Screen failures among patients who consented for early phase cancer clinical trials (EPCTs).

e23013 Background: EPCTs represent an important treatment option for patients with cancer. However, trials often have strict eligibility criteria and screen failures (SFs) can limit enrollment. We sought to identify reasons for SFs among potential EPCT participants, evaluate associations between SFs and overall survival (OS), and describe use of supportive care services and subsequent therapies among patients with SFs. Methods: Using an institutional EPCT database, we identified adult patients who signed consent for an EPCT between 1/2021 – 10/2025 but did not receive treatment on the trial. We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health record to obtain patient demographics, clinical characteristics, reasons for SFs, receipt of palliative care (PC), advanced care planning (ACP), future therapies, and OS. Results: Table 1 provides the reasons for SFs. Among 273 identified patients (median age = 64.1 years [range 18.4 – 90.2], 52% female), most common reasons for SFs were clinical decline (CD; 28%) and lab abnormalities (19%); 6% with unknown reason were excluded from table. Patients with CD had increased risk of death (HR 2.3, p < 0.0001) compared to other reasons for SF, while those with SFs due to patient preference and lack of measurable disease had longer survival (HR 0.4, p = 0.001; HR 0.2, p < 0.0001); see Table 1 for OS results. Among all patients, median OS was 3.9 months (95% CI 3.3 – 5.1) and median follow up was 26.1 months (95% CI 22.9-29.8). Most patients (66%) were referred from within the hospital system and nearly half (48%) had received 3+ lines of therapy; 30% had participated in a prior EPCT. Among internal referrals, the majority did not have prior PC (70%), ACP documentation (70%), or advance directive (92%). Most patients (64%) received another line of therapy after SF, including 11% who enrolled on another EPCT. Of those with CD, 49% pursued hospice/supportive care, 36% received another line of therapy, and 11% died during screening. Conclusions: Reasons for SFs are varied, with CD as the most common. We found that most patients had no prior PC receipt or ACP documentation, despite having advanced disease and receiving multiple prior lines of therapy. Notably, most patients received further therapies and some experienced extended survival. Further work is needed to better understand and address reasons for SFs to improve care for this population. Reason for SF N (%) Median OS (months, 95% CI) OS HR (95% CI) P Clinical decline 76 (28) 1.6 (1.2 - 5.6) 2.3 (1.7 - 3.1) <.0001 Lab abnormality 52 (19) 3.9 (2.2-7.8) 1.1 (0.8-1.6) .450 Patient preference 28 (10) 20.2 (3.4 - NR) 0.4 (0.3 - 0.7) .001 Multiple reasons 23 (8) 2.7 (1.3 - 4.0) 1.4 (0.9 - 2.3) .148 New CNS disease 22 (8) 3.9 (2.5 - 6.3) 1.3 (0.8 - 2.1) .248 Comorbidity 19 (7) 6.3 (3.9 - NR) 0.7 (0.4 - 1.2) .221 Trial logistics 14 (5) 6.0 (2.6 - 11.7) 0.9 (0.5 - 1.5) .587 Medication interaction 12 (4) 11.2 (2.1 - NR) 0.6 (0.3 - 1.3) .179 No measurable disease 11 (4) NR (14.0 - NR) 0.2 (0.1 - 0.5) <.0001

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2026-05-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.e23013
Primary Topic
Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Screen failures among patients who consented for early phase cancer clinical trials (EPCTs).

Ryan David Nipp, Sarah Cohen, Leon Pappas, Nattaya Teeyapun et al.
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
article

Screen failures among patients who consented for early phase cancer clinical trials (EPCTs).

Ryan David Nipp, Sarah Cohen, Leon Pappas, Nattaya Teeyapun, Anh B. Lam, Dejan Juric, Sienna M. Durbin, Debra Lundquist, Rachel Jimenez, Cynthia Moore, Andrea Pelletier, Allison White
article en

Abstract

e23013 Background: EPCTs represent an important treatment option for patients with cancer. However, trials often have strict eligibility criteria and screen failures (SFs) can limit enrollment. We sought to identify reasons for SFs among potential EPCT participants, evaluate associations between SFs and overall survival (OS), and describe use of supportive care services and subsequent therapies among patients with SFs. Methods: Using an institutional EPCT database, we identified adult patients who signed consent for an EPCT between 1/2021 – 10/2025 but did not receive treatment on the trial. We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health record to obtain patient demographics, clinical characteristics, reasons for SFs, receipt of palliative care (PC), advanced care planning (ACP), future therapies, and OS. Results: Table 1 provides the reasons for SFs. Among 273 identified patients (median age = 64.1 years [range 18.4 – 90.2], 52% female), most common reasons for SFs were clinical decline (CD; 28%) and lab abnormalities (19%); 6% with unknown reason were excluded from table. Patients with CD had increased risk of death (HR 2.3, p < 0.0001) compared to other reasons for SF, while those with SFs due to patient preference and lack of measurable disease had longer survival (HR 0.4, p = 0.001; HR 0.2, p < 0.0001); see Table 1 for OS results. Among all patients, median OS was 3.9 months (95% CI 3.3 – 5.1) and median follow up was 26.1 months (95% CI 22.9-29.8). Most patients (66%) were referred from within the hospital system and nearly half (48%) had received 3+ lines of therapy; 30% had participated in a prior EPCT. Among internal referrals, the majority did not have prior PC (70%), ACP documentation (70%), or advance directive (92%). Most patients (64%) received another line of therapy after SF, including 11% who enrolled on another EPCT. Of those with CD, 49% pursued hospice/supportive care, 36% received another line of therapy, and 11% died during screening. Conclusions: Reasons for SFs are varied, with CD as the most common. We found that most patients had no prior PC receipt or ACP documentation, despite having advanced disease and receiving multiple prior lines of therapy. Notably, most patients received further therapies and some experienced extended survival. Further work is needed to better understand and address reasons for SFs to improve care for this population. Reason for SF N (%) Median OS (months, 95% CI) OS HR (95% CI) P Clinical decline 76 (28) 1.6 (1.2 - 5.6) 2.3 (1.7 - 3.1) <.0001 Lab abnormality 52 (19) 3.9 (2.2-7.8) 1.1 (0.8-1.6) .450 Patient preference 28 (10) 20.2 (3.4 - NR) 0.4 (0.3 - 0.7) .001 Multiple reasons 23 (8) 2.7 (1.3 - 4.0) 1.4 (0.9 - 2.3) .148 New CNS disease 22 (8) 3.9 (2.5 - 6.3) 1.3 (0.8 - 2.1) .248 Comorbidity 19 (7) 6.3 (3.9 - NR) 0.7 (0.4 - 1.2) .221 Trial logistics 14 (5) 6.0 (2.6 - 11.7) 0.9 (0.5 - 1.5) .587 Medication interaction 12 (4) 11.2 (2.1 - NR) 0.6 (0.3 - 1.3) .179 No measurable disease 11 (4) NR (14.0 - NR) 0.2 (0.1 - 0.5) <.0001

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 44(16_suppl)
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US), King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital (TH), Massachusetts General Hospital (US), Global Cancer Institute (US), University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.