Accrual-Monitoring Practices for Various Disease Trials among AACI Member Cancer Centers
, Zachary Goldberg 1, Ramez Philips 1, Jennifer M. Johnson 2, Margaret T. Kasner 2,3, William K. Kelly 2,3, Sarah Osipowicz 3, Rachael Dampman 3 and Joseph M. Curry 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This report sheds the light on a problem facing US cancer centers, to
optimize different rare disease trials and rare molecular studies, that is low trial accrual. Overall, the authors of this paper were able to clearly elucidate the problem survey and the conclusions are well supported by the showing data. I suggested that this paper should be published as it is.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback. English grammar has been thoroughly reviewed and revised.
Reviewer 2 Report
This work entitled “Clinical Trial Accrual Monitoring Practices for Various Disease Trials Among AACI 2 Member Cancer Centers” by Elliott et al. reported that seventy-three percent of respondents did not close trials based on low accrual. Strategies to optimize accrual included investigator incentives for high accrual and penalties for low accrual in 37% and 13% of respondents, respectively. The present study utilized a survey to identify strategies employed among US cancer centers to manage different trial types, including rare disease and rare molecular studies. It is professionally written, well presented, and clearly concludes the study, but there are some minor comments:-
1. In the introduction section, the author site one hypothetical example of a trial for indolent T-cell LGL leukemia, it is much better if the author site my real example about it.
2. Please recheck the English language again.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback. English grammar has been thoroughly reviewed and revised. Thank you for suggesting a real life example for a rare disease trial that might struggle with accrual, however without access to this specific citation we are unable to add it the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
First of all, I want to congratulate the authors for their work. I consider that methodologically the protocol is well developed, and that it responds perfectly to what the researchers are trying to find out.
On the other hand, the introduction clarifies the current problem, reinforcing this type of work, which is innovative.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback. According to your evaluation, no additions/edits are required. However, we took the liberty of improving the English grammar based on feedback form other reviewers.
