Patient entry into randomized controlled trials of colorectal cancer treatment: factors influencing participation

Factors that influence clinical trial participation for oncology patients in Australia: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Ensuring equity in clinical trials has been declared a global priority. Australia is competitive in the international clinical trial sphere. We aimed to explore factors that influence oncology clinical trial participation in Australia.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

On 27 May 2024, a systematic search using a predefined strategy was conducted across four electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and Scopus), grey literature and hand searches.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All cancer (haematological and non-haematological) clinical trials that discussed factors influencing participation in Australia were included. There were no language or age restrictions.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted using a predesigned extraction tool. Quantitative results were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were synthesised using a framework method into four domains (1) patients, (2) healthcare professionals, (3) clinical trials and (4) health services.

RESULTS

Of 1084 citations identified, 393 duplicates were removed. Of the 691 titles and abstracts screened, 54 articles underwent full-text review, and 42 articles were included in the final analysis. Key factors that influence clinical trial participation were identified across all domains, many consistent with the international literature. For example, while self-reported willingness emerged as a key facilitator across diverse patient groups, cohort studies revealed lower participation rates for migrant populations, older patients and those residing in regional areas. Importantly, we were also able to identify the foundations of an evidence base of interventions that directly support increased clinical trial participation.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review contributes new findings to a body of international literature, while contributing a unique Australian perspective. These findings establish the foundations of an evidence base that supports inclusive clinical trial participation.

Success rate of acquiring informed consent and barriers to participation in a randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for non-curative stage IV colon cancer in Japan (JCOG1107)

BACKGROUND

Successful achievement of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is dependent on the acquisition of informed consent (IC) from patients. The aim of this study was to prospectively calculate the proportion of participation in a surgical RCT and to identify the reasons for failed acquisition of IC.

METHODS

A 50-insitution RCT was conducted to evaluate oncological outcomes of open and laparoscopic surgery for stage IV colon cancer (JCOG1107: UMIN-CTR 000000105). The success rate of obtaining IC was evaluated in eight periods between January 2013 and January 2021. In addition, reasons for failed acquisition of IC were identified from questionnaires.

RESULTS

In total, 391 patients were informed of their eligibility for the trial, and 168 (42%) were randomly assigned to either the laparoscopic surgery group (n = 84) or open surgery group (n = 84). The success rate of IC acquisition ranged from 33 to 58% in three periods. The most common reasons for failed IC acquisition were the patients' preference for one approach of surgery based on recommendations from referring doctors and family members, and anxiety/unhappiness about randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

The success rate of acquiring IC from patients for an RCT of laparoscopic versus open surgery for stage IV colon cancer was lower than the expected rate planned in the protocol. To obtain the planned rate, investigators should make efforts to inform patients and their families about the medical contributions a surgical RCT can make and recognize that the period in equipoise may be limited.

The attitude of patients with progressive ataxias towards clinical trials

Background

The development of new therapies may rely on the conduct of human experimentation as well as later clinical trials of therapeutic interventions. Ethical considerations seek to protect the patient from risk but few have sought to ascertain the attitude to such risk of patients with progressive debilitating or terminal conditions, for which no mitigating or curative therapies exist. Such understanding is also important if recruitment is to be maximized. We therefore sought to define the motivations for and barriers to trial participation amongst patients with progressive ataxias, as well as their condition-specific trial preferences.

Methods

We conducted an online survey consisting of 29 questions covering four key domains (demographics, personal motivation, drug therapy and study design) relating to the design of clinical trials. Two major ataxia charities, Ataxia UK and the Friedreich’s Ataxia Research Alliance (FARA) sent the survey to their members. Responses were analysed by disease and by ambulatory status.

Results

Of 342 respondents, 204 reported a diagnosis of Friedreich’s ataxia (FRDA), 55 inherited cerebellar ataxia (CA) and 70 idiopathic CA. The most important symptoms to be addressed by a trial were considered to be balance problems and ambulation, although these were superseded by speech problems in wheelchair users. Common motivations for participation were potential benefits to self and others. Reasons for non-participation included concerns about side effects, and the burden and cost of travel. Financial reimbursement for expenses was reported to be likely to increase trial engagement, Phase two trials were the most popular to participate in, and the use of a placebo arm was seen as a disincentive. Across all disease subgroups, drug repurposing trials proved popular and just under 70% of participants would be prepared to undergo intrathecal drug administration.

Conclusions

Knowledge of motivations for and barriers to trial participation as well as the acceptability of investigations, time commitments and routes of drug administration should inform better, more patient focused trial design. This in turn may improve recruitment and retention of participants to future trials.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13023-021-02091-x.

The effects of releasing early results from ongoing clinical trials

Most trials do not release interim summaries on efficacy and toxicity of the experimental treatments being tested, with this information only released to the public after the trial has ended. While early release of clinical trial data to physicians and patients can inform enrollment decision making, it may also affect key operating characteristics of the trial, statistical validity and trial duration. We investigate the public release of early efficacy and toxicity results, during ongoing clinical studies, to better inform patients about their enrollment options. We use simulation models of phase II glioblastoma (GBM) clinical trials in which early efficacy and toxicity estimates are periodically released accordingly to a pre-specified protocol. Patients can use the reported interim efficacy and toxicity information, with the support of physicians, to decide which trial to enroll in. We describe potential effects on various operating characteristics, including the study duration, selection bias and power.

Re-evaluating "Success" as It Pertains to Surgical Trials

The objective of this article is to review the difficulties with the design and interpretation of surgical clinical trials. Few surgical procedures are evaluated in a randomized fashion. There are a number of factors that make the design of surgical trials diffiuclt, and many surgical questions cannot be answered with a clinical trial. Issues with standardization of the surgical procedure, variability of surgical skills, and changes in surgical expertise over time further complicate the design and implementation of surgical trials. Statistical methods for surgical trials often require a noninferiorty design and are more complicated to interpret than the more common superiority trial. Even when properly conducted, both superiority and noninferiority trials are often misinterpreted. Because of the relatively high success rate in surgery, trials require large numbers of patients and noninferiority trials are often inconclusive with respect to the primary outcome. Surgical trials are often misinterpreted or over interpreted, and there can be confusion in how the findings of these trials should be incorportated into clinical practice. The interpretation of the results of a surgical trial often differ significantly from the primary and secondary outcomes that were specified in the trial design.

YouTube Videos as a Source of Information About Clinical Trials: Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are essential to the advancement of cancer treatment but fewer than 5% of adult cancer patients enroll in a trial. A commonly cited barrier to participation is the lack of understanding about clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

Since the internet is a popular source of health-related information and YouTube is the second most visited website in the world, we examined the content of the top 115 YouTube videos about clinical trials to evaluate clinical trial information available through this medium.

METHODS

YouTube videos posted prior to March 2017 were searched using selected keywords. A snowballing technique was used to identify videos wherein sequential screening of the autofill search results for each set of keywords was conducted. Video characteristics (eg, number of views and video length) were recorded. The content was broadly grouped as related to purpose, phases, design, safety and ethics, and participant considerations. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess associations between video type (cancer vs noncancer) and video characteristics and content.

RESULTS

In total, 115 videos were reviewed. Of these, 46/115 (40.0%) were cancer clinical trials videos and 69/115 (60.0%) were noncancer/general clinical trial videos. Most videos were created by health care organizations/cancer centers (34/115, 29.6%), were oriented toward patients (67/115, 58.3%) and the general public (68/115, 59.1%), and were informational (79/115, 68.7%); altruism was a common theme (31/115, 27.0%). Compared with noncancer videos, cancer clinical trials videos more frequently used an affective communication style and mentioned the benefits of participation. Cancer clinical trial videos were also much more likely to raise the issue of costs associated with participation (odds ratio [OR] 5.93, 95% CI 1.15-29.46) and advise patients to communicate with their physician about cancer clinical trials (OR 4.94, 95% CI 1.39-17.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, YouTube clinical trial videos provided information on many aspects of trials; however, individual videos tended to focus on selected topics with varying levels of detail. Cancer clinical trial videos were more emotional in style and positive in tone and provided information on the important topics of cost and communication. Patients are encouraged to verify and supplement YouTube video information in consultations with their health care professionals to obtain a full and accurate picture of cancer clinical trials to make an adequately informed decision about participation.

Factors associated with non-participation and dropout among cancer patients in a cluster-randomised controlled trial

We investigated the impact of demographic and disease related factors on non-participation and dropout in a cluster-randomised behavioural trial in cancer patients with measurements taken between hospitalisation and 6 months thereafter. The percentages of non-participation and dropout were documented at each time point. Factors considered to be potentially related with non-participation and dropout were as follows: age, sex, marital status, education, income, employment status, tumour site and stage of disease. Of 1,338 eligible patients, 24% declined participation at baseline. Non-participation was higher in older patients (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.1, CI: 0.6-0.9) and those with advanced disease (OR 2.0, CI: 0.1-1.3). Dropout by 6 months was 25%. Dropout was more frequent with increased age (OR 2.8, CI: 0.8-1.2), advanced disease (OR 3.0, CI: 1.0-1.2), being married (OR 2.4, CI 0.7-1.1) and less frequent with university education (OR 0.4, CI -1.3 to -0.8) and middle income (OR 0.4, CI -0.9 to -0.7). When planning clinical trials, it is important to be aware of patient groups at high risk of non-participation or dropout, for example older patients or those with advanced disease. Trial designs should consider their special needs to increase their rate of participation.

Success rate of informed consent acquisition and factors influencing participation in a multicenter randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for stage II/III colon cancer in Japan (JCOG0404)

INTRODUCTION

Successful completion of randomized controlled trials (RCT) is dependent on informed consent (IC) acquisition from patients. The aim of this study was to prospectively calculate the proportion of participation in a surgical RCT and to identify the reasons for failed IC acquisition.

METHODS

A 30-institute RCT was conducted to evaluate oncological outcomes of open and laparoscopic surgery for stage II/III colon cancer (JCOG0404: UMIN-CTR C000000105). The success rate of obtaining IC, which was supported by a DVD that helped patients understand this trial, was evaluated in eight periods between October 2004 and March 2009. In addition, reasons for failed IC acquisition were identified from questionnaires.

RESULTS

A total of 1767 patients were informed of their eligibility for the trial, and 1057 (60%) were randomly assigned to either the laparoscopic surgery (n = 529) or open surgery (n = 528) group. The success rate of IC acquisition ranged from 50% to 62% in eight periods. The most common reasons for failed IC acquisition were anxiety/unhappiness about the randomization, patients' preference for one form of surgery, and strong recommendations from referring doctors or relatives.

CONCLUSIONS

With the assistance of a DVD, high success rates of IC acquisition were obtained for an RCT of laparoscopic versus open surgery for stage II/III colon cancers. To obtain such a rate, investigators should make efforts to inform patients, their relatives, and referring doctors about the medical contributions a surgical RCT can make.

Quality of reporting on patient and public involvement within surgical research: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Recruitment difficulties are a well-reported concern in surgical literature, which may be improved by patient and public involvement (PPI). PPI within research has been defined as being conducted "with" or "by" patients or members of the public rather than being "about" or "for" them. However, the extent to which PPI is used within surgical research is unknown.

METHODS

Surgical literature was systematically reviewed using EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed. Search terms related to (i) patients, (ii) involvement, (iii) perioperative care, and (iv) impact. Quality of PPI reporting was evaluated using the GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public checklist and the guidelines developed by Wright and Foster. A patient representative advised on the purpose and analysis of this systematic review.

RESULTS

Eight articles described PPI in surgical trials to improve the identification of research topics, study design, recruitment, retention, and data collection. Quality of PPI reporting was suboptimal, as none of the articles provided a clear account of how PPI was conceptualized. Training and support for patients, their involvement in dissemination, and a critique of the limitations of PPI were not reported. However, it was not clear whether this represents an underutilization of PPI or purely suboptimal reporting in surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a paucity of surgical research reporting upon PPI, and the quality of reporting is low. Further research to define appropriate standards for reporting on PPI activities may facilitate broadening the utilization and impact of PPI in surgical research.

Cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation: an integrative review with implications for patients' relational autonomy

PURPOSE

Oncology clinical trials are necessary for the improvement of patient care as they have the ability to confirm the efficacy and safety of novel cancer treatments and in so doing, contribute to a solid evidence base on which practitioners and patients can make informed treatment decisions. However, only 3-5 % of adult cancer patients enroll in clinical trials. Lack of participation compromises the success of clinical trials and squanders an opportunity for improving patient outcomes. This literature review summarizes the factors and contexts that influence cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation.

METHODS

An integrative review was undertaken within PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases for articles written between 1995 and 2012 and archived under relevant keywords. Articles selected were data-based, written in English, and limited to adult cancer patients.

RESULTS

In the 51 articles reviewed, three main types of factors were identified that influence cancer patients' decision making about participation in clinical trials: personal, social, and system factors. Subthemes included patients' trust in their physician and the research process, undue influence within the patient-physician relationship, and systemic social inequalities. How these factors interact and influence patients' decision-making process and relational autonomy, however, is insufficiently understood.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research is needed to further elucidate the sociopolitical barriers and facilitators of clinical trial participation and to enhance ethical practice within clinical trial enrolment. This research will inform targeted education and support interventions to foster patients' relational autonomy in the decision-making process and potentially improve clinical trial participation rates.

Assessment of perceived cost to the patient and other barriers to clinical trial participation

PURPOSE

Less than 5% of patients with cancer participate in trials. Few studies have specifically addressed the role of cost to the patient as an influence on trial participation. Our main purpose was to determine the importance of added cost as a barrier to clinical trial participation in the community setting. Our secondary goal was to determine the most prevalent barriers to trial participation for patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Four community practices in New England issued surveys to consecutive cohorts of patients with cancer. Patients were assessed for eligibility for clinical trials at their practice site. Trial-eligible patients who declined participation were asked to select reasons that contributed to their decision.

RESULTS

Surveys were issued to 1,755 patients. Seventy-one percent of all trial-eligible patients returned surveys. Forty-four percent of nonparticipating trial-eligible patients did not recall hearing about clinical trials from their provider. The most common reasons cited by trial-eligible patients for declining trial participation were fear of adverse effects (50%) and discomfort with random assignment (44%). Twenty-eight percent cited concerns about added cost, and 12% noted cost as the most important factor in their decision.

CONCLUSION

Concerns about adverse effects and random assignment were the most common reasons cited by patients declining trial participation in four community oncology practices in New England. Cost considerations were important for a significant proportion of these patients. Many patients eligible for trial participation were not informed by their provider about the availability of research trials.

The feasibility of performing a randomised controlled trial for femoroacetabular impingement surgery

Objectives

The number of surgical procedures performed each year to treat femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) continues to rise. Although there is evidence that surgery can improve symptoms in the short-term, there is no evidence that it slows the development of osteoarthritis (OA). We performed a feasibility study to determine whether patient and surgeon opinion was permissive for a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) comparing operative with non-operative treatment for FAI.

Methods

Surgeon opinion was obtained using validated questionnaires at a Specialist Hip Meeting (n = 61, 30 of whom stated that they routinely performed FAI surgery) and patient opinion was obtained from clinical patients with a new diagnosis of FAI (n = 31).

Results

Clinical equipoise was demonstrated when surgeons were given clinical scenarios and asked whether they would manage a patient operatively or non-operatively. A total of 23 surgeons (77%) who routinely perform FAI surgery were willing to recruit patients into a RCT, and 28 patients (90%) were willing to participate. 75% of responding surgeons believed it was appropriate to randomise patients to non-operative treatment for ≥ 12 months. Conversely, only eight patients (26%) felt this was acceptable, although 29 (94%) were willing to continue non-operative treatment for six months. More patients were concerned about their risk of developing OA than their current symptoms, although most patients felt that the two were of equal importance.

Conclusions

We conclude that a RCT comparing operative and non-operative management of FAI is feasible and should be considered a research priority. An important finding for orthopaedic surgical trials is that patients without life-threatening pathology appear willing to trial a treatment for six months without improvement in their symptoms.

Randomized controlled trial versus comparative cohort study in verifying the therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer

A consensus regarding the therapeutic role of lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer has not been reached because of conflicting negative results of randomized controlled trials and positive results of a cohort study. Since the effects of new treatments tend to be overestimated in observational studies, positive results of an observational study should be validated by a future trial. However, special difficulties are presented in randomized controlled trials in surgery. External validity is important for guaranteeing the reliability of a result of the trial. Physicians' recruitment of eligible patients into a trial depends on the confidence of those physicians for a surgical procedure, workplace environment and feelings of personal responsibility relevant to patients' risk of recurrence. When two surgical procedures are compared in a randomized controlled trial, technical quality control may be reduced in the complicated surgery group due to experienced surgeons' non-participation. It is highly possible that the recruitment issue is a threat to external validity. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial may not be the best format for demonstrating the full benefits of complicated surgery. Multiple studies have demonstrated that the results of well-designed observational studies can be reliable and are comparable with those of randomized controlled trials. Journal editors and funding sources are requested to become more generous with observational studies, especially prospective cohort studies.

Determinants of informed consent in a cataract surgery clinical trial: why patients participate

OBJECTIVE

To identify the determinants of patients' decision-making for participation in a cataract surgery clinical trial in a tertiary care hospital.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

PARTICIPANTS

We interviewed by questionnaire 40 patients scheduled to have cataract surgery.

METHODS

The data collected from patients included attitudes about informed consent, evaluation of the provision of information, and sociodemographic variables.

RESULTS

Overall, 20 (50%) patients consented to enter the trial. All patients (n = 20;100%) in the consenting group expected positive implications compared to 6 (30%) in the nonconsenting group, who expected negative implications (p = 0.008). The majority of patients (90%) in the nonconsenting group felt that the degree of risk incurred by undergoing trial treatment was moderate to high. The perceived burden imposed on daily life by participating was seen by the nonconsenting group to be moderately higher in 11 patients (55%) compared to 3 patients (15%) in the consenting group (p = 0.026). Of the nonconsenting patients, 50% were dissatisfied with the attitudes of medical experiments as compared to 2% of those who did consent (p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

The major reasons for participation in a cataract surgery trial were (i) expected positive implications resulting from involvement; and (ii) satisfaction with the attitudes of medical experiments. Patients who refused to enter the trial felt that the degree of risk as well as the burden imposed on daily life by participating were high. Demographic variables did not have any impact on a patients' decisions to accept or decline entry into the trial.

Motivations of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension to participate in randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

There is substantial need to rigorously evaluate existing and new therapies for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and other severe and relatively rare conditions affecting younger patients. However, the ability to conduct meaningful randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in such contexts often is limited by difficulties obtaining adequate patient enrollment.

PURPOSE

To understand the motivations of patients with PAH for participating in RCTs so as to facilitate enrollment in future trials among patients with similar diseases.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews of a diverse sample of patients with World Health Organization (WHO) Group I PAH. We purposefully recruited a diverse sample of participants until theoretical saturation was reached. We randomly assigned patients to review hypothetical RCTs that did or did not allow continuation of background PAH therapies and elicited their reasons for or against enrolling. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using constant comparison techniques to code and sort data into discrete themes.

RESULTS

The 26 PAH patients enrolled before theoretical saturation was reached identified 24 factors that would influence their RCT enrollment decisions. These factors grouped naturally into four themes: (1) personal medical benefits, (2) personal medical risks/harms, (3) nonmedical benefits, and (4) nonmedical burdens. Personal benefits were cited as commonly as altruistic motives. One third of the patients (9/26) suggested that they would defer enrollment decisions to their treating clinicians. Seventy-nine percent of patients (11/14) assigned to consider trials without background therapies expressed concerns about clinical deterioration (vs. 17% (2/12) among patients assigned to consider trials allowing background therapies).

LIMITATIONS

The sample was recruited from a single academic center. Furthermore, the use of hypothetical trials may not elicit identical decision-making processes as may be used among patients contemplating actual trial participation.

CONCLUSION

For PAH patients considering RCT enrollment, the potentials for personal benefit and risk are at least as important as altruistic motives. Minimizing the time demands of participating, financial remuneration, and allowing participants to continue current therapies are factors, which might enhance enrollment to trials in similar disease areas.

Demographic analysis: an update of randomized controlled studies in prostatic oncology

INTRODUCTION

: Results from randomized trials are least prone to systematic bias and represent the highest level of evidence in medical practice. We carried out a demographic analysis examining randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in prostate cancer. Particular emphasis was placed on newly conducted phase II/III RCTs between January 1997 and March 2006.

METHODS

: We searched the MEDLINE database using the heading "prostate neoplasms" between January 1997 and March 2006. The results were then crossed with the MeSHs "Clinical trial.mp. OR clinical trial.pt. OR random:.mp. OR tu.xs;" this cross-checking is considered an optimal search strategy for detecting RCTs in MEDLINE® literature. The search yielded 7831 articles in total for the defined period. Of this total number, 7314 articles were manually analyzed and excluded as they did not represent RCTs. The qualifying 517 articles were then analyzed with emphasis on modality of therapy, cohort size, principal author, participating country and journal type.

RESULTS

: Among the 517 randomized trials, most trials investigated medical therapies (42.7%). This was followed by diagnostic studies (13.2%), while the remaining categories made up 44.1%. A trend towards more completed RCTs is noted in the later years of the cohort. Cohort sizes were generally greater than 100 participants (63.1%). Urologists were the lead investigators in 48.2% of the trials. Trials were largely conducted in Europe and the United States (43.1% and 38.3%, respectively). About 7% of studies were based in Canada. Articles were generally published in surgical journals (48.4%), followed by medical journals (36.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

: Given that initial searches yielded nearly 8000 articles listed as RCTs in prostatic oncology, only a small percentage (5.4% to 8.6%) of these were actually RCTs which reported novel results. Most of the published data were either review articles or commentaries. It is abundantly clear that new recruitment strategies need to be developed to encourage patients to enrol in RCTs and that such studies need to be undertaken in urologic oncology to provide definitive answers to the abundant and unanswered questions in urologic oncology.

Participating in a cancer clinical trial? The balancing of options in the loneliness of autonomy: a grounded theory interview study

Cancer patients asked to participate in a randomised trial including chemotherapy at two university centres and a satellite centre were interviewed about perceptions and experiences (14 trial participating and 15 trial declining patients). The central phenomenon was a constant, cautious balancing of personal options searching for maximised effect, personal safety, trust, confidence and being cared for. Almost all developed a treatment preference and this was decisive for choices. Trial participants strongly wished to get the experimental treatment perceived as superior. They felt their freedom of choice being limited by randomisation. In contrast, trial decliners almost all focused on graver adverse effects related to the experimental treatment. A trusting and confident doctor-patient relationship was valued strongly. Yet, most breast cancer patients treated at the two large centres experienced a general lack of personal trust, confidence and being taken care of. The major reason was patients meeting too many physicians perceived as incompetent and unprepared. In contrast, the ovarian cancer patients treated at the satellite centre were content and satisfied with the main reason being the low number of physicians who were perceived as prepared, empathetic and knowledgeable. All patients expressed a feeling of "loneliness of autonomy" lacking sufficient knowledge and other resources to make educated choices.

Willingness of pregnant women and clinicians to participate in a hypothetical randomised controlled trial comparing vaginal delivery and elective caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Elective caesarean section is controversial in the absence of compelling evidence of the relative benefits and harms compared with vaginal delivery. A randomised trial of the two procedures to compare outcomes for women and babies would provide the best quality scientific evidence to confirm this debate but it is not known whether such a trial would be feasible.

AIMS

To ascertain the proportion of primiparas and clinicians who would participate in a hypothetical randomised controlled trial comparing vaginal delivery with elective caesarean section.

METHODS

Pregnant women (mean 22 weeks gestation) recruited from public and private antenatal clinics at a major tertiary referral centre were interviewed to ascertain their willingness to participate in a hypothetical randomised controlled trial. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to midwives, obstetricians, urogynaecologists and colorectal surgeons, and results between groups were compared.

RESULTS

One hundred pregnant women, 84 midwives, 166 obstetricians, 12 urogynaecologists and 87 colorectal surgeons participated. Only 14% (95% confidence interval (CI), 8-22) of pregnant women and 31% (95% CI, 26-36) of clinicians indicated that they would participate in a randomised controlled trial.

CONCLUSIONS

A randomised controlled trial comparing vaginal delivery and elective caesarean section may not be feasible due to low levels of willingness to participate, particularly among pregnant women.

Measuring patient preference and surgeon choice

One of the major barriers to randomized trials in the field of surgery is the presence of strong preferences for one of the treatment options. Patients and surgeons who favor strongly a particular treatment approach are usually reluctant to participate in trials where operative intervention is determined on the basis of randomization. This then affects both the feasibility of the trial in terms of achieving the required sample size as well as the generalizability of the study's findings. Therefore, measurement of patient and surgeon preference is a crucial component of the feasibility assessment for surgery trials. In this article, we introduce the Prospective Measure of Preference, which is a novel method to measure preferences that has been designed to accommodate the complexity of surgical decision-making. We also present a simple method to measure individual and community equipoise among expert clinicians to assess the feasibility of future randomized trials in surgery.

A guide to planning and executing a surgical randomized controlled trial

Evidence-based medicine requires that treatments given to patients demonstrate effectiveness. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) has become the preeminent study design to assess the efficacy of treatments. Randomized controlled trials are frequently used to evaluate pharmaceutical treatments but are less often used in surgery. The lack of surgical RCTs is partly due to ethical and methodological concerns associated with surgical interventions. We provide a guide to planning and conducting a surgical RCT.

Surgical and oncology trials for rectal cancer: Who will participate?

BACKGROUND

The assessment of patients' and clinicians' willingness to participate in clinical trials is advisable as part of a feasibility exercise prior to the commencement of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to ensure adequate support in terms of likely accrual to achieve the required sample size in a timely fashion. Furthermore, understanding why patients are unwilling to enter RCTs is imperative before the current trend of low participation can be reversed.

METHODS

Patients, colorectal surgeons, and medical and radiation oncologists, were presented with 5 different, detailed treatments for locally advanced rectal cancer. They were asked whether they would be willing to enter an RCT comparing each treatment choice. Patients who would not participate were asked to indicate their reason for refusal.

RESULTS

Patients' willingness to participate in each trial was consistently low (19% to 32%). Similar low levels of participation were indicated by each clinical subspecialty (15% to 38%). Of the scenarios, patients and clinicians were most willing to enter a trial investigating surgery plus preoperative radiotherapy. A dislike of randomization, a desire to be involved in decision-making, and quality of life considerations were the most commonly stated reasons for refusal.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the difficulties in performing RCTs in surgery and oncology. However, results suggest that improvements in communication regarding randomization and clinical trial processes and the actual, rather than perceived, side effects of treatments are strategies that may enhance patient participation.

[Perceptions of patients and physicians involved in clinical trials: an overview of the literature]

OBJECTIVE - METHOD: The purpose of this review is to explore the expectations of patients and physicians prior to participate to a clinical trial and their positive or negative experiences after participating. A systematic review of Medline database from 1966 to 2005 identified 79 papers reported patients and physicians perceptions of clinical trials (only 3 in French), whom 27 English surveys conducted on patients and physicians.

RESULTS

If primary patients' motivation for enrolment was altruistic, physicians wish to help their patient. After enrolment, the most perceived positive benefit for patients and physicians are, respectively, the emotional improvement and the greater opportunity for personal benefit offered to enrolled patients. Most physicians' negative experience included logistical difficulties while patients are unease with randomisation and often uncomfortable with medical procedures. Unlike patients, all physicians' expectations seem to be fulfilled.

CONCLUSION

The knowledge of patients' and physicians' perception of participation may improve recruitment in clinical trials.

NON-ENTRY OF ELIGIBLE PATIENTS INTO THE AUSTRALASIAN LAPAROSCOPIC COLON CANCER STUDY

BACKGROUND

There is currently a need to assess the reasons for non-entry of eligible patients into surgical randomized controlled trials to determine measures to improve the low recruitment rates in such trials.

METHODS

Reasons for non-entry of all eligible patients not recruited into the Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study were prospectively recorded using a survey completed by the participating surgeons for a period of 6 months.

RESULTS

In the 6-month period of the study, 51 (45%) out of 113 eligible patients examined by the 18 actively participating surgeons were recruited into the trial. Eighty-nine reasons were recorded for the non-entry of the 62 eligible patients. The most commonly recorded reason was preference for one form of surgery (42%) or the surgeon (31%) by the patient (45 patients (73%) in total). This was followed by lack of time (10 patients (16%)), hospital accreditation (7 patients (11%)) or staffing/equipment (6 patients (10%)). Concern about the doctor-patient relationship or causing the patient anxiety was recorded for three (5%) and two (3%) patients, respectively. Recruitment was positively associated with the availability of a data manager (chi2 = 19.91; P < 0.001, odds ratio (95% confidence interval) = 9.50 (3.53-25.53)) and negatively associated with an increased caseload (more than five eligible patients seen by the surgeon in the study period) (continuity adjusted chi2 = 16.052; P < 0.001, odds ratio (95% confidence interval) = 0.11(0.04-0.30)).

CONCLUSION

Having a preference for one form of surgery by the patient or the surgeon was the most common reason for non-entry of eligible patients in the Australasian Laparoscopic Colon Cancer Study. Concern about the doctor-patient relationship played a minimal role in determining the outcome of recruitment. Patient and surgeon preferences, caseload and the distribution of supportive staff such as data managers according to patient population density should be considered in the planning of future trials.

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.

A systematic review of reasons for nonentry of eligible patients into surgical randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The low recruitment rates into surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) threaten the validity of their findings. We reviewed the reasons for nonentry of eligible patients into surgical RCTs that would form the basis for future prospective research.

METHODS

A systematic review of the English language literature for studies reporting reasons for nonentry of eligible patients into surgical RCTs and of recommendations made to improve the low recruitment rates.

RESULTS

We reviewed 401 articles, including 94 articles presenting the results of 62 studies: 23 reports of recruitment into real surgical RCTs, 11 surveys of patients regarding hypothetical surgical RCTs, 10 surveys of clinicians and 18 literature reviews. The most frequently reported patient-related reasons for nonentry into surgical RCTs were preference for one form of treatment, dislike of the idea of randomization, and the potential for increased demands. Distrust of clinicians caused by a struggle to understand, explicit refusal of a no-treatment (placebo) arm, and the mere inability to make a decision were frequently reported in studies of real RCTs and patient surveys, but were not emphasized in surveys of clinicians and review articles. Difficulties with informed consent, the complexity of study protocols, and the clinicians' loss of motivation attributable to lack of recognition were the most commonly reported clinician-related reasons.

CONCLUSIONS

There seems to be a discrepancy between real reasons for nonentry of eligible patients into surgical RCTS and those perceived by the clinicians, which require further prospective research. A summary and discussion of main recommendations sighted in the literature is presented.

Difficult clinical decisions in gynecological oncology: identifying priorities for future clinical research

This study investigates the acceptability and feasibility of conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in gynecological oncology by ascertaining the views of the Australian Society of Gynaecologic Oncologists (ASGO) about important clinical questions in this field, current treatment preferences, and willingness to participate in trials to address these questions. Members of ASGO received a mailed survey. Thirty-one gyneoncologists participated in this study (79% response fraction). There was considerable support for an RCT (81%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 63-93%) to compare sentinel node biopsy with total groin dissection for women with vulval cancer. This clinical question was also rated as "extremely" or "very" important by 91% (95% CI, 74-98%) of respondents, who also indicated high levels of individual equipoise. Another priority for research involved the use of second-line chemotherapy for women who have rising CA125 titers. This clinical question was rated as extremely or very important by 71% (95% CI, 52-86%), exhibited high levels of individual equipoise, with 74% (95% CI, 55-88%) of respondents willing to participate in an RCT to address this issue. The conduct of surveys of representative groups of clinicians provides useful empirical data to focus clinical research efforts where they are most likely to be successful based on equipoise, feasibility, and clinical interest.

Clinical trial accrual among new cancer patients at a community-based cancer center

BACKGROUND

To the authors' knowledge, only limited data are available regarding clinical trial accrual patterns and the barriers encountered among newly diagnosed patients seen at community-based cancer centers.

METHODS

In the current study, the authors prospectively collected clinical and sociodemographic data from all adult patients seen at a community-based cancer center who had new cancers diagnosed between 2003-2004. Clinical trial enrollment decisions were noted and factors that prevented accrual were identified.

RESULTS

There was a total of 1012 new cancer patients. In 587 patients (58%), clinical trials appropriate for the diagnosis and stage of disease were not available. Among those patients for whom trials were available, 19.8% did not meet eligibility criteria, and only 9.9% of patients were enrolled. Although more trials were found to be available for women compared with men (51% vs. 32%; P < 0.01), the accrual rates were equal (11.2% vs. 7.6%; P = 0.24). Elderly patients comprised approximately 59.4% of those patients with available trials, but they were less likely to be enrolled (5.1% vs. 16.8%; P < 0.01). The major barriers to nonparticipation can be grouped into protocol limitations (68.1%), physician triage (16%), and patient decisions (15.9%). The overall accrual rate when all patients were included was 4% (42 of 1012 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

At the study institution, participation in clinical trials is reported to be low. The unavailability of appropriate clinical trials represents the most significant barrier. Continuing efforts to encourage physicians and to educate patients remain necessary. If the current study findings are found to be applicable to other community-based cancer centers, making a larger variety of clinical trials available to the community may help to improve the accrual of patients to national cancer clinical trials.

Factors influencing inclusion of patients with malignancies in clinical trials

Participation in clinical trials remains low and is a central issue in oncology. The authors identified, through a systematic review, 75 papers published up to August 2004 that report barriers to recruitment of patients in clinical trials. These barriers range from patient preference and concern about information/consent to clinical problems with protocols. Strategies to overcome barriers on the part of patients and clinicians are needed and should be carefully evaluated. Thirty-three (44%) papers reported factors related to patients as influencing the inclusion of patients, 28 (37%) reported clinician's related factors, and 37 (49%) other factors from either specific groups of patients (30 papers, 40%) and/or other scopes (13 papers, 17%). No differences in prevalence were found between papers dedicated to hematologic malignancies and solid tumors. Factors related to clinicians as influential were more frequently reported before 1995 (70%) than thereafter (25%; P = 0.0009). Reporting specific groups of patients as influential was more frequent in North American articles (50%) than in others (14%, P = 0.008). Patients' barriers included mostly patient preference (12 papers), concern about information and/or consent (11 papers), worry about uncertainty (7 papers), and/or relationship with medical team (7 papers). Concerning clinicians, incompatibility of protocol with normal practice (nine papers), problems in complying with the protocol (eight papers), and/or consent procedure (eight papers) were the most reported factors. The remaining factors mostly relied on specific groups of patients (30 papers), notably age of patients (18 papers) and/or minority population (11 papers, all from the USA). Strategies to overcome these barriers are needed and should be carefully evaluated.

All-arthroscopic versus mini-open repair of small or moderate-sized rotator cuff tears: a protocol for a randomized trial [NCT00128076]

BACKGROUND

Rotator cuff tears are the most common source of shoulder pain and disability. Only poor quality studies have compared mini-open to arthroscopic repair, leaving surgeons with inadequate evidence to support optimal, minimally-invasive repair.

METHODS/DESIGN

This randomized, multi-centre, national trial will determine whether an arthroscopic or mini-open repair provides better quality of life for patients with small or moderate-sized rotator cuff tears. A national consensus meeting of investigators in the Joint Orthopaedic Initiative for National Trials of the Shoulder (JOINTS Canada) identified this question as the top priority for shoulder surgeons across Canada. The primary outcome measure is a valid quality-of-life scale (Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC)) that addresses 5 domains of health affected by rotator cuff disease. Secondary outcomes will assess rotator cuff functionality (ROM, strength, Constant score), secondary dimensions of health (general health status (SF-12) and work limitations), and repair integrity (MRI). Outcomes are measured at baseline, at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-operatively by blinded research assistants and musculoskeletal radiologists. Patients (n = 250) with small or medium-sized cuff tears identified by clinical examination and MRI who meet eligibility criteria will be recruited. This sample size will provide 80% power to statistically detect a clinically important difference of 20% in WORC scores between procedures after controlling for baseline WORC score (alpha = 0.05). A central methods centre will manage randomization, data management, and monitoring under supervision of experienced epidemiologists. Surgeons will participate in either conventional or expertise-based designs according to defined criteria to avoid biases from differential surgeon expertise. Mini-open or all-arthroscopic repair procedures will be performed according to a standardized protocol. Central Adjudication (of cases), Trial Oversight and Safety Committees will monitor trial conduct. We will use an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), where the baseline WORC score is used as a covariate, to compare the quality of life (WORC score) at 2 years post-operatively. As a secondary analysis, we will conduct the same statistical test but will include age and tear size as covariates with the baseline score. Enrollment will require 2 years and follow-up an additional 2 years. The trial will commence when funding is in place.

DISCUSSION

These results will have immediate impact on the practice behaviors of practicing surgeons and surgical trainees at JOINTS centres across Canada. JOINTS Canada is actively engaged in knowledge exchange and will publish and present findings internationally to facilitate wider application. This trial will establish definitive evidence on this question at an international level.

Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors

BACKGROUND

Enrolling participants onto clinical trials of cancer presents an important challenge. We aimed to identify the concerns of patients with cancer about, and the barriers to, participation in clinical trials.

METHODS

We did a systematic review to assess studies of barriers to participation in experimental trials and randomised trials for validity and content. We estimated the frequency with which patients identified particular issues by pooling across studies that presented data for barriers to participation in clinical trials as proportions.

FINDINGS

We analysed 12 qualitative studies (n=722) and 21 quantitative studies (n=5452). Two qualitative studies inquired of patients who were currently enrolled onto clinical trials, and ten inquired of patients who were eligible for enrolment onto various clinical trials. Barriers to participation in clinical trials were protocol-related, patient-related, or physician-related. The most common reasons cited as barriers included: concerns with the trial setting; a dislike of randomisation; general discomfort with the research process; complexity and stringency of the protocol; presence of a placebo or no-treatment group; potential side-effects; being unaware of trial opportunities; the idea that clinical trials are not appropriate for serious diseases; fear that trial involvement would have a negative effect on the relationship with their physician; and their physician's attitudes towards the trial. Meta-analysis confirmed the findings of our systematic review.

INTERPRETATION

The identification of such barriers to the participation in clinical trials should help trialists to develop strategies that will keep to a maximum participation and cooperation in cancer trials, while informing and protecting prospective participants adequately.

Trials and tribulations: understanding motivations for clinical research participation amongst adults with cystic fibrosis

In the context of understanding motivations for clinical research participation, many authors consider issues such as informed consent and how patients perceive the research method and process. However, many investigations focus only on one method of research, most commonly the randomised controlled trial. Understanding how chronically ill members of one specific patient group respond to all requests for research participation are rare. Cystic fibrosis (CF), a genetic condition whereby those affected are used to taking a wide array of treatments and attending a specialist care centre over many years, and are generally knowledgeable about their condition, represents an ideal case for investigating how staff requests for clinical research participation are accepted or declined. Using Bloor's systems of relevance framework for risk behaviour and risk reduction, specialist CF centre patients' motivations for participation or non-participation in clinical research can be understood. The framework takes into account two sets of conceptual oppositions: habituation and calculation, constraint and volition. These oppositions represent a range along a continuum of risk behaviour rather than being absolute distinctions. Decisions to participate are influenced mainly by the patient's state of health at the time of request, the nature of the trial and the social context within which sufferers are placed. Understanding why chronically ill patients refuse some requests and yet accept others may assist researchers in designing protocols that take these factors into account and achieve the desired numbers of participants whilst protecting those in vulnerable positions.

La chirurgie factuelle et ses difficultés

Evidence based medicine can be defined as the application of the best evidence in the care of a given patient. When applied to surgical practice, it appears that this concept has some limitations. To discuss these limitations, the authors made the choice to discuss the terms the original definition. Some factors are related to the paucity and the poor quality of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses in surgery, to the difficulties to appraise the surgical publications and apply the results of randomized trials to a given patient, and to bring the surgeons more willing to endorse the principles of evidence-based medicine. But all these limitations could be overcome making evidence-based surgery not to be a simple passing fad but a formal paradigm.

Limits of Evidence-based Surgery

Evidence-based medicine can be summarized as the use of current best evidence in the care of individual patients. When applied to surgical practice, it appears clearly that the concept of evidence-based medicine involves some limitations. To discuss these limits, the author went back over the terms of the evidence-based medicine definition. Limits are related to the low quantity and quality of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses in surgery, the difficulties when critically appraising the literature and applying the results of evidence to individual patients, and bringing surgeons more willing to endorse the principles of evidence-based medicine. However all these limits can be overcome in the future, with the aim that evidence-based surgery will not be a passing fad.