
==== Front
Target Oncol
Target Oncol
Targeted Oncology
1776-2596
1776-260X
Springer International Publishing Cham

39085451
1081
10.1007/s11523-024-01081-w
Original Research Article
Patient Enrollment per Month (Accrual) in Clinical Trials Leading to the FDA Approval of New Cancer Drugs
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2913-1867
Michaeli Daniel Tobias danielmichaeli@yahoo.com

1
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0293-9401
Michaeli Thomas 234
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6688-764X
Albers Sebastian 5
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6484-7161
Michaeli Julia Caroline 6
1 grid.5253.1 0000 0001 0328 4908 Department of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 460, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
2 grid.7700.0 0000 0001 2190 4373 Department of Personalized Oncology, University Hospital Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany
3 https://ror.org/05sxbyd35 grid.411778.c 0000 0001 2162 1728 DKFZ-Hector Cancer Institute at the University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
4 https://ror.org/04cdgtt98 grid.7497.d 0000 0004 0492 0584 Division of Personalized Medical Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
5 grid.6936.a 0000000123222966 Department of Trauma Surgery, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
6 grid.5252.0 0000 0004 1936 973X Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany
31 7 2024
31 7 2024
2024
19 5 797809
28 6 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Background

Insufficient patient enrollment per month (=accrual) is the leading cause of cancer trial termination.

Objective

To identify and quantify factors associated with patient accrual in trials leading to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of new cancer drugs.

Data

All anti-cancer drugs with FDA approval were identified in the Drugs@FDA database (2000–2022). Data on drug indication’s background-, treatment-, disease-, and trial-related factors were collected from FDA labels, clinicaltrials.gov, and the Global Burden of Disease study. The association between patient accrual and collected variables was assessed in Poisson regression models reporting adjusted rate ratios (aRR).

Results

We identified 170 drugs with approval in 455 cancer indications on the basis of 292 randomized and 163 single-arm trials. Among randomized trials, median enrollment per month was 38 patients (interquartile range [IQR]: 26–54) for non-orphan, 21 (IQR: 15–38, aRR 0.88, p = 0.361) for common orphan, 20 (IQR: 10–35, aRR 0.73, p <0.001) for rare orphan, and 8 (IQR 6–12, aRR 0.30, p < 0.001) for ultra-rare orphan indications. Patient enrollment was positively associated with disease burden [aRR: 1.0003 per disability-adjusted life year (DALY), p < 0.001), trial sites (aRR: 1.001 per site, p < 0.001), participating countries (aRR: 1.02 per country, p < 0.001), and phase 3 vs. 1/2 trials (aRR: 1.64, p = 0.037). Enrollment was negatively associated with advanced-line vs. first-line treatments (aRR: 0.81, p = 0.010) and monotherapy vs. combination treatments (aRR: 0.80, p = 0.007). Patient enrollment per month was similar between indications with and without a biomarker (median: 27 vs. 32, aRR 0.80, p = 0.117). Patient enrollment per month was substantially lower in government-sponsored than industry-sponsored trials (median: 14 vs. 32, aRR 0.80, p = 0.209). Enrollment was not associated with randomization ratios, crossover, and study blinding.

Conclusions

Disease incidence and disease burden alongside the number of study sites and participating countries are the main drivers of patient enrollment in clinical trials. For rare disease trials, greater financial incentives could help expedite patient enrollment. Novel trial design features, including skewed randomization, crossover, or open-label masking, did not entice patient enrollment.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11523-024-01081-w.

Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg (8914)Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
==== Body
pmcKey Points

This study identifies factors associated with the speed of patient enrollment using data from 170 drugs with FDA approval in 455 cancer indications (2000–2022).	
Disease incidence, disease burden, the FDA orphan designation, the number of clinical trial sites, and the number of participating countries were the main drivers of fast patient accrual.	
Contemporary trial designs believed to entice patient enrollment, e.g., skewed randomization, crossover, or open-label masking, were not associated with faster patient enrollment.	
Greater financial incentives leading to more study sites and closer international collaboration could expedite patient enrollment for (ultra-)rare orphan drugs.	

Introduction

Clinical trials are the fundament of evidence-based medicine. Trials inform physicians which treatments improve patient outcomes. Although 70% of US citizens are inclined to participate in trials [1], merely 3–5% of cancer patients are enrolled [2]. As a result, 20–40% of trials close owing to insufficient patient enrollment [3, 4]. Insufficient patient enrollment is the leading cause of early termination in cancer trials [5, 6]. Therefore, there is great clinical and economic interest from academia, governments, and industry to increase trial participation and expedite patient enrollment.

Systematic reviews sought to identify barriers to clinical trial participation [7–16]. These studies found that eligibility criteria, industry sponsorship, number and location of study sites, underlying cancer diseases, disease burden, disease incidence, trial phase, and the number of enrolled patients may influence patient participation and clinical trial completion. On the basis of these findings, scholars conceptualized that patient enrollment is moderated by a unique mix of background, treatment-related, disease-related, trial design, and patient-related factors [7–9]. However, prior studies examining clinical trial enrollment and patient accrual are often limited in their scope of analyzed clinical trials, analyzed time horizon, examined variables, frequently only examine enrollment barriers at single study sites, and tend to focus on government-sponsored rather than industry-sponsored trials [17–22].

Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies frequently argue that certain clinical trial design features may entice patients to participate in clinical trials. It is believed that the option to crossover from the control to the treatment arm for nonresponders, active comparators, skewed randomization that increases the probability of being allocated to the treatment arm, and open-label blinding encourage patients to enroll in clinical trials [23]. However, the role of these clinical trial design features for patient accrual remains debated [9, 17, 18].

This is the largest cross-sectional study to identify and quantify background, treatment-related, disease-related, and trial design factors that are associated with patient accrual in clinical trials supporting the FDA approval of 170 drugs in 455 anti-cancer indications from 2000 to 2022.

Data and Methods

Sample Identification

All new drug applications and biologic license applications with FDA approval from 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2022 were identified in the Drugs@FDA database. We examined US drug approvals, given that most trials focus on the US and the FDA is typically the first regulatory agency to authorize new drugs [24]. Then, we limited the sample to anti-cancer treatments, excluding non-cancer drugs, supportive cancer agents, diagnostic medicines, and anti-emetics for cancer patients. For these anti-cancer drugs, we then screened the Drugs@FDA database to identify all their original and supplemental indications with FDA approval until 1 January 2022.

Data Collection

Two independent reviewers collected background-, treatment-, disease-, and trial-related variables from FDA labels, clinicaltrials.gov, associated clinical trial publications, and the Global Burden of Disease study for all identified cancer drugs and supporting clinical trials. The first reviewer (D.T.M.) obtained data from FDA labels, which the second reviewer (T.M.) then cross-checked and extended with data found on clinicaltrials.gov and associated peer-reviewed publications. Full details of the data extraction method have been described elsewhere [25–27].

Patient accrual rate The primary endpoint of this study was the patient accrual rate. The patient accrual rate was calculated by the quotient of the total number of recruited patients and the total enrollment period. The patient accrual rate measures the efficiency of patient recruitment [17, 18]. A high accrual rate indicates very efficient patient recruitment, and vice versa.

Background factors We classified the primary clinical trial sponsor (industry vs. government) and obtained the total number of clinical trial sites and the total number of participating countries to describe background-related factors.

Treatment-related factors Drug indications were characterized by their novelty/innovativeness (first-in-indication vs. advance-in-indication vs. addition-to-indication), mechanism of action (cytotoxic chemotherapy vs. targeted therapies vs. immune regulators), biomarkers status, line of therapy (first-line vs. advanced-line), and treatment type (combination therapy vs. monotherapy). Indication novelty was independently assessed by two medical doctors on the basis of the World Health Organization’s Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical code. Adapting Lanthier et al.’s classification of drug innovation and modifying it to indications [28], we considered drugs that were the first in a class to treat a new disease as “first-in-indication” drugs that were not the first in a class to treat a new disease but approved under FDA priority review as “advance-in-indication” and all others as “addition-to-indication”.

Disease-related factors We obtained disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for the US population in 2019 from the Global Burden of Disease study to describe the burden of each cancer disease [29]. Furthermore, we accessed the FDA’s orphan drug database to link the orphan designation status to each indication. Given the existence of distinct orphan subgroups [26], we stratified orphan indications according to the number of affected US inhabitants into common (> 200,000), rare (200,000–6600), and ultra-rare (< 6600).

Trial design Clinical trials were differentiated by their design (randomized vs. single-arm), phase (phase 1/2 vs. phase 3), masking (open-label vs. double-blind), comparator (active vs. placebo/no treatment), randomization (equal vs. skewed), and crossover (not-specified vs. allowed vs. not allowed).

Statistical analysis

We used descriptive statistics to present the sample’s baseline characteristics. We conducted distinct analyses for randomized and single-arm trials given their unique characteristics in trial designs and high collinearity with other variables in the dataset. Frequencies were compared using Fisher’s exact test.

First, we conducted a univariable analysis to identify and quantify factors associated with patient accrual. For categorical variables, median accrual rates with interquartile ranges (IQR) were compared using Kruskal–Wallis tests. The association between interval-scaled variables and accrual rates was explored in a univariable regression analysis. The patient accrual rate was specified as the dependent variable.

Thereafter, we conducted a multivariable regression analysis. All collected variables were included in the analysis, except for those identified as collinear in a Pearson correlation matrix, e.g., disease type and orphan designation (Table e1). For the regression analyses, we used Poisson models to account for the left-skewed distribution of the patient accrual rate. For the Poisson regression analysis, we report adjusted rate ratios (aRR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). All regression models account for molecule-clustered standard errors. Furthermore, we conducted an alternative regression model including the FDA approval type (standard approval vs. accelerated approval) as an independent variable.

Data were stored in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp) and analyzed with Stata software, version 14.2 (StataCorp LLC). Two-tailed p-values below 0.05 were considered significant. This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guidelines where applicable.

Results

Sample Overview

A total of 720 new drugs were granted FDA approval from 2000 to 2022. Of these, 170 drugs were approved for anticancer treatment with a total of 455 FDA-approved indications (Fig. 1).Fig. 1 New cancer drugs and clinical trials included in the analysis. CAR chimeric antigen receptor, FDA US Food and Drug Administration

Of these 455 indications, 292 (64%) were supported by randomized trials and 163 (36%) by single-arm trials. A median of 330 patients (IQR: 128–676) were enrolled per clinical trial with a median accrual rate of 18 patients per month (IQR: 7–36). The majority of trials were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry (428, 94%). Trials were conducted at a median of 92 sites (IQR: 38–151) across 15 countries (IQR: 8–22). Industry-sponsored trials were conducted at significantly more sites (97 vs. 43, p = 0.034) and countries (16 vs. 2, p < 0.001) than government sponsored trials (Table e2). New drug indications were innovative with the majority being first-in-indication (176 [39%]) or addition-to-indication (211 [46%]). The mechanism of action was cytotoxic chemotherapy for 32 indications (7%), targeted for 273 indications (60%), and immune regulatory for 150 indications (33%). The FDA approved 167 indications (37%) on the basis of a biomarker. Indications were predominantly advanced-line (238 [52%]) monotherapies (298 [65%]) for solid cancers (301 [66%]). The median DALY rate per 100,000 US inhabitants was 117 (IQR: 31–428). The FDA orphan designation was granted to 294 indications, of which 64 (14%) were for common, 205 (45%) for rare, and 25 (5%) for ultra-rare diseases. Randomized and single-arm trials significantly differed in background, treatment-related, and disease-related variables (Table 1). Among the 292 randomized trials, 176 were open-label (60%), 187 (64%) compared the new drug with placebo or no treatment, and 197 (67%) trials used an equal randomization ratio. Crossover was not specified in 153 trials (52%), allowed in 68 trials (23%), and not permitted in 71 trials (24%). Table 1 Sample overview

No. (%)					
	Randomized	Single-arm	p valuea	Total	
No. of enrolled patients	567 (319-807)	106 (79 -156)	<0.001	330 (128–676)	
Patient accrual per month	31 (15-44)	6 (3-13)	<0.001	18 (7-36)	
Background-related factors					
 Primary trial sponsor			0.839		
  Industry	274 (94)	154 (94)		428 (94)	
  Government	18 (6)	9 (6)		27 (6)	
 No. of trial sites	128 (82–175)	34 (21–56)		92 (38–151)	
 No. of trial countries	19 (13–25)	8 (2–11)		15 (8–22)	
Treatment-related factors					
 Indication innovativenessb			<0.001		
  Addition-to-indication	51 (17)	17 (10)		68 (15)	
  Advance-in-indication	156 (53)	55 (34)		211 (46)	
  First-in-indication	85 (29)	91 (56)		176 (39)	
 Mechanism of action			0.154		
  Cytotoxic chemotherapy	21 (7)	11 (7)		32 (7)	
  Targeted therapies	184 (63)	89 (55)		273 (60)	
  Immune regulators	87 (30)	63 (39)		150 (33)	
 Biomarker			0.311		
  No	190 (65)	98 (60)		288 (63)	
  Yes	102 (35)	65 (40)		167 (37)	
 Line of therapy			<0.001		
  First-line	177 (61)	40 (25)		217 (48)	
  Advanced-line	115 (39)	123 (75)		238 (52)	
 Treatment type			<0.001		
  Combination therapy	141 (48)	16 (10)		157 (35)	
  Monotherapy	151 (52)	147 (90)		298 (65)	
Disease-related factors					
 Cancer disease			<0.001		
  Hematologic	68 (23)	86 (53)		154 (34)	
  Solid	224 (77)	77 (47)		301 (66)	
 DALYsc	132 (94–428)	45 (15–117)		117 (31–428)	
 FDA Orphan Designation			<0.001		
  Non-orphan	127 (43)	34 (21)		161 (35)	
  Orphan	165 (57)	129 (79)		294 (65)	
 Reformed Orphan Designationd			<0.001		
  Non-orphan	127 (43)	34 (21)		161 (35)	
  Common orphan	46 (16)	18 (11)		64 (14)	
  Rare orphan	115 (39)	90 (55)		205 (45)	
  Ultra-rare orphan	4 (1)	21 (13)		25 (5)	
Trial-related factors					
 Phase			<0.001		
  Phase 1/2	34 (12)	155 (95)		189 (42)	
  Phase 3	258 (88)	8 (5)		266 (58)	
 Masking					
  Open-label	176 (60)	NA		NA	
  Double blind	116 (40)	NA		NA	
 Comparator					
  Active	105 (36)	NA		NA	
  Placebo/no treatment	187 (64)	NA		NA	
 Randomizatione					
  Equal	197 (67)	NA		NA	
  Skewed	74 (25)	NA		NA	
 Crossover					
  Not specified	153 (52)	NA		NA	
  Allowed	68 (23)	NA		NA	
  Not allowed	71 (24)	NA		NA	
Total	292 (100)	163 (100)		455 (100)	
DALYs disability-adjusted life years, FDA US Food and Drug Administration, NA not applicable

aP values are based on Kruskal–Wallis tests and Fisher’s exact tests

bDrugs that were the first to treat a new disease were considered as “first-in-indication” drugs that were not the first to treat a new disease but approved under FDA priority review as “advance-in-indication” and all others as “addition-to-indication”

cDALYs as rate per 100,000 US inhabitants

dOrphan indications were further stratified according to the number of affected US inhabitants into common (> 200,000), rare (200,000–6600), and ultra-rare (< 6600).

eSkewed randomization refers to unequal patient randomization ratios, e.g., 2:1, 3:1, 3:2, 2:1:1

Randomized trials

Among randomized trials, patient enrollment per month was significantly faster for industry- than government-sponsored trials (median: 32 vs. 14 patients per month, p < 0.001). In the univariable analysis, the patient accrual rate was significantly correlated with the total number of trial sites (Fig. 2a) and countries (Fig. 2b). Slower patient enrollment per month was observed for more innovative indications. Drug indications considered that first-in-indication enrolled fewer patients per month than those considered advance-in-indication and addition-to-indication (median: 22 vs. 33 vs. 32 patients per month, p =0 .005). Accrual was slower for monotherapies than combination treatments (median: 23 vs. 36, p < 0.001). Patient accrual was substantially slower for hematologic than solid cancer trials (median: 15 vs. 33, p < 0.001) and orphan than non-orphan cancer trials (median: 20 vs. 38, p < 0.001). Particularly fewer patients were enrolled in clinical trials for ultra-rare orphans relative to rare, common, and non-orphan cancers (median: 8 vs. 20 vs. 21 vs. 38 patients per month, p < 0.001). Accordingly, accrual rates were significantly associated with the burden of disease measured by DALYs (Fig. 2c). Slower patient enrollment was furthermore observed among phase 1/2 than phase 3 trials (median: 9 vs. 33, p < 0.001) and open-label than double-blind trials (median: 26 vs. 34, p = 0.024). No significant difference in the number of patients enrolled per month was observed for trials with an active comparator, skewed randomization, or trials that allowed cross-over to the new drug.Fig. 2 Association between patient enrollment per month and study sites, participating countries, and DALYs in cancer trials. a Illustrates the association between patient accrual rates and the total number of registered trial sites; b portrays the association between patient accrual rates and the total number of participating countries; c visualizes the association between patient accrual rates and DALYs (as a rate per 100,000 US inhabitants). The accrual rate, number of registered trial sites, number of participating countries, and DALYs are illustrated on the graphs y and x axis on a logarithmic scale. DALYs disability-adjusted life years, FDA US Food and Drug Administration

Results of the multivariable Poisson regression for randomized trials are presented in the second column of Table 2. Patient enrollment was slower, yet not significant at a 5% level owing to the high collinearity between the number of study sites and countries, for government- than industry-sponsored trials (aRR: 0.80, 95%CI 0.56–1.13, p = 0.209). The accrual rate was significantly associated with the number of trial sites (aRR: 1.001, 95%CI 1.001–1.002, p < 0.001) and the number of participating countries (aRR: 1.02, 95%CI 1.01–1.03, p < 0.001). Patient accrual was negatively associated with advanced-line relative to first-line treatment (aRR: 0.81, 95%CI 0.69–0.95, p = 0.010), monotherapy relative to combination treatments (aRR: 0.80, 95%CI 0.69–0.94, p = 0.007). Patient enrollment was substantially faster in phase 3 than in phase 1 or 2 trials (aRR: 1.64, 95%CI 1.03–2.62, p = 0.037). Patient enrollment was slower for ultra-rare (aRR: 0.30, 95%CI 0.24–0.38, p < 0.001), rare (aRR: 0.73, 95%CI 0.61–0.88, p < 0.001), and common (aRR: 0.88, 95%CI 0.68–1.15, p = 0.361) orphan than non-orphan cancers. Accrual was not associated with trial blinding, crossover, comparator, randomization ratio, mechanism of action, and biomarker status. The alternative regression model shows that accelerated approval was not significantly associated with the accrual rate (Table e3). Table 2 Patient accrual per month in randomized cancer trials

	Univariable	Multivariable Poisson regression	
	Median	IQR	p value	Adjusted rate ratio	(95% CI)	p value	
Background-related factors							
 Trial sponsor							
  Industry	32	(16–44)		1	Reference		
  Government	14	(8–25)	0.001	0.80	(0.56–1.13)	0.209	
 No. of trial sitesa	1.002	(1.001–1.003)	0.000	1.001	(1.001–1.002)	0.000	
 No. of trial countriesa	1.04	(1.03–1.06)	0.000	1.02	(1.01–1.03)	0.000	
Treatment-related factors							
 Indication innovativenessb							
  Addition-to-indication	32	(17–61)		1	Reference		
  Advance-in-indication	33	(18–44)		0.84	(0.7–1.01)	0.071	
  First-in-indication	22	(10–38)	0.005	0.79	(0.63–0.98)	0.035	
 Mechanism of action							
  Cytotoxic chemotherapy	21	(9–37)		1	Reference		
  Targeted therapies	30	(15–42)		0.98	(0.73–1.31)	0.867	
  Immune regulators	34	(17–47)	0.148	1.06	(0.79–1.43)	0.691	
 Biomarker							
  No	32	(15–44)		1	Reference		
  Yes	27	(16–44)	0.842	0.88	(0.76–1.03)	0.117	
 Line of therapy							
  First-line	33	(17–45)		1	Reference		
  Advanced-line	25	(13–38)		0.81	(0.69–0.95)	0.010	
 Treatment type							
  Combination therapy	36	(19–45)		1	Reference		
  Monotherapy	23	(13–36)	0.001	0.80	(0.69–0.94)	0.007	
Disease-related factors							
 Cancer disease							
  Hematologic	15	(9–35)					
  Solid	33	(19–46)	0.000				
 DALYsa,c	1.0003	(1.0002–1.0005)	0.000				
 FDA Orphan Designation							
  Non-orphan	38	(26–53)					
  Orphan	20	(11–36)	0.000				
 Reformed Orphan Designationd							
  Non-orphan	38	(26–53)		1	Reference		
  Common orphan	21	(15–38)		0.88	(0.68–1.15)	0.361	
  Rare orphan	20	(10–35)		0.73	(0.61–0.88)	0.001	
  Ultra-rare orphan	8	(6–12)	0.000	0.30	(0.24–0.38)	0.000	
Trial-related factors							
 Phase							
  Phase 1/2	9	(4–16)		1	Reference		
  Phase 3	33	(19–44)	0.000	1.64	(1.03–2.62)	0.037	
 Masking							
  Open-label	26	(13–42)		1	Reference		
  Double blind	34	(19–44)	0.024	1.07	(0.82–1.39)	0.627	
 Comparator							
  Active	33	(18–44)		1	Reference		
  Placebo/no treatment	29	(15–42)	0.284	0.96	(0.73–1.27)	0.799	
 Randomizatione							
  Equal	33	(16–44)		1	Reference		
  Skewed	26	(16–40)	0.186	0.96	(0.8–1.15)	0.647	
 Crossover							
  Not specified	30	(14–41)		1	Reference		
  Allowed	25	(15–42)		1.13	(0.97–1.33)	0.125	
  Not allowed	34	(18–49)	0.092	1.13	(0.97–1.32)	0.124	
DALYs disability-adjusted life years, FDA US Food and Drug Administration

aFor interval-scaled variables, Poisson correlation coefficients are presented in the univariable column

bDrugs that were the first to treat a new disease were considered as “first-in-indication” drugs that were not the first to treat a new disease but approved under FDA priority review as “advance-in-indication” and all others as “addition-to-indication”

cDALYs as rate per 100,000 US inhabitants

dOrphan indications were further stratified according to the number of affected US inhabitants into common (> 200,000), rare (200,000–6600), and ultra-rare (< 6600)

eSkewed randomization refers to unequal patient randomization ratios, e.g., 2:1, 3:1, 3:2, 2:1:1

Table 3 Patient accrual per month in single-arm cancer trials

	Univariable	Multivariable Poisson regression	
Median	IQR	p value	Adjusted Rate Ratio	(95% CI)	p value	
Background factors							
 Trial sponsor							
  Industry	6	(3–14)		1	Reference		
  Government	3	(2–7)	0.031	0.65	(0.26–1.64)	0.366	
 No. of trial sites a	1.007	(1.002–1.012)	0.008	1.007	(1.003–1.012)	0.003	
 No. of trial countries a	1.04	(0.99–1.08)	0.096	0.999	(0.969–1.03)	0.955	
Treatment-related factors							
 Indication innovativeness b							
  Addition-to-indication	10	(3–14)		1	Reference		
  Advance-in-indication	6	(4–15)		1.42	(0.95–2.12)	0.087	
  First-in-indication	6	(3–11)	0.883	1.09	(0.7–1.69)	0.707	
 Mechanism of action							
  Cytotoxic chemotherapy	3	(2–6)		1	Reference		
  Targeted therapies	6	(3–11)		1.63	(0.84–3.16)	0.150	
  Immune regulators	7	(4–16)	0.060	2.35	(1.24–4.48)	0.009	
 Biomarker							
  No	7	(4–14)		1	Reference		
  Yes	5	(3–10)	0.077	0.78	(0.47–1.3)	0.347	
 Line of therapy							
  First-line	4	(3–6)		1	Reference		
  Advanced-line	7	(4–15)		1.42	(1.01–2)	0.042	
 Treatment type							
  Combination therapy	3	(2–7)		1	Reference		
  Monotherapy	6	(4–14)	0.089	1.36	(0.85–2.16)	0.201	
Disease-related factors							
 Cancer disease							
  Hematologic	6	(4–10)					
  Solid	6	(3–15)	0.565				
 DALYs a,c	1.0002	(0.9996–1.0008)	0.465				
 FDA Orphan Designation							
  Non-orphan	8	(4–16)					
  Orphan	6	(3–11)	0.030				
 Reformed Orphan Designation d							
  Non-orphan	8	(4–16)		1	Reference		
  Common orphan	5	(3–6)		0.79	(0.47–1.32)	0.373	
  Rare orphan	6	(3–12)		0.75	(0.53–1.07)	0.117	
  Ultra-rare orphan	6	(4–9)	0.158	0.58	(0.38–0.9)	0.015	
Trial design							
 Phase							
  Phase 1/2	6	(3–13)		1	Reference		
  Phase 3	5	(2–15)	0.848	1.21	(0.72–2.06)	0.473	
aFor interval-scaled variables, Poisson correlation coefficients are presented in the univariable column

bDrugs that were the first to treat a new disease were considered as “first-in-indication.” drugs that were not the first to treat a new disease but approved under FDA priority review as “advance-in-indication” and all others as “addition-to-indication”

cDALYs as rate per 100,000 US inhabitants

dOrphan indications were further stratified according to the number of affected US inhabitants into common (> 200,000), rare (200,000–6600), and ultra-rare (< 6600)

Single-arm trials

In the univariable analysis, faster patient enrollment was observed for industry- than government-sponsored trials (median: 6 vs. 3 patients per month, p = 0.031) (Table 3). However, this association was not significant after adjusting for further variables (aRR: 0.65, 95%CI 0.26–1.64, p = 0.366). In the multivariable model, the number of study sites was positively correlated to accrual rates (aRR: 1.007, 95%CI 1.003–1.012, p = 0.003). Patient enrollment per month was substantially slower for trials in the advanced-line than the first-line setting (aRR: 1.42, 95%CI 1.01–2.00, p = 0.042). Relative to cytotoxic chemotherapy, patient accrual was faster in trials for immune-regulating drugs (aRR 2.35, 95%CI 1.24–4.48, p = 0.009). Relative to non-orphan drugs, trials evaluating new ultra-rare orphan drugs were associated with slower patient accrual (aRR 0.58, 95%CI 0.38–0.90, p = 0.015). In the alternative regression models accelerated approval was not significantly associated with the accrual rate (Table e4).

Discussion

This cross-sectional study analyzed factors associated with clinical trial enrollment on the basis of a sample of 170 drugs with FDA approval across 455 cancer indications. We found that several background-, treatment-, and disease-related factors significantly influence the speed of patient enrollment (e.g., the patient accrual rate). Patient accrual is predominantly influenced by the number of participating study sites and countries and the underlying disease incidence and burden (orphan designation status), rather than clinical trial design features.

Background Factors

Consistent with previous literature [9, 10, 17, 20, 22], this study finds that patient enrollment per month was positively associated with the total number of study sites and participating countries as well as industry sponsorship, especially for randomized trials. These findings indicate that patient enrollment leading to successful trial completion is mainly driven by the financial funding and existing administrative structure to conduct these trials. Of note, industry-sponsorship was not significantly associated with patient accrual, likely owing to collinearity between industry-sponsorship with the number of study sites and participating countries. Pharmaceutical corporations that partner with clinical research organizations and academic and non-academic study sites will, of course, find more eligible patients in a shorter timeframe than government-sponsored clinical trial networks with limited funding that seek to enroll patients at a few study sites in a single country.

In this study, pivotal clinical trials in oncology were conducted at a median of 15 countries globally. However, prior research showed that trials predominantly enrolled patients from high-income countries with only few trials (29%) enrolling patients in low-income countries [30]. Increasing trial participation in low-income countries could expedite patient accrual, allow for faster patient access to new medicines, and test new drugs in a more diverse patient population [31].

Treatment-Related Factors

Results indicate that the line of therapy, therapy type, and the drug indication’s innovativeness were significantly associated with patient enrollment per month. Similar to prior studies [9, 17], faster patient enrollment was observed in trials for first-line than advanced-line treatments. There is simply a larger eligible patient population that can participate in first-line than advanced-line trials. Furthermore, very innovative drugs are often first tested as monotherapy in advanced-line treatments for common diseases and then “move up” the therapeutic ladder to first-line combination therapies if they continue to show clinical benefit relative to the standard of care [25]. Further, pharmaceutical companies were shown to be inclined to first test and seek approval for cancer drugs with multiple indications in rare diseases such that they receive the orphan designation’s benefits [32]. This commercialization strategy is also referred to as “orphan-first”[33]. These factors could explain the lower patient accrual rates observed for first-in-indication drugs.

Disease-Related Factors

Consistent with prior studies [9, 10, 17, 20, 22], our findings show that patient enrollment per month is influenced by disease incidence and burden. Patient accrual was particularly low for orphan drugs (median enrollment per month: 20 vs. 38 patients), which are defined as drugs for diseases with a prevalence below 200,000 US inhabitants, or drugs with limited sales potential. However, there are certain orphan subgroups with different disease dynamics [26]. Regarding these orphan subgroups, our results underline patient enrollment in clinical trials significantly differs. Results indicate that patient accrual is substantially more complex for ultra-rare diseases, defined by a prevalence threshold below 6600 US inhabitants equating to 1 in 50,000, than rare or non-orphan drugs (median enrollment per month: 8 vs. 20 vs. 38 patients ). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference between common orphan drugs that received the FDA orphan designation albeit their disease prevalence is beyond 200,000 US inhabitants, and non-orphan drugs (median enrollment per month: 21 vs. 38 patients, aRR 0.88, p = 0.361). These common orphan drugs are often targeted or immune therapies treating biomarker-defined subsets of common diseases [26].

Conducting clinical trials and developing drugs for rare diseases has emerged as “an economically viable strategy” owing to greater financial incentives, lower trial failure rates, and higher drug prices resulting in greater firm valuations and returns for pharmaceutical companies [34, 35]. Although a the share of newly developed orphan drugs has surged over the past decades, orphan drug development has concentrated on few diseases [36]. FDA-approved drugs exist for merely 5% of the more than 7000 rare diseases [36]. Further, clinical trials with new drugs are currently under development only for 15% of these more than 7000 rare diseases [36]. As a result many patients continue to suffer from rare diseases without treatment options—particularly those with ultra-rare diseases. The main challenge in conducting trials for ultra-rare diseases is finding competent investigators that recruit a sufficient number of patients at study sites with an adequate technological infrastructure. These challenges could be overcome by increasing funding for ultra-rare diseases, such that there are more financial resources available to pay clinical specialists that see patients with ultra-rare diseases regularly and provide the highly complex biotechnological infrastructure that is often necessary to administer new treatments for ultra-rare diseases (e.g., gene and cell therapies) across multiple countries. As previously highlighted, increasing the total number of participating study sites and countries will likely also increase patient accrual. Therefore, ultra-rare disease trials must be conducted as an international endeavor across nations where pharmaceutical companies closely collaborate with national healthcare providers and patient organizations in each region. Furthermore, decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) could help to enroll the very limited and geographically disperse patient population that defines these N-of-1 (ultra-rare) diseases [37]. With DCTs, patients are not bound to a single study site, which often demands lengthy travel, in a country to participate in clinical trials for their disease, but could effortlessly enroll in trials with the help of telehealth infrastructure, online consent forms, mail pharmacies, and electronic patient reported outcomes (ePRO) platforms.

Trial Design

Apart from the clinical trial phase, trial design features were not associated with faster patient accrual. These findings are consistent with previous studies [9, 17, 18]. A study of 747 trials supported by the National Clinical Trials Network found that trial blinding and comparator were not associated with patient accrual [9]. A study of 69 pivotal FDA approval trials for metastatic solid tumors (2006–2017) found no difference in patient accrual rates for trials with and without crossover [18]. Accordingly, a study of 194 pivotal FDA approval trials for solid and hematologic cancers could not find any association between patient accrual rates and crossover, trial blinding, primary endpoint, and randomization [17]. Although pharmaceutical companies and researchers believe that these clinical trial design features encourage patients to enroll in clinical trials [23], to date no evidence supports this optimistic belief. The use of crossover in clinical trials remains debated. “Although crossover is essential for studies that test the timing or sequence of therapies, […] crossover confounds interpretation of overall survival” [18]. For trials permitting crossover, pharmaceutical companies are frequently using crossover as the main reason why a surrogate endpoint, such as progression-free survival or tumor response, yet not the clinical endpoint, e.g., overall survival, showed a significant result [38]. Scholars increasingly argue in favor of clinical endpoints, e.g., overall survival and quality of life. These patient-centered outcomes are only rarely assessed and reported by cancer trials [39]. However, there is no evidence these endpoints are associated with faster patient enrollment [17], likely given that endpoints are only rarely discussed with and understood by patients [40]. In theory, a skewed randomization ratio favorably increases patients’ likelihood to be allocated to the treatment arm (e.g., 2:1, 3:2, 3:1) and should thereby entice enrollment. In practice, there is no evidence that skewed randomization ratios encourage patients to enroll in clinical trials. Perhaps the positive effect of the favorable randomization ratio on patient accrual is alleviated by the greater number of patients required to conduct trials with skewed randomization.

Limitations

There are certain limitations underlying our analysis. First, we only evaluated clinical trials that lead to the FDA approval of new cancer drugs. Thereby, our sample is biased to only successful trials with sufficient patient accrual. However, Jenei et al. showed that patient accrual results and their interpretation are consistent between successful FDA approval trials and other cancer trials [17]. Furthermore, with this uniquely large dataset of predominantly industry-sponsored trials, our study extends the existing body of research examining barriers to patient accrual in government-sponsored trials. Future research could examine factors associated with completed relative to withdrawn/terminated clinical trials. Second, our analysis focused on trial-level factors affecting patient accrual. However, previous studies highlighted that there are multiple patient-level factors, including socio-economic status, geographic location, age, sex, race, attending physician, and others, that influence patients’ decision to enroll in clinical trials [2, 7, 12–14, 16]. Finally, results and policy implications derived from our sample of cancer trials should be confirmed for other therapeutic areas.

Conclusions

Insufficient patient enrollment remains the leading cause of early trial termination. Prior studies highlighted patient and physician barriers to clinical trial participation. On the basis of a uniquely large dataset of 170 drugs with FDA approval in 455 cancer indications, we examined trial-level factors associated with patient enrollment per month. In this study, disease incidence and disease burden alongside the number of study sites and participating countries were the main drivers of patient enrollment. More financial incentives for rare disease trials and closer international collaborations could expedite drug development and encourage patient enrollment for (ultra-)orphan drugs. There is no evidence that trial designs that are commonly believed to entice patient enrollment, including skewed randomization, crossover, or open-label masking, result in faster accrual.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.Supplementary file1 (PDF 197 KB)

Declarations

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. T.M. was supported by the DKFZ clinician scientist program. D.T.M. was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Young Scientist Award and the German Cancer Society’s (DKG) Young Talent Award.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures:

D.T.M., T.M., S.A., and J.C.M. declare that they have no conflicts of interest that might be relevant to the contents of this manuscript.

Ethics Approval

Not applicable.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Data Sharing Statement

All data used in this study were in the public domain. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Author Contributions

D.T.M. and T.M. had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analyses. D.T.M. developed the study concept and design, drafted the manuscript, performed statistical analyses, and supervised the study. All authors carried out acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content, and provided administrative, technical, or material support.

Additional Contributions

The authors are grateful for comments and suggestions received by the editor of the journal and the anonymous referees. The authors thank Priv.-Doz. Dr. med. Tobias Boch, MD, Heidelberg University, for his medical advice. None of the additional contributors received any compensation.
==== Refs
References

1. Comis RL Miller JD Aldigé CR Krebs L Stoval E Public attitudes toward participation in cancer clinical trials J Clin Oncol 2003 21 5 830 835 10.1200/JCO.2003.02.105 12610181
Comis RL, Miller JD, Aldigé CR, Krebs L, Stoval E. Public attitudes toward participation in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(5):830–5.12610181 10.1200/JCO.2003.02.105
2. Murthy VH Krumholz HM Gross CP Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities J Am Med Assoc 2004 291 22 2720 2726 10.1001/jama.291.22.2720
Murthy VH, Krumholz HM, Gross CP. Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. J Am Med Assoc. 2004;291(22):2720–6.10.1001/jama.291.22.2720
3. American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. Barriers to patient enrollment in therapeutic clinical trials to cancer—a landscape report [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2023 May 30]. Available from: https://www.fightcancer.org/sites/default/files/National%20Documents/Clinical-Trials-Landscape-Report.pdf. Accessed 30 Jul 2023.
4. Cheng SK Dietrich MS Dilts DM A sense of urgency: evaluating the link between clinical trial development time and the accrual performance of cancer therapy evaluation program (NCI-CTEP) sponsored studies Clin Cancer Res 2010 16 22 5557 5563 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-0133 21062929
Cheng SK, Dietrich MS, Dilts DM. A sense of urgency: evaluating the link between clinical trial development time and the accrual performance of cancer therapy evaluation program (NCI-CTEP) sponsored studies. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(22):5557–63.21062929 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-0133
5. Zhang E DuBois SG Early termination of oncology clinical trials in the United States Cancer Med 2023 12 5 5517 5525 10.1002/cam4.5385 36305832
Zhang E, DuBois SG. Early termination of oncology clinical trials in the United States. Cancer Med. 2023;12(5):5517–25.36305832 10.1002/cam4.5385
6. Williams RJ Tse T DiPiazza K Zarin DA Terminated trials in the ClinicalTrialsgov results database: evaluation of availability of primary outcome data and reasons for termination PLoS ONE 2015 10 5 e0127242 10.1371/journal.pone.0127242 26011295
Williams RJ, Tse T, DiPiazza K, Zarin DA. Terminated trials in the ClinicalTrialsgov results database: evaluation of availability of primary outcome data and reasons for termination. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(5):e0127242.26011295 10.1371/journal.pone.0127242
7. Walsh E Sheridan A Factors affecting patient participation in clinical trials in Ireland: a narrative review Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2016 3 23 31 10.1016/j.conctc.2016.01.002 29736453
Walsh E, Sheridan A. Factors affecting patient participation in clinical trials in Ireland: a narrative review. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2016;3:23–31.29736453 10.1016/j.conctc.2016.01.002
8. Unger JM Cook E Tai E Bleyer A The role of clinical trial participation in cancer research: barriers, evidence, and strategies Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2016 35 185 198 10.1200/EDBK_156686 27249699
Unger JM, Cook E, Tai E, Bleyer A. The role of clinical trial participation in cancer research: barriers, evidence, and strategies. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016;35:185–98.27249699 10.1200/EDBK_156686
9. Bennette CS Ramsey SD McDermott CL Carlson JJ Basu A Veenstra DL Predicting low accrual in the National Cancer Institute’s Cooperative Group clinical trials J Natl Cancer Inst 2016 108 2 djv324 10.1093/jnci/djv324 26714555
Bennette CS, Ramsey SD, McDermott CL, Carlson JJ, Basu A, Veenstra DL. Predicting low accrual in the National Cancer Institute’s Cooperative Group clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(2):djv324.26714555 10.1093/jnci/djv324
10. Hauck CL Kelechi TJ Cartmell KB Mueller M Trial-level factors affecting accrual and completion of oncology clinical trials: a systematic review Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2021 24 100843 10.1016/j.conctc.2021.100843 34765799
Hauck CL, Kelechi TJ, Cartmell KB, Mueller M. Trial-level factors affecting accrual and completion of oncology clinical trials: a systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2021;24: 100843.34765799 10.1016/j.conctc.2021.100843
11. You KH Lwin Z Ahern E Wyld D Roberts N Factors that influence clinical trial participation by patients with cancer in Australia: a scoping review protocol Br Med J Open 2022 12 4 e057675
You KH, Lwin Z, Ahern E, Wyld D, Roberts N. Factors that influence clinical trial participation by patients with cancer in Australia: a scoping review protocol. Br Med J Open. 2022;12(4): e057675.
12. Unger JM Hershman DL Till C Minasian LM Osarogiagbon RU Fleury ME “When offered to participate”: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient agreement to participate in cancer clinical trials JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021 113 3 244 257 10.1093/jnci/djaa155 33022716
Unger JM, Hershman DL, Till C, Minasian LM, Osarogiagbon RU, Fleury ME, et al. “When offered to participate”: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient agreement to participate in cancer clinical trials. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(3):244–57.33022716 10.1093/jnci/djaa155
13. Ford JG Howerton MW Lai GY Gary TL Bolen S Gibbons MC Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review Cancer 2008 112 2 228 242 10.1002/cncr.23157 18008363
Ford JG, Howerton MW, Lai GY, Gary TL, Bolen S, Gibbons MC, et al. Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review. Cancer. 2008;112(2):228–42.18008363 10.1002/cncr.23157
14. Townsley CA Selby R Siu LL Systematic review of barriers to the recruitment of older patients with cancer onto clinical trials J Clin Oncol 2005 23 13 3112 3124 10.1200/JCO.2005.00.141 15860871
Townsley CA, Selby R, Siu LL. Systematic review of barriers to the recruitment of older patients with cancer onto clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(13):3112–24.15860871 10.1200/JCO.2005.00.141
15. Fayter D McDaid C Eastwood A A systematic review highlights threats to validity in studies of barriers to cancer trial participation J Clin Epidemiol 2007 60 10 990.e1 990.e33 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.12.013 17884592
Fayter D, McDaid C, Eastwood A. A systematic review highlights threats to validity in studies of barriers to cancer trial participation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(10):990.e1-990.e33.17884592 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.12.013
16. Unger JM Vaidya R Hershman DL Minasian LM Fleury ME Systematic review and meta-analysis of the magnitude of structural, clinical, and physician and patient barriers to cancer clinical trial participation JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 111 3 245 255 10.1093/jnci/djy221 30856272
Unger JM, Vaidya R, Hershman DL, Minasian LM, Fleury ME. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the magnitude of structural, clinical, and physician and patient barriers to cancer clinical trial participation. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111(3):245–55.30856272 10.1093/jnci/djy221
17. Jenei K Haslam A Olivier T Miljkovíc M Prasad V What drives cancer clinical trial accrual? An empirical analysis of studies leading to FDA authorisation (2015–2020) BMJ Open 2022 12 10 e064458 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064458 36207035
Jenei K, Haslam A, Olivier T, Miljkovíc M, Prasad V. What drives cancer clinical trial accrual? An empirical analysis of studies leading to FDA authorisation (2015–2020). BMJ Open. 2022;12(10): e064458.36207035 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064458
18. Chen EY Prasad V Crossover is not associated with faster trial accrual Ann Oncol 2018 29 3 776 777 10.1093/annonc/mdx793 29267893
Chen EY, Prasad V. Crossover is not associated with faster trial accrual. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(3):776–7.29267893 10.1093/annonc/mdx793
19. Khunger M Rakshit S Hernandez AV Pasupuleti V Glass K Galsky MD Premature clinical trial discontinuation in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors Oncologist 2018 23 12 1494 1499 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0003 30068783
Khunger M, Rakshit S, Hernandez AV, Pasupuleti V, Glass K, Galsky MD, et al. Premature clinical trial discontinuation in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Oncologist. 2018;23(12):1494–9.30068783 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0003
20. Tate WR Cranmer LD Development and validation of a clinical trial accrual predictive regression model at a single NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2016 14 5 561 569 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0064 27160234
Tate WR, Cranmer LD. Development and validation of a clinical trial accrual predictive regression model at a single NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14(5):561–9.27160234 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0064
21. Schroen AT Petroni GR Wang H Thielen MJ Gray R Benedetti J Achieving sufficient accrual to address the primary endpoint in phase III clinical trials from U.S. Cooperative Oncology Groups Clin Cancer Res 2012 18 1 256 262 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1633 21976533
Schroen AT, Petroni GR, Wang H, Thielen MJ, Gray R, Benedetti J, et al. Achieving sufficient accrual to address the primary endpoint in phase III clinical trials from U.S. Cooperative Oncology Groups. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(1):256–62.21976533 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1633
22. Carlisle B Kimmelman J Ramsay T MacKinnon N Unsuccessful trial accrual and human subjects protections: an empirical analysis of recently closed trials Clin Trials Lond Engl. 2015 12 1 77 83 10.1177/1740774514558307
Carlisle B, Kimmelman J, Ramsay T, MacKinnon N. Unsuccessful trial accrual and human subjects protections: an empirical analysis of recently closed trials. Clin Trials Lond Engl. 2015;12(1):77–83.10.1177/1740774514558307
23. Newington L Metcalfe A Factors influencing recruitment to research: qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of research teams BMC Med Res Methodol 2014 14 1 10 10.1186/1471-2288-14-10 24456229
Newington L, Metcalfe A. Factors influencing recruitment to research: qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of research teams. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):10.24456229 10.1186/1471-2288-14-10
24. Lythgoe MP Desai A Gyawali B Savage P Krell J Warner JL Cancer therapy approval timings, review speed, and publication of pivotal registration trials in the US and Europe, 2010–2019 JAMA Netw Open 2022 5 6 e2216183 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.16183 35687337
Lythgoe MP, Desai A, Gyawali B, Savage P, Krell J, Warner JL, et al. Cancer therapy approval timings, review speed, and publication of pivotal registration trials in the US and Europe, 2010–2019. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(6): e2216183.35687337 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.16183
25. Michaeli DT Michaeli T Overall Survival, Progression-free survival, and tumor response benefit supporting initial FDA approval and indication extension of new cancer drugs, 2003–2021 J Clin Oncol 2022 40 35 4095 4106 10.1200/JCO.22.00535 35921606
Michaeli DT, Michaeli T. Overall Survival, Progression-free survival, and tumor response benefit supporting initial FDA approval and indication extension of new cancer drugs, 2003–2021. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(35):4095–106.35921606 10.1200/JCO.22.00535
26. Michaeli T Jürges H Michaeli DT FDA approval, clinical trial evidence, efficacy, epidemiology, and price for non-orphan and ultra-rare, rare, and common orphan cancer drug indications: cross sectional analysis Br Med J 2023 281 e073242 10.1136/bmj-2022-073242
Michaeli T, Jürges H, Michaeli DT. FDA approval, clinical trial evidence, efficacy, epidemiology, and price for non-orphan and ultra-rare, rare, and common orphan cancer drug indications: cross sectional analysis. Br Med J. 2023;281: e073242.10.1136/bmj-2022-073242
27. Michaeli DT Michaeli T Cancer drug prices in the United States: efficacy, innovation, clinical trial evidence, and epidemiology Value Health. 2023 26 11 1590 1600 10.1016/j.jval.2023.06.020 37516196
Michaeli DT, Michaeli T. Cancer drug prices in the United States: efficacy, innovation, clinical trial evidence, and epidemiology. Value Health. 2023;26(11):1590–600.37516196 10.1016/j.jval.2023.06.020
28. Lanthier M Miller KL Nardinelli C Woodcock J An improved approach to measuring drug innovation finds steady rates of first-in-class pharmaceuticals, 1987–2011 Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 32 8 1433 1439 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0541 23918488
Lanthier M, Miller KL, Nardinelli C, Woodcock J. An improved approach to measuring drug innovation finds steady rates of first-in-class pharmaceuticals, 1987–2011. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(8):1433–9.23918488 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0541
29. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). GBD Results [Internet]. Seattle, WA: IHME, University of Washington; 2020. Available from: https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-results/. Accessed 30 Jul 2023.
30. Rubagumya F Hopman WM Gyawali B Mukherji D Hammad N Pramesh CS Participation of lower and upper middle-income countries in clinical trials led by high-income countries JAMA Netw Open 2022 5 8 e2227252 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.27252 35980637
Rubagumya F, Hopman WM, Gyawali B, Mukherji D, Hammad N, Pramesh CS, et al. Participation of lower and upper middle-income countries in clinical trials led by high-income countries. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(8): e2227252.35980637 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.27252
31. Wilson BE Sullivan R Peto R Abubakar B Booth C Werutsky G Global cancer drug development—a report from the 2022 accelerating anticancer agent development and validation meeting JCO Glob Oncol. 2023 9 e2300294 10.1200/GO.23.00294 37944089
Wilson BE, Sullivan R, Peto R, Abubakar B, Booth C, Werutsky G, et al. Global cancer drug development—a report from the 2022 accelerating anticancer agent development and validation meeting. JCO Glob Oncol. 2023;9: e2300294.37944089 10.1200/GO.23.00294
32. Michaeli DT Mills M Michaeli T Miracolo A Kanavos P Initial and supplementary indication approval of new targeted cancer drugs by the FDA, EMA, Health Canada, and TGA Invest New Drugs 2022 40 798 809 10.1007/s10637-022-01227-5 35389145
Michaeli DT, Mills M, Michaeli T, Miracolo A, Kanavos P. Initial and supplementary indication approval of new targeted cancer drugs by the FDA, EMA, Health Canada, and TGA. Invest New Drugs. 2022;40:798–809.35389145 10.1007/s10637-022-01227-5
33. Michaeli T Michaeli DT Partial orphan cancer drugs: US Food and Drug Administration approval, clinical benefit, trials, epidemiology, price, beneficiaries, and spending Value Health. 2024 27 4 449 457 10.1016/j.jval.2024.01.002 38244983
Michaeli T, Michaeli DT. Partial orphan cancer drugs: US Food and Drug Administration approval, clinical benefit, trials, epidemiology, price, beneficiaries, and spending. Value Health. 2024;27(4):449–57.38244983 10.1016/j.jval.2024.01.002
34. Meekings KN Williams CSM Arrowsmith JE Orphan drug development: an economically viable strategy for biopharma R&D Drug Discov Today 2012 17 13 660 664 10.1016/j.drudis.2012.02.005 22366309
Meekings KN, Williams CSM, Arrowsmith JE. Orphan drug development: an economically viable strategy for biopharma R&D. Drug Discov Today. 2012;17(13):660–4.22366309 10.1016/j.drudis.2012.02.005
35. Michaeli DT Yagmur HB Achmadeev T Michaeli T Value drivers of development stage biopharma companies Eur J Health Econ 2022 23 8 1287 1296 10.1007/s10198-021-01427-5 35038054
Michaeli DT, Yagmur HB, Achmadeev T, Michaeli T. Value drivers of development stage biopharma companies. Eur J Health Econ. 2022;23(8):1287–96.35038054 10.1007/s10198-021-01427-5
36. Fermaglich LJ Miller KL A comprehensive study of the rare diseases and conditions targeted by orphan drug designations and approvals over the forty years of the Orphan Drug Act Orphanet J Rare Dis 2023 18 1 163 10.1186/s13023-023-02790-7 37353796
Fermaglich LJ, Miller KL. A comprehensive study of the rare diseases and conditions targeted by orphan drug designations and approvals over the forty years of the Orphan Drug Act. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2023;18(1):163.37353796 10.1186/s13023-023-02790-7
37. Van Norman GA Decentralized clinical trials JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2021 6 4 384 387 10.1016/j.jacbts.2021.01.011 33997523
Van Norman GA. Decentralized clinical trials. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2021;6(4):384–7.33997523 10.1016/j.jacbts.2021.01.011
38. Prasad V Double-crossed: why crossover in clinical trials may be distorting medical science J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2013 11 5 625 627 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0077 23667211
Prasad V. Double-crossed: why crossover in clinical trials may be distorting medical science. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013;11(5):625–7.23667211 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0077
39. Gloy V Schmitt AM Düblin P Hirt J Axfors C Kuk H The evidence base of US Food and Drug Administration approvals of novel cancer therapies from 2000 to 2020 Int J Cancer 2023 152 12 2474 2484 10.1002/ijc.34473 36779785
Gloy V, Schmitt AM, Düblin P, Hirt J, Axfors C, Kuk H, et al. The evidence base of US Food and Drug Administration approvals of novel cancer therapies from 2000 to 2020. Int J Cancer. 2023;152(12):2474–84.36779785 10.1002/ijc.34473
40. Boudewyns V Southwell BG DeFrank JT Ferriola-Bruckenstein K Halpern MT O’Donoghue AC Patients’ understanding of oncology clinical endpoints: a literature review Patient Educ Couns 2020 103 9 1724 1735 10.1016/j.pec.2020.03.018 32273145
Boudewyns V, Southwell BG, DeFrank JT, Ferriola-Bruckenstein K, Halpern MT, O’Donoghue AC, et al. Patients’ understanding of oncology clinical endpoints: a literature review. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(9):1724–35.32273145 10.1016/j.pec.2020.03.018
