Experiences of Patients After Withdrawal From Cancer Clinical Trials

Effectiveness of Exercise-Based Interventions on Fatigue among Head and Neck Cancer Patients on Radiotherapy: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Fatigue is a significant challenge among head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy, impacting their well-being and daily functioning. Exercise-based interventions hold promise in alleviating this fatigue burden. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of exercise-based interventions on fatigue among patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy.

METHODS

We systematically searched for the studies in Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed, Cochrane Library Database, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar in the English language from 2000 to 2023. Two reviewers independently identified the articles using key thesaurus and free text terms based on the inclusion criteria. The review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement. Meta-analysis was done by using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

The systematic review included nine trials encompassing 647 participants, out of which five were randomized control trials and were selected for meta-analysis. Pooled data from randomized control trials showed that exercise-based interventions were effective in reducing few dimensions of fatigue such as general fatigue, physical fatigue, emotional fatigue significantly (P < .001) among Head and Neck Cancer patients receiving radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary evidence from the review suggests that engaging in exercise-based interventions may reduce fatigue among patients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy. However, future research is necessary, as most of the articles in current review were either pilot studies or feasibility trials.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was registered in PROSPERO with the register number CRD42023428284.

The journey of patients in cancer clinical trials: A qualitative meta-synthesis on experiences and perspectives

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize findings from qualitative studies focusing on adult cancer patients and their experiences and perspectives on clinical trials.

METHODS

A meta-synthesis was conducted on the literature retrieved from Scopus, Embase, PubMed, and PsycInfo databases. Patient quotes from papers were coded line-by-line using Nvivo software, and themes were created.

RESULTS

45 papers were included. Three large themes were identified based on the timeline of trials: (1) "pre-trial participation" includes sub-themes regarding informational needs, experience with the decision, and representations. (2) "Ongoing trial" includes subthemes covering supportive care, practical and psycho-physical burdens, identity and comparison with others, and the importance of maintaining hope. (3) "Post-trial," with subthemes covering comprehension of results and attitudes towards data sharing, perception of being left unattended, and hindsight and regretful thoughts.

CONCLUSION

This work emphasizes the importance of contextualizing patient experiences and holistically viewing trials. Additionally, this review stresses that patient narratives in the post-trial period are underrepresented in the literature.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Further research should prioritize the post-trial stage to enhance patients' psychological well-being and address concerns such as regret to reduce trial dropout rates. Emphasizing patient connections, providing clear trial-related information, and offering remote participation options, particularly for rural patients, are crucial steps in improving patient experience and trial adherence.

Views of research ethics committee members on end-of-participation communications for trial participants who stop taking part: a cross-sectional survey study

BACKGROUND

Giving information to trial participants who stop taking part could support them through what can be a difficult process. We previously developed guidance around the ethical acceptability of such information provision, and about how trialists can develop suitable communication materials. There is limited evidence about what research ethics committees think of this issue, and limited guidance about what level of oversight they should have over the proposed communications, or post-consent participant communications generally. We conducted a survey of UK ethics committee members to address these points.

METHODS

The survey was co-developed by public contributors and trialists who had previously worked together on the communications guidance. We asked respondents if they agreed with the general idea of informing participants who stop taking part, if they had ever been requested to review similar communications, and what level of ethics committee review they might recommend. The survey was primarily conducted online. It was reviewed by three ethics committee members before finalisation and shared directly with all UK ethics committee members. We analysed quantitative questions descriptively and used inductive analysis for open questions to identify common themes.

RESULTS

Ninety-one ethics committee members participated (nearly 10% of all UK members). The sample was similar to reported data about all members in terms of several personal characteristics. Most respondents (83%) agreed with our project's rationale. Only 23% of respondents reported having been asked to review an end-of-participation information sheet before. Respondents gave various answers about the level of ethics committee review required, but most supported a relatively proportionate review process. Common concerns were about the risk of coercion or making participants feel pressured.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey suggests that ethics committee members generally support providing information to trial participants who stop taking part, if risks to participants are mitigated. We believe our guidance already addresses the main concerns raised. Our respondents' lack of prior experience with end-of-participation information sheets suggests that participants are not getting information they want or need when they stop participating. Our results help clarify how ethics committee should oversee post-consent participant communications, but further guidance from research regulators could be helpful.

Survivorship Care for People Affected by Advanced or Metastatic Cancer: MASCC-ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations

PURPOSE

People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared with those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end of life. These Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer.

METHODS

A MASCC-ASCO expert panel was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process.

RESULTS

A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including eight people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low- to middle-resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥94.8% agreement for seven standards, (1) Person-Centered Care; (2) Coordinated and Integrated Care; (3) Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; (4) Evaluated and Communicated Care; (5) Accessible and Equitable Care; (6) Sustainable and Resourced Care; and (7) Research and Data-Driven Care, and ≥84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders (health care professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers). Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.Additional information is available at www.mascc.org, www.asco.org/standards and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Reflections on the opportunities and challenges of applying experience-based co-design (EBCD) to phase 1 clinical trials in oncology

BACKGROUND

Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD) is a multi-stage participatory action research process which was developed originally to increase patient involvement in service improvement initiatives. This viewpoint article serves as a reflection on the researchers' experiences, focusing on the application and feasibility of participatory approaches, particularly co-design, in the specific context of early-phase clinical trials.

METHODS

We reflect on the opportunities and challenges of applying EBCD in a new context of early-phase clinical trials in oncology where experimental treatments are increasingly perceived as a therapeutic option and, in certain instances, their efficacy may lead to accelerated approval facilitating a swifter integration into standard care.

RESULTS

We propose that the opportunity of applying EBCD in such trials lies in improving the delivery of person-centered care, care coordination, and support during the transition from experimental to standard care. Three potential challenges when applying EBCD in early-phase clinical trials are discussed related to: the need for standardization in trial processes; planning EBCD in a context of high uncertainty; and vulnerability of patient populations.

CONCLUSION

Integrating EBCD into early-phase oncology trials presents an opportunity to enhance person-centered care and can lead to simultaneous improvements in care processes and therapeutic development.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This article has been developed with the collaboration of a patient partner who serves on the advisory board of our ongoing EBCD study in early clinical trials.

Opportunities for Expanding the Integration of Palliative Care in Oncology Care

Patients with cancer and their families comprise a significant population served by palliative care. Close collaboration between oncology clinicians and palliative care teams has demonstrated improved patient-centered care, especially when this care is integrated early in the course of the disease. The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently released their updated clinical practice guidelines for palliative care in oncology, which provide new opportunities for collaboration to expand the scope of care.

Palliative Care for Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based guidance to oncology clinicians, patients, nonprofessional caregivers, and palliative care clinicians to update the 2016 ASCO guideline on the integration of palliative care into standard oncology for all patients diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical, radiation, hematology-oncology, oncology nursing, palliative care, social work, ethics, advocacy, and psycho-oncology experts. The Panel conducted a literature search, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 2015-2023. Outcomes of interest included quality of life (QOL), patient satisfaction, physical and psychological symptoms, survival, and caregiver burden. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 52 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Evidence-based recommendations address the integration of palliative care in oncology. Oncology clinicians should refer patients with advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies to specialized interdisciplinary palliative care teams that provide outpatient and inpatient care beginning early in the course of the disease, alongside active treatment of their cancer. For patients with cancer with unaddressed physical, psychosocial, or spiritual distress, cancer care programs should provide dedicated specialist palliative care services complementing existing or emerging supportive care interventions. Oncology clinicians from across the interdisciplinary cancer care team may refer the caregivers (eg, family, chosen family, and friends) of patients with cancer to palliative care teams for additional support. The Expert Panel suggests early palliative care involvement, especially for patients with uncontrolled symptoms and QOL concerns. Clinicians caring for patients with solid tumors on phase I cancer trials may also refer them to specialist palliative care.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Informed Consent among Clinical Trial Participants with Different Cancer Diagnoses

IMPORTANCE

Informed consent is essential to ethical, rigorous research and is important to recruitment and retention in cancer trials.

OBJECTIVE

To examine cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants' perceptions of informed consent processes and variations in perceptions by cancer type.

DESIGN AND SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional survey from mixed-methods study at National Cancer Institute-designated Northeast comprehensive cancer center. Open-ended and forced-choice items addressed: (1) enrollment and informed consent experiences and (2) decision-making processes, including risk-benefit assessment. Eligibility: CCT participant with gastro-intestinal or genitourinary, hematologic-lymphatic malignancies, lung cancer, and breast or gynecological cancer (N = 334).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Percentages satisfied with consent process and information provided; and assessing participation's perceptions of risks/benefits. Multivariable logistic or ordinal regression examined differences by cancer type.

RESULTS

Most patient-participants felt well informed by the consent process (more than 90% overall and by cancer type) and. most (87.4%) reported that the consent form provided all the information they wanted, although nearly half (44.8%) reported that they read the form somewhat carefully or less. More than half (57.9%) said that talking to research staff (i.e., the consent process) had a greater impact on participation decisions than reading the consent form (2.1%). A third (31.1%) were very sure of joining in research studies before the informed consent process (almost half of lung cancer patients did-47.1%). Most patients personally assessed the risks and benefits before consenting. However, trust in physicians played an important role in the decision to enroll in CCT.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Cancer patients rely less on written features of the informed consent process than on information obtained from the research staff and their own physicians. Research should focus on information and communication strategies that support informed consent from referring physicians, researchers, and others to improve patient risk-benefit assessment and decision-making.

Rhetoric of research: a call for renaming the clinical research partnership

OBJECTIVE

Research cannot advance without the voluntary participation of human participants.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Full participation of research participants is often restrained by the traditional research framework, which relegates them to a predefined participant role and allows them only quasi-scripted opportunities to contribute to research processes and outcomes. Terms commonly used to refer to research participants do not reflect their significant role or send a clear message about their value. The authors propose a shift from 'patient participant' to 'participant partner.' Recognition of the true partnership between the participant and the research team, from the consent process to the trial's end, will encourage and enable fuller participation.

CONCLUSION

Changing the rhetoric of research in the labelling of research participants will require dialogue. 'Respect for persons' demands it, and the research process will be better for it.

Survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer: MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations

PURPOSE

People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared to those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end-of-life. These MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer.

METHODS

An expert panel comprising MASCC and ASCO members was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting: (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process.

RESULTS

A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including 8 people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low-to-middle resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥ 94.8% agreement for seven standards (1. Person-Centred Care; 2. Coordinated and Integrated Care; 3. Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; 4. Evaluated and Communicated Care; 5. Accessible and Equitable Care; 6. Sustainable and Resourced Care; 7. Research and Data-Driven Care) and ≥ 84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards will support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders in cancer care (healthcare professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers. Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.

How can we support research participants who stop taking part? Communications guidance developed through public-researcher collaboration

BACKGROUND

Research study participants can stop taking part early, in various circumstances. Sometimes this experience can be stressful. Providing participants with the information they want or need when they stop could improve participants' experiences, and may benefit individual studies' objectives and research in general. A group of public contributors and researchers at the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, aimed to develop a communication template and researcher guidance. This would address how to provide information sensitively around the time when participants stop or significantly reduce their level of participation.

METHODS

The project lead used scoping review methods to identify relevant prior evidence and derive a list of potential information topics to communicate to participants who stop taking part. The topic list was reviewed by research professionals and public contributors before finalisation. Further public contributors were identified from a range of networks. The contributors formed a 'development group', to work on the detail of the planned resources, and a larger 'review group' to review the draft output before finalisation. The involvement was planned so that the development group could shape the direction and pace of the work.

RESULTS

The literature review identified 413 relevant reports, resulting in 94 information topics. The review suggested that this issue has not been well explored previously. Some evidence suggested early-stopping participants are sometimes excluded from important communications (such as study results) without clear justification. The development group agreed early to focus on guidance with reusable examples rather than a template. We took time to explore different perspectives and made decisions by informal consensus. Review group feedback was broadly positive but highlighted the need to improve resource navigability, leading to its final online form.

CONCLUSIONS

We co-developed a resource to provide support to research participants who stop taking part. A strength of this work is that several of the public contributors have direct lived experience of stopping research participation. We encourage others to review the resource and consider how they support these participants in their studies. Our work highlights the value of researchers and participants working together, including on complex and ethically challenging topics.

Benefit assessment of extended dosing in cancer patients after their withdrawal from clinical trials

Background: Clinical trials have been widely recognized as an effective treatment approach by physicians and cancer patients alike. Physicians' evaluations suggest that many patients are likely to continue experiencing benefits from extended dosing of investigational new drugs even after withdrawing from clinical trials. Objective: Given the uncertainty surrounding the efficacy and safety of investigational new drugs, it is essential to continually assess the benefits of extended dosing for patients. Methods: The trial group for this study comprised patients who requested extended dosing after withdrawing from clinical trials at Hunan Cancer Hospital between 2016 and 2020. The control group consisted of patients who received conventional treatment and were enrolled in a 1:1 ratio. Follow-up assessments were conducted every 3 months for both groups, and included monitoring of patients' health status, survival time, disease control or remission, treatment modalities received, and medical costs. Results: A total of twenty-three patient pairs were successfully matched for this study. The Ethics Committee approved extended dosing for all patients in the trial group, with an average gap period of 16.48 days between their withdrawal from clinical trials and continuous access to the investigational drugs. The median overall survival for patients after withdrawal from clinical trials was 17.3 months in the extended dosing group and 12.9 months in the control group, with no significant difference observed between the two groups (p > 0.250). The median total cost of treatment after the previous clinical trial was 38,006.76 RMB, of which the median cost of therapeutic drugs for conventional treatment was 15,720 RMB, while extended dosing was provided free of charge. Conclusion: Extended dosing can indeed provide benefits, including survival benefits and economic benefits, to cancer patients after their withdrawal from clinical trials and will clinically present an additional treatment option for patients.

Palliative care integration for patients on phase I cancer clinical trials

Early integration of palliative care (PC) is recommended as standard of care for patients with advanced cancer. However, challenges remain for both medical oncologists and PC specialists in knowing how to best integrate PC within the dynamic landscape of cancer therapeutics and drug development. Over the last several years in oncology, the success of immunotherapy and molecularly targeted agents has led to a greater demand for novel agents and expansion of objectives of early phase clinical trials. This has in turn created more nuance when discussing prognosis and supporting patients with advanced disease and their caregivers. This review article presents the current literature to support the integration of PC within investigational oncology, as a mechanism to address the evolving needs of patients and caregivers, during and beyond participation on phase I cancer clinical trials.

Effects of digital psychological interventions on physical symptoms in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of digital psychological interventions to improve physical symptoms (i.e., fatigue, pain, disturbed sleep, and physical well-being) among cancer patients, as well as to evaluate the variables that possibly moderate intervention effects.

METHODS

Nine databases were searched for the literature up to February 2023. Two reviewers independently conducted a quality assessment. Effect sizes were reported as the standardized mean difference (Hedge's g) and estimated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 44 randomized clinical trials comprising 7200 adults with cancer. Digital psychological interventions were associated with significant improvements in short-term fatigue (g = -0.33; 95% CI, -0.58 to -0.07) and disturbed sleep (g = -0.36; 95% CI, -0.57 to -0.15), but with non-significant changes in pain (g = -0.23; 95% CI, -0.68 to 0.21) and physical well-being (g = 0.31; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.80). Additionally, no alleviation in long-term physical symptoms was observed. In subgroup analysis, results suggest that the country significantly moderated the effectiveness of digital psychological interventions in alleviating fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital psychological interventions can be effective for improving short-term fatigue and disturbed sleep in patients with cancer. Clinicians could consider digital psychological interventions as a possible and efficient addition to better manage some of the physical symptoms during and after cancer treatment.

Patient communication and experiences in cancer clinical drug trials: a mixed-method study at a specialist clinical trials unit

BACKGROUND

As cancer therapies increase in their complexity, effective communication among patients, physicians, and research staff is critical for optimal clinical trial management. Currently, we understand little about on-trial communication practices and patient trial experiences over time. This mixed-method study explored patient experiences of participating in a clinical drug trial at different time points, focussing on patient communication with trial staff.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in clinical drug trials conducted at the Parkville Cancer Clinical Trials Unit were invited to complete a tailored online survey and/or a qualitative interview. Patients were recruited to three cohorts based on time since the first trial treatment: new (≥ 1 to ≤ 13 weeks), mid- (≥ 14 to ≤ 26 weeks), and long-term (≥ 52 weeks) trial patients. Descriptive statistics were calculated for survey responses. Interview data were analysed thematically with a team-based approach. Survey and interview data were integrated at the intepretation stage.

RESULTS

From May to June 2021, 210 patients completed a survey (response rate 64%, 60% male), 20 completed interviews (60% male), and 18 completed both. More long-term trial patients (46%) participated than new (29%) and mid-trial patients (26%). Survey data showed high (> 90%) patient satisfaction with the provision of trial information and communication with trial staff across trial stages, and many reported trial experiences as above and beyond standard care. Interview data indicated that written trial information could be overwhelming, and verbal communication with the staff and physicians was highly valued, especially for enrolment and side effect management among long-term patients. Patients described the key points along the clinical trial trajectory that merit close attention: clear and well-communicated randomisation practices, reliable pathways for side effect reporting and prompt response from the trial staff, and end-of-trial transition management to avoid a sense of abandonment.

CONCLUSION

Patients reported high overall satisfaction with trial management but outlined key pinch points requiring improved communication practices. Establishing a range of effective communication practices among trial staff and physicians with patients in cancer clinical trials may have a wide range of positive effects on patient accrual, retention, and satisfaction.

Procedures for application of the extended dosing after antitumor drug clinical trials

New drug clinical trials have been considered as a positive way for treating cancer by cancer patients and doctors, and the extended dosing is a special way for patients' withdrawal from antitumor clinical trials to obtain investigational new drugs. However, neither the regulations of expanded dosing nor the detail documents for expanded dosing have been officially published in China. At present, expanded dosing of investigational drugs is still at the exploratory stage in various medical institutions, and a complete management system has not been established to meet patients' urgent needs for drug use. Based on the practical experience of extended dosing in Hunan Cancer Hospital, this paper preliminarily explored the application procedures and ethical review requirements of extended dosing for subjects in antitumor clinical trials. It is necessary to clarify the responsibilities of all patients in the procedure and establish a patient-medical institution-sponsor joint application system. In the process of ethical review, it is recommended that all parties fully consider the risks and benefits of extended dosing for patients, and then the ethics committee makes a comprehensive assessment to decide whether to approve extended dosing.

"If only I had", patients' experiences during early oncology trials

PURPOSE

Until today, it is not clear why patients decide to continue with early clinical trial (ECT) participation. Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore to which extent the self-determination theory of Ryan and Deci, according to the ECT enrollment phase, corresponds to the motivations of participants during ECT's.

METHODS

This study has a qualitative design. Data were collected using semistructured interviews and were deductively analyzed in Nvivo12 using the thematic analysis approach of Braun and Clarke.

RESULTS

As a result of the deductive analysis performed, six themes and twenty subthemes emerged which matched the three personal needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy (n = 11). "Competence" included the following themes: mixed future expectations, treatment expectations, and control of the outcome. "Relatedness" included the theme altruistic motivation. "Autonomy" included the themes; to live and act in harmony as well as mental and physical burden.

CONCLUSION

Participants felt they tried everything and that they were treated to the limit. This not only gives the motivation to continue participating but also a sense of altruism. Despite different burdens, side-effects, and the feeling of being a test subject, the participants will not easily choose to stop participation in order to prevent saying afterwards: "If only I had".

Early Termination of Oncology Clinical Trials in the United States

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the rate of early trial discontinuation of oncology trials and reasons for early termination, to assess potential trends in rates of oncology trial termination, and to perform a comprehensive analysis of predictors of early termination. This study intends to inform efforts in improving efficiency of the oncology clinical trial enterprise.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study of interventional cancer clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov database from September 27, 2007 to June 30, 2015, with at least one site listed in the United States. We evaluated predictors of early trial termination using Fisher exact or χ² tests and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 8687 trials, 22.74% (n = 1975) were terminated trials. Rates of early trial termination appeared stable over the study. Statistically significant univariate predictors of early termination for any reason include cancer category, phase, funding source, location, and age. In multivariable analysis, trials spanning multiple cancer categories and international trials were less likely to terminate early whereas phase 2 trials and trials funded by academia/foundation were more likely to terminate early. The most common reason for early termination was "Other, Multiple Reasons, or Unknown" (36.9%), followed by accrual issues (34.5%). In multivariate analysis among all terminated trials, supportive care trials, phase 2 trials, and non-industry funded trials had significantly higher odds of trial discontinuation specifically due to poor accrual.

CONCLUSION

In this national sample of cancer clinical trials, early trial discontinuation was common. Many factors influenced early trial termination with poor accrual being a common reason. Specific trial features are associated with differential likelihood of early trial termination for any reason and for early trial termination due to poor accrual.

Caregiver Perspectives on the Benefits, Burdens, and Moral Distress of Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials

Caregivers often face critical decisions, burdens, and perceived benefits related to a loved one participating in cancer clinical trial (CCTs). The purpose of this analysis was to better understand caregivers' perceptions on the benefits and burdens of participation in cancer clinical trials. Using a qualitative descriptive design, interviews with 20 caregivers of patient-participants from a larger parent study were conducted. Three major themes emerged. The benefits of research participation focused on enhancing the potential for saving a loved one's life, improving quality of life, and holding altruistic intentions. The burden of research participation emphasized a loved one's suffering as well as physical, emotional, logistical, and financial burden to caregivers. Caregiver moral distress highlighted distressing ethical encounters, such as making decisions on research participation and navigating suboptimal care. Understanding caregiver perceptions is an important step in designing future CCTs that minimize burdens and maximize patient and caregiver health and family-centered care.

Participation in and withdrawal from cancer clinical trials: A survey of clinical research coordinators

Objective

Poor accrual and withdrawal are the main reasons for the failure of cancer clinical trials. As clinical research coordinators (CRCs) work at the frontlines of clinical trials, CRCs can best identify the main factors that influence patient participation and dropout and suggest potential remedial measures. This study aimed to investigate participation and withdrawal in cancer clinical trials through a survey of CRCs. Furthermore, we collected suggestions of CRCs to increase patient participation and reduce withdrawal from cancer clinical trials.

Methods

This cross-sectional survey among 100 CRC nurses currently coordinating cancer clinical trials and having more than six months of experience was conducted at four hospitals in South Korea between March and August 2021. We designed a questionnaire based on prior studies, and the key items included characteristics of respondents, characteristics of clinical trials, clinical trial participation, and withdrawal.

Results

Patients refused to participate due to concern about adverse events (46.5%) and negative perception of clinical trials (44.4%). The main reasons for study withdrawal were disease progression (71.5%), adverse events (10.6%), and withdrawal of consent due to personal issues (5.5%). The provision of sufficient explanation was suggested as a remedial measure for increasing consent to participate (67.4%) and reducing withdrawal (21.8%).

Conclusions

A survey of CRCs revealed the reasons governing patient participation and withdrawal in cancer clinical trials, thereby providing a novel insight into strategies for promoting subject enrollment and reducing withdrawal from cancer clinical trials.