Entry into clinical trials in breast cancer: the importance of specialist teams. Scottish Breast Cancer Focus Group and Scottish Cancer Therapy Network

The Importance of the Therapeutic Care Plan in Colorectal Surgery

Introduction A therapeutic plan is elaborated based on the health needs of each user, allowing a multidisciplinary team to assess diagnoses, treatment options, bonds, and optimal hospitalization time.

Objectives To identify risk management tools already used and implemented in a reference teaching hospital in the city of São Paulo and to analyze their application and risk factors in medium and large colorectal surgery.

Method Observational, longitudinal, and prospective study, with 30 patients with colorectal disease hospitalized in the surgical ward of the coloproctology service and in need of surgical treatment. In the first group, the protocol was applied with the knowledge of the researcher only, and, in the second group, with the knowledge of both the researcher and the attending physicians.

Results Sixty percent of the patients were female with a mean age of 60.93 years and body mass index (BMI) of 26.07 Kg/m2.

After surgery, patients in the first group who did not receive venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in the first 24 hours had an increased risk of having the event compared with those who returned to prophylaxis (p < 0.005), thus suggesting this prophylaxis was a protective factor against thromboembolic event (p = 0.006). This group also had a higher risk of hypoglycemia when no strict control was performed (p = 0.041).

Conclusion The compliance to hospital protocols with application monitoring, notedly in teaching places with annual admission of resident physicians, is a fundamental part of the adequate care of the patient combined with the implementation of therapeutic plans.

Conduct of neuro-oncology multidisciplinary team meetings and closing the "gaps" in the clinical management of childhood central nervous system tumors in a middle-income country

PURPOSE

Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are essential in the clinical management of pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Evaluations of the impact of MDTMs on childhood CNS tumors and clinicians' perspectives on their effectiveness are scarce.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of pediatric patients (aged <18 years) with CNS tumors diagnosed and treated in the Pediatric Hematology-Oncology Division at the University Malaya Medical Center from 2008 to 2019. We also conducted a web-based survey of the core members of the multidisciplinary team to evaluate the impact of the MDTMs.

RESULTS

During the pre-MDTM era (2008-2012), 29 CNS tumors were diagnosed and treated, and during the MDTM era (2014-2019), 49 CNS tumors were diagnosed and treated. The interval for histologic diagnosis was significantly shorter during the MDTM era (p=0.04), but the interval from diagnosis to chemotherapy or radiotherapy and the 5-year overall survival of the 78 patients did not improve (62.1% ± 9.0% vs. 68.8% ± 9.1%; p=0.184). However, the 5-year overall survival of patients with medulloblastoma or rare tumors significantly improved in the MDTM era (p=0.01). Key factors that contributed to delayed treatment and poor outcomes were postoperative complications, the facility's lack of infrastructure, poor parental education about early treatment, cultural beliefs in alternative medicine, and infection during chemotherapy. Eighteen clinicians responded to the survey; they felt that the MDTMs were beneficial in decision-making and enhanced the continuity of coordinated care.

CONCLUSION

MDTMs significantly reduced the diagnostic interval and improved the overall outcomes. However, delayed treatment remains a major challenge that requires further attention.

Multidisciplinary team decision-making in cancer and the absent patient: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To critically examine the process of multidisciplinary team (MDT) decision-making with a particular focus on patient involvement.

DESIGN

Ethnographic study using direct non-participant observation of 35 MDT meetings and 37 MDT clinics, informal interviews and formal, semistructured interviews with 20 patients and 9 MDT staff members.

SETTING

Three head and neck cancer centres in the north of England.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with a diagnosis of new or recurrent head and neck cancer and staff members who attend the head and neck cancer MDT.

RESULTS

Individual members of the MDT often have a clear view of which treatment they consider to be 'best' in any clinical situation. When disagreement occurs, the MDT has to manage how it presents this difference of opinion to the patient. First, this is because the MDT members recognise that the clinician selected to present the treatment choice to the patient may 'frame' their description of the treatment options to fit their own view of best. Second, many MDT members feel that any disagreement and difference of opinion in the MDT meeting should be concealed from the patient. This leads to much of the work of decision-making occurring in the MDT meeting, thus excluding the patient. MDT members seek to counteract this by introducing increasing amounts of information about the patient into the MDT meeting, thus creating an 'evidential patient'. Often, only highly selected or very limited information of this type can be available or known and it can easily be selectively reported in order to steer the discussion in a particular direction.

CONCLUSIONS

The process of MDT decision-making presents significant barriers to effective patient involvement. If patients are to be effectively involved in cancer decision-making, the process of MDT decision-making needs substantial review.

'The trial is owned by the team, not by an individual': a qualitative study exploring the role of teamwork in recruitment to randomised controlled trials in surgical oncology

Background

Challenges exist in recruitment to trials involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties. Collaboration is required between clinical specialty and research teams. The aim of this study was to explore how teamwork influences recruitment to a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in three centres with a purposeful sample of members of the surgical, oncology and research teams recruiting to a feasibility RCT comparing definitive chemoradiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy and surgery for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Interviews explored factors known to influence healthcare team effectiveness and were audio-recorded and thematically analysed. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken iteratively and concurrently.

Results

Twenty-one interviews were conducted. Factors that influenced how team working impacted upon trial recruitment were centred on: (1) the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting, (2) leadership of the trial, and (3) the recruitment process. The weekly MDT meeting was reported as central to successful recruitment and formed the focus for creating a ‘study team’, bringing together clinical and research teams. Shared study leadership positively influenced healthcare professionals’ willingness to participate. Interviewees perceived their clinical colleagues to have strong treatment preferences which led to scepticism regarding whether the treatments were being described to patients in a balanced manner.

Conclusions

This study has highlighted a number of aspects of team functioning that are important for recruitment to RCTs that span different clinical specialties. Understanding these issues will aid the production of guidance on team-relevant issues that should be considered in trial management and the development of interventions that will facilitate teamwork and improve recruitment to these challenging RCTs.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): ISRCTN89052791.

Obstacles to participation in randomised cancer clinical trials: a systematic review of the literature

Accrual to clinical trials continues to be a problem in many countries including Australia despite its fundamental importance to the progress of evidence-based medicine. This paper reviews the current literature addressing the obstacles to accrual excluding those related to protocol design. An electronic search of the literature identified publications in oncology specifically addressing the obstacles to participation in clinical trials. This search was supplemented by searches of key oncology journals. Obstacles fall into three main categories - clinician, patient and system; however, there are overlaps between categories. Clinician behaviour is the most important of these. Exclusion of patients for reasons other than defined eligibility criteria, concerns about increased time requirements, and suboptimal communication with patients all affect accrual. Risk management strategies for clinical trials need to be individualised to address the obstacles most likely to negatively impact on accrual. Communication between clinician and patient appears to be a greater issue than previously recognised. Time concerns need to be addressed as generational change affects the expectations of the medical workforce.

A population-based assessment of specialty physician involvement in cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are critical for evaluating new cancer therapies, but few adult patients participate in them. Physicians have an important role in facilitating patient participation in clinical trials. We examined the characteristics of specialty physicians who participate in clinical trials by enrolling or referring patients, the types of trials in which they participate, and factors associated with physicians who report greater involvement in clinical trials.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium. The study included 1533 specialty physicians who cared for colorectal and lung cancer patients (496 medical oncologists, 228 radiation oncologists, and 809 surgeons) and completed a survey conducted during 2005-2006 (response rate = 61.0%). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize physicians' personal and practice characteristics, and regression models were used to examine associations between these characteristics and physician participation in clinical trials. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

A total of 87.8% of medical oncologists, 66.1% of radiation oncologists, and 35.0% of surgeons reported referring or enrolling one or more patients in clinical trials during the previous 12 months. The mean number of patients referred or enrolled by these physicians was 17.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 15.5 to 18.9) for medical oncologists, 9.5 (95% CI = 7.7 to 11.3) for radiation oncologists, and 12.2 (95% CI = 9.8 to 14.6) for surgeons (P < .001). Specialty type, involvement in teaching, and affiliation with a Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) and/or a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center were associated with physician trial participation and enrolling more patients (all Ps < .05). Two-thirds of physicians with a CCOP or National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center affiliation reported participating in trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Features of specialty physicians' practice environments are associated with their trial participation, but many physicians at CCOPs and cancer centers do not participate.

Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review

Racial and ethnic minorities, older adults, rural residents, and individuals of low socioeconomic status are underrepresented among participants in cancer-related trials. The authors conducted a systematic review to determine the barriers to participation of underrepresented populations in cancer-related trials. Their search included English-language publications that reported original data on the recruitment of underrepresented groups to cancer treatment or prevention trials between 1966 and December 2005 in multiple electronic databases. They also hand-searched titles in 34 journals from January 2003 to December 2005 and they examined reference lists for eligible articles. Titles and abstracts were reviewed to identify relevant studies. Data on barriers to participation were synthesized both qualitatively and based on statistically significant associations with trial enrollment. Of 5257 studies that were cited, 65 studies were eligible for inclusion in the current analysis, including 46 studies on recruitment into cancer therapeutic trials, 15 studies on recruitment into prevention trials, and 4 studies on recruitment into both prevention and treatment trials. Numerous factors were reported as barriers to participation in cancer-related trials. However, only 20 of the studies reported statistically significant associations between hypothesized barriers and enrollment. The available evidence had limitations in quality regarding representativeness, justification of study methods, the reliability and validity of data-collection methods, potential for bias, and data analysis. The results indicated that underrepresented populations face numerous barriers to participation in cancer-related trials. The current systematic review highlighting the literature on recruitment of underrepresented populations to cancer trials and may be used as the evidence base toward developing an agenda for etiologic and intervention research to reduce the disparities in participation in cancer-related trials.

A systematic review highlights threats to validity in studies of barriers to cancer trial participation

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the barriers, modifiers, and benefits involved in participating in randomized controlled trials of cancer therapies as perceived by health care providers and patients.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify published and unpublished studies in any language using electronic databases searched from 1996 to 2004, contact with experts, and reference lists. All study designs were acceptable provided relevant data were reported. Two reviewers were involved in the selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment processes. Studies were combined in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Fifty-six studies met the inclusion criteria and represented the perspective of the patient or the health care provider or both. Although a range of barriers to trial participation were identified, a number of threats to the internal and external validity of the included studies limited interpretation of the evidence.

CONCLUSION

The limitations within the evidence base do not permit a clear interpretation of the barriers, moderators, and benefits involved in participation in cancer trials. We recommend that trialists prospectively identify the issues relevant to a particular trial using the current research as a starting point. We report checklists to guide this process.

Provider roles in the recruitment of underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Providers play a vital role in the successful recruitment of underrepresented patients to cancer clinical trials because they often introduce the opportunity of clinical trials. The purpose of the current systematic review was to describe provider-related factors influencing recruitment of underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials.

METHODS

To find original studies on the recruitment of underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials, electronic databases from January 1966 to December 2005 were searched; hand-searched titles in 34 journals from January 2003 to January 2006; and reference lists were examined of eligible articles. Title and abstract reviews were conducted to identify relevant studies. Potential articles were then abstracted using a structured instrument and a serial review process by 2 investigators.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were eligible for review: 13 targeted healthcare providers, 3 targeted patients/participants, and 2 targeted both providers and patients. The study designs included randomized controlled trial, concurrent controlled trial, case-control, descriptive, and qualitative. A lack of available protocols and/or a lack of provider awareness about clinical trials prevented providers from discussing the opportunity of clinical trials in 2 studies. In 14 studies, patient accrual was affected by provider attitudinal barriers relating to patient adherence to the study protocol, patient mistrust of research, patient costs, data collection costs, and/or patient eligibility. Providers' communication methods were barriers in 5 studies and promoters in 1 study.

CONCLUSIONS

A heterogeneous body of evidence suggests that several provider-related factors influence recruitment of underrepresented groups to clinical trials. Future recruitment efforts should address these factors.

Phase I Studies of Chemotherapeutic Agents in Cancer Patients: A Review of the Designs

I review the designs available for Phase I dose-finding studies of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer patients. The designs are based on the assumption that both efficacy and toxicity increase with dose, and thus attempt to minimize the number of patients treated at low doses, and also to minimize the chance that patients will be treated at excessively toxic or lethal doses. The designs fall into two classes: rule-based and model-guided. Rule-based designs can always determine a reasonable maximum tolerable dose based on observed toxicity, but when model assumptions are not satisfied, many model-guided designs will not.

Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK?

Cancer care can be complex, and given the wide range and numbers of health-care professionals involved, an enormous potential for poor coordination and miscommunication exists. Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) should improve coordination, communication, and decision making between health-care team members and patients, and hopefully produce more positive outcomes. This review describes the many practical barriers to the successful implementation of MDT working, and shows that despite an increase in the delivery of cancer services via this method, research showing the effectiveness of MDT working is scarce.

Why don’t cancer patients enter clinical trials? A review

Despite widespread agreement about the value of clinical trials, the proportion of patients who are enrolled in such trials is often considered to be too low. A comprehensive literature search was carried out for the period 1980 to the present, in order to review current data on barriers and facilitators to the development of multicentre clinical trials. Of 364 articles initially identified, 35 articles and 1 book were selected in order to assess the reasons that doctors and/or patients participate in clinical trials. This review emphasises the fact that doctors play a key role in the development and non-development of clinical trials. More studies, in particular studies outside the United States of America (USA), are needed in order better to understand doctors' attitudes towards clinical trials. Such studies should combine multivariate analyses and comparative approaches in order to associate doctors' behaviours with their individual characteristics, with the organisational context of their working environment and with the healthcare system.

The role of the multidisciplinary team in recruiting to cancer clinical trials

This research analyses factors affecting the accrual of women to two breast cancer trials, the British Association of Surgical Oncology (BASO) II trial (a treatment trial) and the International Breast cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) (a prevention trial). The research sought to identify the factors affecting the recruitment of women to breast cancer clinical trials from the multidisciplinary teams' and women's perspectives using multiple methods. This paper reports on the findings from research undertaken with multidisciplinary teams across the United Kingdom and highlights their role in recruiting people to cancer clinical trials. The findings contribute to the debate and knowledge on recruitment in a number of ways by including the views of key stakeholders concerned with these trials, by highlighting the factors affecting recruitment to these two trials, and finally, by making recommendations on methods to enhance recruitment.

Systematic review of barriers to the recruitment of older patients with cancer onto clinical trials

PURPOSE

Older patients are significantly underrepresented in cancer clinical trials. A literature review was undertaken to identify the barriers that impede the accrual of this vulnerable population onto clinical trials and to determine what specific strategies are needed to improve the representation of older patients in research studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was undertaken using several different strategies to identify relevant articles.

RESULTS

Nine of 31 relevant papers from 159 citations were included. Age is a significant barrier to recruitment; only a quarter to one third of potentially eligible older patients are enrolled onto trials. Physicians' perceptions, protocol eligibility criteria with restrictions on comorbid conditions, and functional status to optimize treatment tolerability are the most important reasons resulting in the exclusion of older patients. Other barriers include the lack of social support and the need for extra time and resources to enroll these patients. Conversely, older patients do not view their age as an important reason for refusing trials.

CONCLUSION

Specific clinical trials confined to older patients should be conducted to evaluate tumor biology, treatment tolerability, and the effect of comorbid conditions. Protocol designs need to stratify for age and be less restrictive with respect to exclusions on functional status, comorbidity, and previous cancers, such that results are generalizable to older patients. Physician education to dispel unfounded perceptions, improved access to available clinical trials, and provision of personnel and resources to accommodate the unique requirements of an older population are possible solutions to remove the barriers of ageism.

The benefit of participating to clinical research

We assessed the impact of participating to clinical research among 1727 women with localized breast cancer. Using as referent individuals not treated according to guidelines for systemic therapy, the adjusted hazard ratio of death was 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.54,0.90, p-value: 0.006) in those treated according to current guidelines and 0.45 (95% CI: 0.27,0.73, p-value: 0.001) in participants to research. Participation to clinical trials results in a substantial gain in survival.

A survey of breast cancer patients' views on entry into several clinical studies

During the course of their treatment and follow-up, women with breast cancer are likely to be asked to join a number of different clinical studies. Some local research ethics committees have expressed concerns about entry of individual patients into multiple research studies. A survey was undertaken to improve understanding of patients' own perceptions of participation in several clinical studies. A total of 96 patients who had previously undergone surgery for breast cancer from January to June 2000 were sent a questionnaire 6-12 months after completion of primary treatment. Eighty four per cent of questionnaires were returned of which 62% were from patients who had been approached to enter at least one clinical study. Sixty-four per cent of patients believed that there should not be a limit on the number of clinical studies offered to patients. Furthermore, three quarters of all patients would have considered entering more than one study if adequate explanation and written information were provided. Most patients felt that their participation in a clinical study was worthwhile and no patients surveyed regretted their decision to take part in a study. Almost two-thirds of patients who returned questionnaires believed there should not be a maximum number of studies offered to them. This survey suggests that the majority of patients are prepared to participate in more than one clinical study when adequate information and explanation are provided.

Why patients don't take part in cancer clinical trials: an overview of the literature

Clinical trials have been recognized extensively within the literature as a crucial component in the research, development and evaluation of treatment strategies within health care services. However, it has also been acknowledged that clinicians and researchers have historically experienced problems in terms of attaining adequate recruitment to clinical trials. The purpose of this review is to explore some of these questions and, more importantly, provide possible explanations for non-participation in clinical trials, with specific reference to the field of cancer research. In addition, approaches that have been used by researchers in order to explore the issue of non-participation, and suggestions in terms of the ways that further research into this key area may be undertaken, are also be considered.

Late-starter sites in randomized controlled trials

In a cohort of 14 randomized controlled trials conducted by the Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group between 1986 and 1999 with a target sample size of >400 (total enrollment 15,531 patients), we evaluated whether "late-starter" sites can make a meaningful contribution to eventual trial accrual. The sites that started recruiting within 5 months from the time the first patient entered the trial were eventually responsible for over 90% of the total enrollment in 11 of the 14 trials. Across the 14 trials, some sites were consistently among the first to start enrollment, whereas others were routinely among the last. The late-starter sites are unlikely to make important contributions to eventual trial enrollment in large clinical trials conducted by groups with a fixed number of sites. Protracting administrative efforts to add more sites many months after a multicenter trial has started may not be useful to trial accrual.

Developing user involvement in research

User involvement is central to the UK government's modernization agenda for the National Health Service (NHS). This paper represents work undertaken for the NHS National Cancer Research and Development Programme and NHS Executive Trent. It includes reflection on the experience of user involvement in health care research drawing on current UK health policy documents and an examination of the factors affecting recruitment to breast cancer clinical trials, and contributes to the debate on recruitment to clinical trials. Reference to UK policy documents is made throughout as well as real life experience of involving users in research. It summarizes key issues that nurses and midwives must consider to ensure effective user participation in research and practice.

The effect of group psychosocial support on survival in metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Supportive-expressive group therapy has been reported to prolong survival among women with metastatic breast cancer. However, in recent studies, various psychosocial interventions have not prolonged survival.

METHODS

In a multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 235 women with metastatic breast cancer who were expected to survive at least three months in a 2:1 ratio to an intervention group that participated in weekly supportive-expressive group therapy (158 women) or to a control group that received no such intervention (77 women). All the women received educational materials and any medical or psychosocial care that was deemed necessary. The primary outcome was survival; psychosocial function was assessed by self-reported questionnaires.

RESULTS

Women assigned to supportive-expressive therapy had greater improvement in psychological symptoms and reported less pain (P=0.04) than women in the control group. A significant interaction of treatment-group assignment with base-line psychological score was found (P</=0.003 for the comparison of mood variables; P=0.04 for the comparison of pain); women who were more distressed benefited, whereas those who were less distressed did not. The psychological intervention did not prolong survival (median survival, 17.9 months in the intervention group and 17.6 months in the control group; hazard ratio for death according to the univariate analysis, 1.06 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.45]; hazard ratio according to the multivariate analysis, 1.23 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.72]).

CONCLUSIONS

Supportive-expressive group therapy does not prolong survival in women with metastatic breast cancer. It improves mood and the perception of pain, particularly in women who are initially more distressed.

What is the evidence for a reduced risk of local recurrence with age among older patients treated by breast conserving therapy?

With the rising age of the population and the proposed extension of the breast screening programme to older women, increasing numbers of older patients are becoming eligible for breast conserving surgery and post-operative breast irradiation. Women over the age of 70 have traditionally been omitted from randomized controlled trials for assessing the role of breast radiotherapy after local surgery. The majority of trials suggest that local recurrence rates do decline with age. Similar conclusions are suggested by many non-randomized studies. Comparison of randomized and non-randomized studies is limited by differing extent of classifying tumour margins, nodal status, use of adjuvant systemic therapy, sample size, analytical approaches and duration of follow-up. Large randomized trials in older women are needed to assess whether, with careful attention to obtaining clear tumour margins, radiotherapy is required in low risk, ER positive, node negative breast cancer patients following wide excision and adjuvant tamoxifen. Within both randomized and non-randomized studies, only a few studies have failed to demonstrate an impact of age on recurrence rates following breast conserving treatment, with the majority finding a reduction in local recurrence rates with increasing age. Importantly for interpretation, no studies suggest that recurrence rates increase with age. The variation in analytical approaches and sample sizes are such that the variety of conclusions is not surprising. The results are compatible with a tendency for local recurrence rates to fall with age, but the variability is such that one cannot quantify this change with any precision.

Recruitment of patients with lung cancer into a randomised clinical trial: experience at two centres. On behalf of the Big Lung Trial Steering Committee

BACKGROUND

The entry of patients into randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in lung cancer is low. A study was undertaken to assess the reasons why patients with non-small cell lung cancer did not enter a trial involving randomisation to receive or not receive three courses of cisplatin based chemotherapy in addition to primary treatment by surgery, radiotherapy, or best supportive care.

METHODS

The study was carried out in two large London institutions with a special interest in recruiting patients to lung cancer trials. Patients recently diagnosed as having non-small cell lung cancer were prospectively identified and followed to see whether they entered the RCT and, if not, to identify the main reasons why.

RESULTS

Six hundred and eighty eight patients newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer were identified between November 1995 and July 1998; 274 (39.8%) were deemed ineligible for the RCT for clinical reasons, most frequently their general condition rendering them unfit for chemotherapy. Another 161 (23.4%) were ineligible for logistical reasons-for example, they were discharged to centres not participating in the RCT or they were not considered for the trial at an appropriate time in their management. Of 253 potentially eligible patients, only 63 (24.9% of those eligible) agreed to enter the RCT and four entered another study. Of those who did not enter, 77 (41.4%) declined without stating a reason, 61 (32.8%) did not want chemotherapy, and only eight (4.3%) expressed a wish to have chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite considerable time and effort, the proportion of patients recruited was small (9.2%). Many seen were ineligible but, of 253 potentially eligible patients, 186 (73.5%) refused to enter the RCT.

Accrual rate-limiting factors in a Swedish randomised ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) trial - a demographic study

In the last two decades the introduction of mammographic screening in the Western world has increased the number of diagnosed ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS) considerably. In situ carcinoma of the breast is considered a heterogeneous disease, the natural history of which is not well known. Thus, appropriate treatment needs to be established. For this reason, a randomised trial studying the effect of breast conserving operation with or without postoperative radiotherapy was instituted in Southern Sweden in 1987. The aim of the present study was to assess patient accrual, identify limiting factors, and evaluate possible ways to influence these factors in order to increase patient accrual. Between 1987 and 1992, 331 patients had been registered with DCIS in the Regional Tumour Registry, 96 of which had been randomised. All 331 were subjected to chart review studying clinical data, mammography reports, cytology and pathology reports to identify inclusion and exclusion criteria according to the design of the trial. It was found that 5% (18/331) had an incorrect diagnosis of DCIS. According to the trial protocol 52% were not eligible (162/313). Fifty-eight per cent (n=88) of the 151 eligible patients had been correctly randomised. The most common reason for exclusion was lesion size. In 21% (66/313) the lesion was 'too large'. Several other limiting factors were identified such as in cytological and pathological definitions and reports, lack of information/awareness in certain physicians, patient reluctance to participate, which in turn may be influenced by the previous factor. With increased information to participating hospitals and considering the above given facts it should be possible to increase accrual from the 28% noted in the present consecutive demographic study to at least one-third of the diagnosed cases of DCIS.

Lessons learned from enrollment in the BEST study--a multicenter, randomized trial of group psychosocial support in metastatic breast cancer

The BEST study, a multicenter randomized trial of group psychosocial support in metastatic breast cancer, had several unusual features that may have influenced recruitment, notably the group nature of the intervention and the need for close collaboration between medical and psychosocial investigators. The recruitment process was examined in light of these features. Establishment of study centers was facilitated by involvement of experienced medical investigators who had successfully collaborated in previous research projects. Systematic evaluation of potential subjects or direct recruitment by psychosocial investigators optimized recruitment; however, the group nature of the intervention prolonged recruitment. Overall, 652 women were approached and 237 (43.3% of those medically eligible) randomized. Using population-based estimates, 24.3% of women with metastatic breast cancer were assessed for the study and 8.7% randomized. A randomization ratio of 2:1 was required to form and maintain groups. Competing clinical trials were the greatest barrier to recruitment. Five lessons were learned during recruitment for this trial: (1) multicenter randomized trials of psychosocial interventions are feasible, even in very ill patients, (2) the use of a group intervention effectively increased the required sample size by 50%, (3) similarity of randomization rates suggests that generalizability of study results will probably be comparable to that of other randomized cancer trials, (4) multidisciplinary collaborations and involvement of experienced researchers facilitated enrollment, and (5) most challenges encountered in recruitment were similar to those seen in all clinical trials.

In pursuit of excellence for patients with cancer: the Scottish Cancer Therapy Network model

The Scottish Cancer Therapy Network (SCTN) was created against a background of rising concerns about perceived variation in the quality of care available to patients with cancer. SCTN has established itself as a major organization with the necessary recognition and infrastructure to provide leadership, support and impetus in the field of clinical guidelines, clinical audit and clinical trials of cancer therapy in Scotland. Since being formed in 1993, SCTN has been instrumental in the development of three evidence-based, clinical guidelines and in the completion of detailed, national, retrospective audits of the treatment of five major tumour sites. The infrastructure has been used successfully to support and encourage trial participation. Challenges for the future are a re-orientation towards prospective audit, widening the constituency and sense of ownership of SCTN as a resource for practising clinicians, and further increasing recruitment into clinical trials.