Increasing Clinical Trials Accrual at a Comprehensive Cancer Center
Authors: Powell Bayard L. , Olson Debbie , Morrell Robert M. , Hales Terry L. , High Kevin P , Abraham Edward 
Published: October 2019

Background: During the academic year 2013 (July 2012-June 2013) our accrual to cancer clinical trials, a critical measure of success for a Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC), was lower than prior years and below the desired level for CCC core grant renewal. Academic physicians were faced with increasing pressures to meet clinical demands, often at the expense of academic productivity, including clinical research.

Methods: Our Dean and clinical leadership committed to support our efforts to increase accrual to clinical trials by providing salary support for our Section on Hematology and Oncology for specific milestones of 5%, 10%, and 15% increases in accrual to all clinical trials and in accrual to treatment (NCI definition) trials. The goal of the faculty was to increase accrual by > 15% to all trials and to treatment trials to maximize the “pool”. To determine how to divide the pool among investigators we developed a point system recognizing clinical investigators for roles as a) PI for trials (with additional points for all accrual to their trials) and b) for entering patients on clinical trials. The point system for both roles (PI and entering patients) was weighted relative to the value of the trial to the CCC, e.g. investigator initiated > cooperative group > industry initiated, and treatment trials >> non-treatment trials. In addition, we awarded points for publications (first and senior author > co-author) and presentations (oral > poster; major national meeting > other meetings).

Results: During academic year 2014 (July 2013-June 2014) accrual to all cancer clinical trials increased by 140% (276 to 663) and accrual to treatment trials increased 40% (114 to 160). These increases occurred in both hematologic malignancies (95% all; 16% treatment) where we had a strong track record for accruals, and in solid tumors (200% all; 76% treatment) where our prior record was not as strong.

Discussion: Accrual to clinical trials, both treatment and non-treatment improved dramatically. Interpretation of cause and effect is complex. The baseline year (2013) included implementation of a new EMR and the recent year (2014) included recruitment of additional faculty. However, 2014 was complicated by implementation of a new practice plan heavily weighted toward individual RVU production, and a decrease in available co-operative group trials to historically low levels. However, we can conclude that attention to this critical role of clinical investigators is important and can influence behavior. We cannot determine whether financial incentives are needed or whether the funding is one of several potential methods of recognition of the importance of clinical trials. It is possible that the commitment to provide financial support for clinical research demonstrated to clinical investigators that the leadership valued clinical trials activity and this recognition was more important than the actual funds. Future efforts will also need to find ways to recognize/reward clinical trials productivity of groups of investigators for their multidisciplinary contributions to the care of patients on clinical trials, without generating internal competition within the groups.

Disclosures

No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.