsequently, more inclusive or pragmatic trials increase generalizability by assessing efficacy and toxicity in real-world patients and settings. Alternatively, CER techniques using large, observational datasets can be employed to assess an intervention's risks and benefits in an unselected community setting. In turn, observational CER studies may also yield hypothesis-generating insights that drive the rationale for and design of subsequent RCTs.With fewer than 5% of adults with cancer in the USA participating in clinical trials [10–12], the oncology clinical research enterprise is facing a crisis. Reasons for low accrual include patient, provider and system factors [1,10,12–14]. Trial eligibility criteria represent one of the few factors directly controlled by investigators and sponsors. As investigators, it is critically important that our selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria be thoughtful, deliberate and justified. To accomplish this, we will need to use an array of methodological approaches to assess their validity and impact.Financial & competing interests disclosureThis work was supported by the NIH (R03CA191875-01A1; to SL Pruitt and DE Gerber), a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Clinical Investigator Team Leadership Award (1P30 CA142543-01 supplement; to DE Gerber), the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) R1208 (to SL Pruitt) and by the UT Southwestern Center for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1R24HS022418-01; to EA Halm and SL Pruitt). Funding was also provided by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences UT Southwestern Center for Translational Medicine (U54 RFA-TR-12-006; to EA Halm and SL Pruitt). The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.References1 Lemieux J, Goodwin PJ, Pritchard KI et al. Identification of cancer care and protocol characteristics associated with recruitment in breast cancer clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 4458–4465 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar2 McCusker J, Wax A, Bennett JM. Cancer patient accessions into clinical trials: a pilot investigation into some patient and physician determinants of entry. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 5, 227–236 (1982).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar3 Kotwall CA, Mahoney LJ, Myers RE et al. Reasons for non-entry in randomized clinical trials for breast cancer: a single institutional study. J. Surg. Oncol. 50, 125–129 (1992).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar4 Fuks A, Weijer C, Freedman B et al. A study in contrasts: eligibility criteria in a twenty-year sample of NSABP and POG clinical trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 51, 69–79 (1998).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar5 Begg CB, Engstrom PF. Eligibility and extrapolation in cancer clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 5, 962–968 (1987).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar6 Masoudi FA, Havranek EP, Wolfe P et al. Most hospitalized older persons do not meet the enrollment criteria for clinical trials in heart failure. Am. Heart. J. 146, 250–257 (2003).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7 Van Spall HG, Toren A, Kiss A et al. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA 297, 1233–1240 (2007).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar8 Gerber DE, Laccetti AL, Xuan L et al. Impact of prior cancer on eligibility for lung cancer clinical trials. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 106(11), dju302 (2014).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar9 Laccetti AL, Pruitt SL, Xuan L et al. Effect of prior cancer on outcomes in advanced lung cancer: implications for clinical trial eligibility and accrual. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 107(4), djv002 (2015).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar10 Murthy VH, Krumholz HM, Gross CP. Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA 291, 2720–2726 (2004).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar11 Friedman MA, Cain DF. National Cancer Institute sponsored cooperative clinical trials. Cancer 65, 2376–2382 (1990).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar12 Lara PN Jr, Higdon R, Lim N et al. Prospective evaluation of cancer clinical trial accrual patterns: identifying potential barriers to enrollment. J. Clin. Oncol. 19, 1728–1733 (2001).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar13 Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C et al. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 52, 1143–1156 (1999).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar14 Howerton MW, Gibbons MC, Baffi CR et al. Provider roles in the recruitment of underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials. Cancer 109, 465–476 (2007).Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByAttitudes of Australian breast cancer patients toward the secondary use of administrative and clinical trial data20 June 2022 | Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 3Barriers to Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell (CAR-T) Therapies in Clinical Practice7 June 2022 | Pharmaceutical Medicine, Vol. 36, No. 3Impact of prior cancer on the overall survival of patients with nasopharyngeal carcinomaAmerican Journal of Otolaryngology, Vol. 43, No. 1Longitudinal Experience With and Impressions of COVID-19–Related Clinical Research ChangesJCO Oncology Practice, Vol. 18, No. 1Increasing trends in the prevalence of prior cancer in newly diagnosed lung, stomach, colorectal, breast, cervical, and corpus uterine cancer patients: a population-based study10 March 2021 | BMC Cancer, Vol. 21, No. 1Effect of prior cancer on survival outcomes for patients with advanced prostate cancer17 February 2021 | BMC Urology, Vol. 21, No. 1Research on Effectiveness of Prior Cancer on Survival Outcomes for Patients with Nonmetastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Competing Risk Analysis and Propensity Score Matching Analysis of the SEER DatabaseJournal of Oncology, Vol. 2021Impact of prior cancer history on survival of patients with gastric cancerEuropean Journal of Surgical Oncology, Vol. 47, No. 9Tracking the Nonenrolled: Lung Cancer Screening Patterns Among Individuals not Accrued to a Clinical TrialClinical Lung Cancer, Vol. 21, No. 4Clinical Trial Generalizability Assessment in the Big Data Era: A Review10 April 2020 | Clinical and Translational Science, Vol. 13, No. 4Impact of Prior Cancer History on the Clinical Outcomes in Advanced Breast Cancer: A Propensity Score–Adjusted, Population-Based StudyCancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 52, No. 2Key indicators of phase transition for clinical trials through machine learningDrug Discovery Today, Vol. 25, No. 2Conceptual Model for Accrual to Cancer Clinical TrialsJournal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 37, No. 23The National Cancer Institute and Department of Veterans Affairs Interagency Group to Accelerate Trials Enrollment (NAVIGATE): A federal collaboration to improve cancer careSeminars in Oncology, Vol. 46, No. 4-5Impact of prior cancer history on the overall survival of patients newly diagnosed with cancer: A pan‐cancer analysis of the SEER database7 May 2018 | International Journal of Cancer, Vol. 143, No. 7Prevalence of Prior Cancer Among Persons Newly Diagnosed With CancerJAMA Oncology, Vol. 4, No. 6Feasibility of the evidence-based cognitive telerehabilitation program Remind for patients with primary brain tumors10 January 2018 | Journal of Neuro-Oncology, Vol. 137, No. 3Comparison of reporting phase I trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov and matched publications14 September 2017 | Investigational New Drugs, Vol. 35, No. 6Thoracic Oncology Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria and Requirements Continue to Increase in Number and ComplexityJournal of Thoracic Oncology, Vol. 12, No. 10The relationship between eligibility criteria and adverse events in randomized controlled trials of hematologic malignancies7 December 2016 | Leukemia, Vol. 31, No. 8Stepwise strategies to successfully recruit diabetes patients in a large research study in Mexican populationPrimary Care Diabetes, Vol. 11, No. 3Acute myeloid leukemia therapy and the chosen people11 November 2016 | Leukemia, Vol. 31, No. 2A Case-Control Study Brings to Light the Causes of Screen Failures in Phase 1 Cancer Clinical Trials5 May 2016 | PLOS ONE, Vol. 11, No. 5 Vol. 4, No. 4 Follow us on social media for the latest updates Metrics History Published online 14 August 2015 Published in print August 2015 Information© Future Medicine LtdKeywordsaccrualcancerclinical trialseligibilityenrollmentexclusion criteriaFinancial & competing interests disclosureThis work was supported by the NIH (R03CA191875-01A1; to SL Pruitt and DE Gerber), a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Clinical Investigator Team Leadership Award (1P30 CA142543-01 supplement; to DE Gerber), the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) R1208 (to SL Pruitt) and by the UT Southwestern Center for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1R24HS022418-01; to EA Halm and SL Pruitt). Funding was also provided by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences UT Southwestern Center for Translational Medicine (U54 RFA-TR-12-006; to EA Halm and SL Pruitt). The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.PDF download