Reducing patient eligibility criteria in cancer clinical trials.

PURPOSE To discuss patient eligibility criteria in phase III cancer clinical trials in the larger setting of the complexity of these trials, to review the various reasons for imposing restrictive eligibility requirements, to discuss the problems caused by these requirements, to argue that these requirements should be greatly relaxed in most cancer clinical trials, to provide some guiding principles and practical suggestions to facilitate such a relaxation, and to give an example of how eligibility requirements were reduced in a recent clinical trial in acute lymphocytic leukemia. METHODS Implicit and explicit reasons for including eligibility criteria in clinical trials are reviewed. Safety concerns and sample size issues receive special attention. The types of problems restrictive eligibility criteria cause with respect to scientific interpretation, medical applicability, complexity, costs, and patient accrual are described. RESULTS A list of three items that each eligibility criterion should meet in order to be included is proposed and applied to a recent trial in acute lymphocytic leukemia. CONCLUSION Phase III clinical trials in cancer should have much broader eligibility criteria than the traditionally restrictive criteria commonly used. Adoption of less restrictive eligibility criteria for most studies would allow broader generalizations, better mimic medical practice, reduce complexity and costs, and permit more rapid accrual without compromising patient safety or requiring major increases in sample size.

[1]  P. Peduzzi,et al.  Intent-to-treat analysis and the problem of crossovers. An example from the Veterans Administration coronary bypass surgery study. , 1991, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[2]  R Peto,et al.  Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials? , 1984, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  R. Califf,et al.  The Exclusion of Women from Clinical Trials of Thrombolytic Therapy , 1995, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[4]  C. Begg,et al.  Eligibility and extrapolation in cancer clinical trials. , 1987, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  Gail Mh Eligibility exclusions, losses to follow-up, removal of randomized patients, and uncounted events in cancer clinical trials. , 1985 .

[6]  J. Avorn,et al.  The exclusion of the elderly and women from clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction. , 1992, JAMA.

[7]  C. Weijer,et al.  The duty to exclude: excluding people at undue risk from research. , 1994, Clinical and investigative medicine. Medecine clinique et experimentale.

[8]  R. Frye,et al.  Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation: patient screening, selection, and recruitment. , 1995, The American journal of cardiology.

[9]  H. Vanderpool,et al.  False data & the therapeutic misconception: two urgent problems in research ethics. False data and last hopes: enrolling ineligible patients in clinical trials. , 1987, The Hastings Center report.

[10]  J. Potter,et al.  Eligibility of acute stroke patients for pharmacological therapy. , 1994, Age and ageing.

[11]  Rosaline Joseph,et al.  Viewpoints and concerns of a clinical trial participant , 1994, Cancer.

[12]  A. Morris,et al.  The experiences of an acute stroke unit--implications for multicentre acute stroke trials. , 1993, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[13]  C. Redmond,et al.  Fraud in breast-cancer trials. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  C. Begg Selection of patients for clinical trials. , 1988, Seminars in oncology.

[15]  R Peto,et al.  Large-scale randomized evidence: large, simple trials and overviews of trials. , 1993, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[16]  F. Wolfe,et al.  The clinical and research significance of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate. , 1994, The Journal of rheumatology.

[17]  S. Tu,et al.  A Methodology for Determining Patients’ Eligibility for Clinical Trials , 1993, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[18]  T. Pincus,et al.  Rheumatoid arthritis: disappointing long-term outcomes despite successful short-term clinical trials. , 1988, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  M. Grever,et al.  Guidelines for clinical protocols for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Recommendations of the national cancer institute‐sponsored working group , 1988, American journal of hematology.

[20]  S W Tu,et al.  AIDS2: a decision-support tool for decreasing physicians' uncertainty regarding patient eligibility for HIV treatment protocols. , 1993, Proceedings. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care.