Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic Mitigation Strategies on Cancer Treatment Trials: A Meta-Analysis of Industry and National Cancer Institute Studies.

Abstract

Purpose: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 disrupted the conduct of cancer clinical trials. In response, federal agencies allowed more flexibility for trial recruitment and patient follow-up. A key question is whether the benefits of adopting these strategies outweigh the potential detriments to quality metrics.

Methods: A joint ASCO and Friends of Cancer Research task force invited industry and National Cancer Institute trial sponsors to contribute deidentified trial-level aggregate data on enrollment, major protocol deviations, dropouts, and severe adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3-5). These quality metrics were examined as proportions of participants at risk during the pre-COVID-19 (January 2017-February, 2020), initial wave (March-April, 2020), initial recovery (May-December, 2020), and secondary recovery (January 2021-December 2022) periods. Multilevel beta-regression was used, adjusting for phase; study and sponsor were treated as random effects. Indicator variables were used with pre-COVID-19 as the reference.

Results: Ten sponsors contributed 67 analyzable trials with N = 12,000 US-based participants. Enrollment odds decreased 49% in the initial wave (odds ratio [OR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.86], P = .01) but recovered to pre-COVID-19 levels by 2021-2022 (OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.81], P = .97). Major protocol deviations, dropouts, and severe toxicity all had a lower incidence in the initial wave compared with pre-COVID-19; these outcomes were also less frequent (P < .05) in the initial recovery period but returned to pre-COVID-19 levels by 2021-2022.

Conclusion: In this multicollaborator evaluation, large declines in enrollment, major protocol deviations, dropouts, and severe toxicity during the acute phase of the pandemic all returned to pre-COVID-19 levels by 2021-2022. These findings highlight the impact of the temporary disruption to trial conduct during the pandemic's peak, but suggest that pandemic-related procedural flexibility did not result in long-term reduced data quality. Sponsors and regulators should consider broader adaptation of trial flexibilities moving forward.