1
|
Pillai GS, Sheeba CS, Barman M, Sen A, Sundaram N, Dickson M, Joyal S, Choudhury M, Joy MM, Deepthi KG, Jangid P, Dani S. Knowledge and awareness of clinical trials among trial participants in India: A multicentric questionnaire-based cross-sectional study. Indian J Ophthalmol 2024; 72:275-280. [PMID: 38099356 PMCID: PMC10941919 DOI: 10.4103/ijo.ijo_3041_22] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2022] [Revised: 09/18/2023] [Accepted: 09/28/2023] [Indexed: 12/19/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The knowledge and attitude of participants toward clinical trials (CTs) are a key determinant in successful recruitment and retention. This study aimed to evaluate knowledge and awareness-attitude among the recruited CT participants about CTs. METHODS This was a cross-sectional face-to-face survey comprising CT participants involved in the past or currently a part of a CT during this study within the Indian Ophthalmology Clinical Trial Network (IOCTN). A previously validated questionnaire was used, and data regarding demographics, knowledge, and awareness-attitude about CTs were collected. The total awareness-attitude score was used to determine the knowledge and awareness of the participants. RESULTS A total of 121 subjects had participated in the study who were part of ongoing trials, of which only five participants had prior experience of CTs. The majority (90%) had knowledge about CTs, whereas only 7% had confirmed signing consent forms. The total awareness-attitude score significantly varied across locations (27% for the southern zone, 53% for the central zone, and 52% for the western zone), and this was negatively associated with education. The most negative attitude (38.6%) was observed regarding adequate information sharing among participants, whereas non-disruption of their routine family life (60.7%) and financial stability (67.6%) were the top most positive attitudes revealed during their participation. The participants' pre- and post-participation attitude toward CTs revealed a positive attitude. CONCLUSION The factors influencing a participant's knowledge and attitudes toward CTs were revealed in the study. Furthermore, the need for awareness regarding benefits of CTs to the public, participant's rights, and their voluntary power were the major highlights.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gopal S Pillai
- Department of Ophthalmology and Chief of Vitreo‐ Retinal Services, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, India
| | - C S Sheeba
- Department of Ophthalmology, Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India
| | - Manabjyoti Barman
- Department of Vitreo‐Retina, Sri Sankaradeva Nethralaya, Guwahati, Assam, India
| | - Alok Sen
- Head of Department of Vitreo-Retina and Uvea, Sri Sadguru Netra Chikitsalaya (SNC), Chitrakoot, Madhya Pradesh, India
| | - Natarajan Sundaram
- Department of Vitreo-Retinal Services, Aditya Jyot Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd. (AJEH), Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
| | - Merin Dickson
- IOCTN-BIRAC Project, AIMS Kochi, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, Kerala, India
| | - Shamilin Joyal
- IOCTN-BIRAC Project, AIMS Kochi, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, Kerala, India
| | - Manjisa Choudhury
- IOCTN - BIRAC Project, Sri Sankaradeva Nethralaya, Guwahati, Sri Sankaradeva Nethralaya, Guwahati, Assam, India
| | - Merlin M Joy
- IOCTN-BIRAC Project, AIMS Kochi, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, Kerala, India
| | - K G Deepthi
- IOCTN - BIRAC Project, RIO Thiruvanthapuram, Regional Institute of Ophthalmology, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India
| | - Poonam Jangid
- IOCTN - BIRAC Project, SNC Chitrakoot, Shri Sadguru Netra Chikitsalaya, Chitrakoot, Madhya Pradesh, India
| | - Samrudhi Dani
- IOCTN-BIRAC Project, AJEH, Mumbai, Aditya Jyot Eye Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Odedina FT, Wieland ML, Barbel-Johnson K, Crook JM. Community Engagement Strategies for Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Populations. Mayo Clin Proc 2024; 99:159-171. [PMID: 38176825 DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2023.07.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2022] [Revised: 07/17/2023] [Accepted: 07/18/2023] [Indexed: 01/06/2024]
Abstract
The representation of racial and ethnic minority populations in clinical trials continues to be a challenge despite mandates, good intentions, and concerted efforts by funding agencies, regulatory bodies, and researchers to close the clinical trials gap. A lack of diversity in research results in both continued disparities and poorer health outcomes. It is thus imperative that investigators understand and effectively address the challenges of clinical trials participation by underrepresented populations. In this paper, we expound on best practices for participatory research by clearly defining the community, highlighting the importance of proper identification and engagement of strong community partners, and exploring patient- and provider-level barriers and facilitators that require consideration. A clearer understanding of the balance of power between researchers and community partners is needed for any approach that addresses clinical trials representation. Unintended biases in study design and methods may continue to prevent racial and ethnic minority participants from taking part, and significant organizational changes are necessary for efficient and transparent relationships. Comprehensive community engagement in research includes dissemination of clinical trial results within and in partnership with community partners. Through careful deliberation and honest reflection, investigators, institutions, and community partners can develop the tailored blueprints of research collaborations essential for true equity in clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Mark L Wieland
- Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Jennifer M Crook
- Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Challenges to Recruiting Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in Clinical Chemoprevention Trials. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15041257. [PMID: 36831597 PMCID: PMC9954186 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15041257] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/28/2022] [Revised: 01/26/2023] [Accepted: 02/14/2023] [Indexed: 02/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Clinical trials play a critical role in evidence-based medicine, when rigorous scientific methodology is utilized to discover and test the effectiveness and safety of new drugs to prevent or cure diseases, including cancer. Participation in clinical trials thus becomes key to successful completion of these trials. Although it is estimated that >70% of Americans are inclined to participate in clinical trials, less than 5% of adult cancer patients participate in clinical trials. There is thus a large gap between those inclined to participate in clinical trials and actual participation in clinical trials. As with trials targeting men with prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS), where the target population is mostly over 50 years of age, others have observed several challenges with recruitment and accrual in clinical trials. The participation rate is currently unavailable for men on primary and secondary chemoprevention trials. Additionally, with unanticipated environmental factors such as a pandemic or other natural emergencies that may severely impact the economy, personal property, travel and person-to person contact for study-related procedures, there is a need to continuously identify these challenges and determine solutions to recruitment barriers in chemoprevention trials to ensure timely completion of early phase trials. Recent studies regarding the impact of the pandemic on clinical trial recruitment have shown that cancer prevention trials were relatively more negatively impacted compared to cancer treatment trials. The goal of this manuscript is to review our experience in continuously evaluating the protocol and patient level challenges to recruiting subjects on AS for PCa in this cancer chemoprevention trial conducted at the Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) and report the contemporary strategies that we are utilizing to continue to recruit subjects in this trial. We provide data from our current trial as an example while discussing future strategies to improve overall clinical trial recruitment. These strategies can inform future design of contemporary cancer chemoprevention trials and, additionally, better select, focus and invest in strategies that are the most productive and efficient for recruiting target populations.
Collapse
|
4
|
Khachfe HH, Habib JR, Nassour I, Baydoun HA, Ghabi EM, Chahrour MA, Hallal AH, Jamali FR. Clinical Trials in Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery: Assessing Trial Characteristics, Early Discontinuation, Result Reporting, and Publication. J Gastrointest Surg 2022; 26:1628-1636. [PMID: 35713764 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-022-05387-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2022] [Accepted: 06/04/2022] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) diseases carry high morbidity despite efforts aimed at their reduction. An assessment of their trial characteristics is paramount to determine trial design adequacy and highlight areas for improvement. As such, the aim of this study is to assess HPB surgery trial characteristics, summarize logistic, financial, and practical reasons behind early discontinuation, and propose potential interventions to prevent this in the future. METHODS All clinical trials investigating HPB surgery registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from October 1st, 2007 (inclusive), to April 20th, 2021 (inclusive), were examined. Trial characteristics were collected including, but not limited to, study phase, duration, patient enrollment size, location, and study design. Peer-reviewed publications associated with the selected trials were also assessed to determine outcome reporting. RESULTS A total of 1776 clinical trials conducted in 43 countries were identified, the majority of which were conducted in the USA. Of these trials, 32% were reported as "completed" whereas 12% were "discontinued." The most common cause of trial discontinuation was low accrual, which was reported in 37% of terminated studies. These resulted in 413 published studies. Most trials had multiple assignment, randomized, or open-label designs. Treatment was the most common study objective (73%) with pharmacological therapy being the most commonly studied intervention. CONCLUSIONS The main reasons for early discontinuation of clinical trials in HPB surgery are poor patient recruitment and inadequate funding. Improved trial design, recruitment strategies and increased funding are needed to prevent trial discontinuation and increase publication rates of HPB surgery clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hussein H Khachfe
- Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. .,Division of GI Surgical Oncology, UPMC Pancreatic Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, UPMC Cancer Pavilion, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. .,Division of GI Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - Joseph R Habib
- Department of Surgery, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Ibrahim Nassour
- Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.,Division of GI Surgical Oncology, UPMC Pancreatic Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, UPMC Cancer Pavilion, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Hussein A Baydoun
- Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Elie M Ghabi
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | - Ali H Hallal
- Department of Surgery, Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
| | - Faek R Jamali
- Department of Surgery, Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Morgan SE, Peng W, Occa A, Mao B, McFarlane S, Grinfeder G, Millet B, Byrne MM. Tailored Messages About Research Participation: Using an Interactive Information Aid to Improve Study Recruitment. JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER EDUCATION 2022; 37:16-22. [PMID: 32533538 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-020-01775-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
After a diagnosis of cancer (or other serious disease), patients may be asked to consider joining a clinical trial. Because most people are unfamiliar with the scientific concepts that are necessary to the provision of meaningful informed consent, patient education is necessary. Increasing knowledge alone is not sufficient; understanding how clinical trial participation aligns with personal circumstances and knowledge is central to the decision-making process. In this study, 302 cancer patients and survivors evaluated an interactive information aid (IA) designed to inform their decision to join a research study or clinical trial by providing tailored information to patients' responses to questions pertaining to seven key barriers or facilitators of clinical trial participation. The development of the IA was done with input from the authors' Clinical Translational Science Institute; linked components of the IA were vetted by members and leaders of the institution's NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. Results of the study indicated that the information aid was successful in significantly reducing fears and increasing knowledge, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intentions about research participation relative to a control condition. Thus, an interactive information aid that provides information that is responsive to patients' values, knowledge, and personal circumstances can help patients to be better prepared to consider a decision about research participation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan E Morgan
- Department of Communication Studies, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 33146, USA.
| | - Wei Peng
- Department of Communication Studies, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 33146, USA
| | - Aurora Occa
- Department of Communication Studies, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Bingjing Mao
- Department of Communication Studies, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 33146, USA
| | - Soroya McFarlane
- Department of Communication Studies, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
| | - Gilles Grinfeder
- Department of Interactive Media, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA
| | - Barbara Millet
- Department of Interactive Media, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA
| | - Margaret M Byrne
- Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Hamm C, Cavallo-Medved D, Moudgil D, McGrath L, Huang J, Li Y, Stratton TW, Robinson T, Naccarato K, Sundquist S, Dancey J. Addressing the Barriers to Clinical Trials Accrual in Community Cancer Centres Using a National Clinical Trials Navigator:A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Cancer Control 2022; 29:10732748221130164. [PMID: 36165718 PMCID: PMC9520135 DOI: 10.1177/10732748221130164] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Clinical trials, although academically accepted as the most effective treatment available for cancer patients, poor accrual to clinical trials remains a significant problem. A clinical trials navigator (CTN) program was piloted where patients and/or their healthcare professionals could request a search and provide a list of potential cancer clinical trials in which a patient may be eligible based on their current status and disease. OBJECTIVES This study examined the outcomes of a pilot program to try to improve clinical trials accrual with a focus on patients at medium to small sized cancer programs. Outcomes examined included patient disposition (referral to and accrual to interventional trials), patient survival, sites of referral to the CTN program. METHODS One 0.5 FTE navigator was retained. Stakeholders referred to the CTN through the Canadian Cancer Clinical Trials Network. Demographic and outcomes data were recorded. RESULTS Between March 2019 and February 2020, 118 patients from across Canada used the program. Seven per cent of patients referred were enrolled onto treatment clinical trials. No available trial excluded 39% patients, and 28% had a decline in their health and died before they could be referred or enrolled onto a clinical trial. The median time from referral to death was 109 days in those that passed. CONCLUSION This novel navigator pilot has the potential to increase patient accrual to clinical trials. The CTN program services the gap in the clinical trials system, helping patients in medium and small sized cancer centres identify potential clinical trials at larger centres.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caroline Hamm
- 8637University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada.,Western University, Windsor, ON, Canada.,Windsor Cancer Research Group, Windsor, ON, Canada.,WE-SPARK Health Institute, Windsor, ON, Canada
| | - Dora Cavallo-Medved
- 8637University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada.,Windsor Cancer Research Group, Windsor, ON, Canada.,WE-SPARK Health Institute, Windsor, ON, Canada
| | - Devinder Moudgil
- 8637University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada.,Western University, Windsor, ON, Canada.,WE-SPARK Health Institute, Windsor, ON, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Krista Naccarato
- 194075Windsor Regional Hospital, Windsor, ON, Canada.,Canadian Cancer Clinical Trials Network, Windsor, ON, Canada
| | | | - Janet Dancey
- Canadian Cancer Clinical Trials Network, Windsor, ON, Canada.,Queen's University, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
El Masri J, El Ayoubi LM, Zreika B, Adhami F, El Masri D, El Hage S, Abou-Jaoudé M. Current state of clinical trials regarding liver transplant rejection. Transpl Immunol 2021; 70:101522. [PMID: 34954324 DOI: 10.1016/j.trim.2021.101522] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2021] [Revised: 12/13/2021] [Accepted: 12/20/2021] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Liver transplant (LT) is the second most common transplant intervention. The rate of acute cellular rejection (ACR) is 15-25% after LT, while being higher in chronic rejection (CR). Clinical trials had a major role in getting more potent and selective immunosuppressive medications. Our study plays an important role by evaluating and tracking clinical trials related to liver transplant rejection, focusing on interventional therapeutic trials. METHODS On October 28, we searched Clinicaltrials.gov for interventional clinical trials related to liver transplant rejection. A total of 27 clinical trials included in this study. Characteristics on each trial were collected, and availability of linked publications was searched using Medline/PubMed and Embase/Scopus. Content of publications was reviewed and main findings were summarized. RESULTS Majority of trials were completed (15 out of 27). Eleven trials had between 11 and 50 participants, and 10 had above 100. The study duration was between 1 and 4 years for the majority of trials (16 trials), with an average of 3.77 years. Most of the trials were done in Europe/UK/Russia (n = 12). The results were provided in 9 trials but published in 4, showing the possible tolerogenic efficacy of MSC in liver transplantation, increased success of immunosuppression (IS) withdrawal after sirolimus addition, efficacy of Alemtuzumab, normal graft function and stability within 1 year of immunosuppression withdrawal. CONCLUSION This study revealed a low number of trials, lack of variety in location and low publishing rates. The focus of trials was mainly towards side effects and safety of immunosuppressants, and their withdrawal. These trials reached results that must be built on to reach definitive guidelines and treatment strategies. This highlights the need for better management of human and financial resources, in order to reach new and more effective therapeutic strategies, leading to the decrease in rate of LTR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jad El Masri
- Faculty of Medicine, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon; Faculty of Medicine, Neuroscience Research Center, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon.
| | | | - Bachir Zreika
- Faculty of Medicine, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Fouad Adhami
- Faculty of Medicine, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Diala El Masri
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Balamand, Nord, Lebanon
| | - Said El Hage
- Faculty of Medicine, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon; Faculty of Medicine, Neuroscience Research Center, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon; INSPECT-LB (Institut National de Santé Publique, Epidémiologie Clinique et Toxicologie-Liban), Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Maroun Abou-Jaoudé
- Faculty of Medicine, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon; Department of Surgery, Middle East Institute of Health, Bsalim, Lebanon; Department of Surgery, Saint-George Hospital-UMC, Beirut, Lebanon
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Khachfe HH, Salhab HA, Fares MY, Chahrour MA, Jamali FR. Landscape of interventional clinical trials involving gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Ecancermedicalscience 2021; 15:1218. [PMID: 34158822 PMCID: PMC8183643 DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2021.1218] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2020] [Indexed: 01/14/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Gastric cancer (GC) is the third most common cause of malignancy associated mortality globally. The cornerstone of curative treatment involves surgical gastrectomy. In this study, we explore clinical trials involving gastrectomy for GC, highlighting inadequacies and underlining promising surgical interventions and strategies. Materials and methods On 1 May 2020, ClinicalTrials.gov was explored for interventional trials related to gastrectomy for GC, without adding limitations for location or date. All data pertaining to the trials were collected. Characteristics such as phase, duration, enrolment size, location, treatment allocation, masking and primary endpoint were analysed. Results One hundred thirty-eight clinical trials met the search criteria. Clinical trials were performed in only 14 countries; most of them occurring in China. Most trials (33%) were still in the recruiting phase. On average, the length of trials was 3.9 years. Most trials had parallel assignment, were randomised and masked. The primary endpoint which was mostly commonly studied was overall survival (33%). The most common intervention studied is laparoscopic gastrectomy in 43 (31%) trials. Conclusions Our study exposed a small number of trials, publication rate, absence of geographic variety in clinical trials involving gastrectomy for GC. Adequate management of trial design can help decrease duration and increase validity of results. More trials comparing different surgical techniques are needed to update the surgical practice of gastrectomy for GC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hussein H Khachfe
- Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 00000, Lebanon.,Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA.,Division of GI Surgical Oncology, UPMC Pancreatic Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, UPMC Cancer Pavilion, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
| | - Hamza A Salhab
- Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 00000, Lebanon.,Neuroscience Research Center, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Lebanese University, Beirut 00000, Lebanon
| | - Mohamad Y Fares
- Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 00000, Lebanon.,Neuroscience Research Center, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Lebanese University, Beirut 00000, Lebanon
| | - Mohamad A Chahrour
- Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut 00000, Lebanon
| | - Faek R Jamali
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City, Abu Dhabi 11001, UAE
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Unger JM, Hershman DL, Till C, Minasian LM, Osarogiagbon RU, Fleury ME, Vaidya R. "When Offered to Participate": A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Agreement to Participate in Cancer Clinical Trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 113:244-257. [PMID: 33022716 PMCID: PMC7936064 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djaa155] [Citation(s) in RCA: 110] [Impact Index Per Article: 36.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2020] [Revised: 08/26/2020] [Accepted: 09/21/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patient participation in clinical trials is vital for knowledge advancement and outcomes improvement. Few adult cancer patients participate in trials. Although patient. decision-making about trial participation has been frequently examined, the participation rate for patients actually offered a trial is unknown. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis using 3 major search engines was undertaken. We identified studies from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2020, that examined clinical trial participation in the United States. Studies must have specified the numbers of patients offered a trial and the number enrolled. A random effects model of proportions was used. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS We identified 35 studies (30 about treatment trials and 5 about cancer control trials) among which 9759 patients were offered trial participation. Overall, 55.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 49.4% to 60.5%) of patients agreed to enroll. Participation rates did not differ between treatment (55.0%, 95% CI = 48.9% to 60.9%) and cancer control trials (55.3%, 95% CI = 38.9% to 71.1%; P = .98). Black patients participated at similar rates (58.4%, 95% CI = 46.8% to 69.7%) compared with White patients (55.1%, 95% CI = 44.3% to 65.6%; P = .88). The main reasons for nonparticipation were treatment choice or lack of interest. CONCLUSIONS More than half of all cancer patients offered a clinical trial do participate. These findings upend several conventional beliefs about cancer clinical trial participation, including that Black patients are less likely to agree to participate and that patient decision-making is the primary barrier to participation. Policies and interventions to improve clinical trial participation should focus more on modifiable systemic structural and clinical barriers, such as improving access to available trials and broadening eligibility criteria.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph M Unger
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
- SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | - Cathee Till
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
- SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Lori M Minasian
- National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Prevention, Rockville, MD, USA
| | | | - Mark E Fleury
- American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network Inc, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Riha Vaidya
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
- SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Fares J, Kanojia D, Rashidi A, Ulasov I, Lesniak MS. Landscape of combination therapy trials in breast cancer brain metastasis. Int J Cancer 2020; 147:1939-1952. [PMID: 32086955 PMCID: PMC7423704 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.32937] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2019] [Revised: 02/05/2020] [Accepted: 02/18/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
Combination therapy has become a cornerstone in cancer treatment to potentiate therapeutic effectiveness and overcome drug resistance and metastasis. In this work, we explore combination trials in breast cancer brain metastasis (BCBM), highlighting deficiencies in trial design and underlining promising combination strategies. On October 31, 2019, we examined ClinicalTrials.gov for interventional and therapeutic clinical trials involving combination therapy for BCBM, without limiting for date or location. Information on trial characteristics was collected. Combination therapies used in trials were analyzed and explored in line with evidence from the medical literature. Sixty-five combination therapy trials were selected (n = 65), constituting less than 0.7% of all breast cancer trials. Most trials (62%) combined ≥2 chemotherapeutic agents. Chemotherapy with radiation was main-stay in 23% of trials. Trastuzumab was mostly used in combination (31%), followed by lapatinib (20%) and capecitabine (15%). Common strategies involved combining tyrosine kinase inhibitors with thymidylate synthase inhibitors (6 trials), dual HER-dimerization inhibitors (3 trials), microtubule inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (3 trials), and HER-dimerization inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (3 trials). The combination of tucatinib and capecitabine yielded the highest objective response rate (83%) in early phase trials. The triple combination of trastuzumab, tucatinib and capecitabine lowered the risk of disease progression or death by 52% in patients with HER2-positive BCBM. Combining therapeutic agents based on biological mechanisms is necessary to increase the effectiveness of available anti-cancer regimens. Significant survival benefit has yet to be achieved in future combination therapy trials. Enhancing drug delivery through blood-brain barrier permeable agents may potentiate the overall therapeutic outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jawad Fares
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
- High Impact Cancer Research program, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Deepak Kanojia
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Aida Rashidi
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Ilya Ulasov
- Group of Experimental Biotherapy and Diagnostic, Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
| | - Maciej S. Lesniak
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Knelson LP, Cukras AR, Savoie J, Agarwal A, Guo H, Hu J, Fell G, Lederman R, Hughes ME, Winer EP, Lin NU, Tolaney SM. Barriers to Clinical Trial Accrual: Perspectives of Community-Based Providers. Clin Breast Cancer 2020; 20:395-401.e3. [PMID: 32605813 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2020.05.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2020] [Revised: 04/20/2020] [Accepted: 05/01/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Only a small proportion of patients with cancer enroll onto clinical trials. Previous studies have explored patient-related barriers to trial participation; however, few studies have focused on the provider perspective. We aimed to describe referral practices and barriers to referrals of patients with breast cancer for clinical trials, including the utilization of web-based trial-matching tools. MATERIALS AND METHODS In 2016, we distributed 120 surveys to attendees of a breast oncology continuing medical education course. The survey addressed referral patterns, trial knowledge, and perceptions of web-based trial-matching tools. After survey completion, participants were provided a link to the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute trial-matching tool. Three months later, a follow-up survey was sent to assess their use of this tool. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey data. RESULTS Ninety-six (80%) participants completed the first survey; 5 respondents did not actively treat patients with breast cancer and were excluded. Respondents included medical (30%) and surgical (22%) oncologists, nurse practitioners/physician assistants (26%), and other (22%). Neoadjuvant and metastatic trials were deemed the highest priority. The primary reported barriers included perceived lack of patient interest, lack of trial awareness, and logistical barriers. Emailing trial investigators directly was the preferred method of trial referral. Although 80% indicated that web-based tools would increase trial referrals, our follow-up survey revealed that only 18% of respondents used our web-based tool. CONCLUSION Our respondents valued trial participation for their patients but found it difficult to manage. Further research is needed regarding how to increase the likelihood that patients are presented with appropriate trial options.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lauren P Knelson
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Anthony R Cukras
- Department of Dermatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA
| | - Jennifer Savoie
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Ankit Agarwal
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Hao Guo
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Jiani Hu
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Geoffrey Fell
- Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Ruth Lederman
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Melissa E Hughes
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Eric P Winer
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Nancy U Lin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.
| | - Sara M Tolaney
- Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Villarreal-Garza C, Mesa-Chavez F, Lopez-Martinez EA, Fonseca A, Pineda C, Rivera F, Garcia-Garcia M, de la Rosa-Pacheco S, Mohar A, Ellsworth-Beaumont C, Platas A. Gaps in Knowledge and Understanding of Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer in Mexico. Cancer Control 2020; 27:1073274820920637. [PMID: 32397745 PMCID: PMC7223866 DOI: 10.1177/1073274820920637] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2019] [Revised: 02/25/2020] [Accepted: 03/31/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
There is paucity of data regarding the knowledge and understanding of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) about their disease stage and treatment goals. This study assessed these patients' awareness of MBC incurability, topics reviewed with their oncologist, perceptions of having enough knowledge to participate in treatment decision-making, most helpful information source, and satisfaction with the information they received. For this purpose, 185 patients with MBC who attended follow-up medical appointments at a Mexican referral cancer center completed a survey designed by the Metastatic Breast Cancer Alliance. Clinical data were obtained from medical records. Descriptive statistics were applied, and associations between qualitative and quantitative variables were assessed with χ2 and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively. Half (52%) of the patients were aware that their disease was incurable, while 31% were not sure, and 17% thought it was curable. Forty percent found it difficult to talk about treatments because they did not understand the options that were available to them. The medical staff was the most helpful information source for 74% of participants, and 64% scored their satisfaction with information ≥9 of 10. A significant association was found between higher satisfaction and knowing that MBC is incurable, as well as being older than 40 years. These results illustrate the significant lack of understanding patients with MBC have regarding their cancer, even when reporting high satisfaction with the provided information, and identify a critical need for improved patient education to enhance their comprehension and promote their participation in decision-making processes, treatment adherence, and, ultimately, outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cynthia Villarreal-Garza
- Departamento de Tumores Mamarios e Investigacion, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Mexico City, Mexico
- Centro de Cancer de Mama, Hospital Zambrano Hellion, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
- Joven & Fuerte, Programa para la Atencion e Investigacion para Pacientes Jovenes con Cancer de Mama en Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Fernanda Mesa-Chavez
- Centro de Cancer de Mama, Hospital Zambrano Hellion, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
- Joven & Fuerte, Programa para la Atencion e Investigacion para Pacientes Jovenes con Cancer de Mama en Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Edna Anakarenn Lopez-Martinez
- Centro de Cancer de Mama, Hospital Zambrano Hellion, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
- Joven & Fuerte, Programa para la Atencion e Investigacion para Pacientes Jovenes con Cancer de Mama en Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Alan Fonseca
- Departamento de Tumores Mamarios e Investigacion, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Mexico City, Mexico
- Joven & Fuerte, Programa para la Atencion e Investigacion para Pacientes Jovenes con Cancer de Mama en Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Claudia Pineda
- Departamento de Tumores Mamarios e Investigacion, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Mexico City, Mexico
- Joven & Fuerte, Programa para la Atencion e Investigacion para Pacientes Jovenes con Cancer de Mama en Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Fernanda Rivera
- Departamento de Tumores Mamarios e Investigacion, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Marisol Garcia-Garcia
- Centro de Cancer de Mama, Hospital Zambrano Hellion, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
- Joven & Fuerte, Programa para la Atencion e Investigacion para Pacientes Jovenes con Cancer de Mama en Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
| | | | - Alejandro Mohar
- Departamento de Tumores Mamarios e Investigacion, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Mexico City, Mexico
- Joven & Fuerte, Programa para la Atencion e Investigacion para Pacientes Jovenes con Cancer de Mama en Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
| | | | - Alejandra Platas
- Departamento de Tumores Mamarios e Investigacion, Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia, Mexico City, Mexico
- Joven & Fuerte, Programa para la Atencion e Investigacion para Pacientes Jovenes con Cancer de Mama en Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Kikuchi R, Broadwater G, Shelby R, Robertson J, Zullig LL, Maloney B, Meyer C, Mungal D, Marcom PK, Kanesvaran R, White H, Kimmick G. Detecting geriatric needs in older patients with breast cancer through use of a brief geriatric screening tool. J Geriatr Oncol 2019; 10:968-972. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.04.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2018] [Revised: 02/06/2019] [Accepted: 04/10/2019] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
|
14
|
Wagholikar KB, Fischer CM, Goodson AP, Herrick CD, Maclean TE, Smith KV, Fera L, Gaziano TA, Dunning JR, Bosque-Hamilton J, Matta L, Toscano E, Richter B, Ainsworth L, Oates MF, Aronson S, MacRae CA, Scirica BM, Desai AS, Murphy SN. Phenotyping to Facilitate Accrual for a Cardiovascular Intervention. J Clin Med Res 2019; 11:458-463. [PMID: 31143314 PMCID: PMC6522233 DOI: 10.14740/jocmr3830] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2019] [Accepted: 04/30/2019] [Indexed: 01/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The conventional approach for clinical studies is to identify a cohort of potentially eligible patients and then screen for enrollment. In an effort to reduce the cost and manual effort involved in the screening process, several studies have leveraged electronic health records (EHR) to refine cohorts to better match the eligibility criteria, which is referred to as phenotyping. We extend this approach to dynamically identify a cohort by repeating phenotyping in alternation with manual screening. Methods Our approach consists of multiple screen cycles. At the start of each cycle, the phenotyping algorithm is used to identify eligible patients from the EHR, creating an ordered list such that patients that are most likely eligible are listed first. This list is then manually screened, and the results are analyzed to improve the phenotyping for the next cycle. We describe the preliminary results and challenges in the implementation of this approach for an intervention study on heart failure. Results A total of 1,022 patients were screened, with 223 (23%) of patients being found eligible for enrollment into the intervention study. The iterative approach improved the phenotyping in each screening cycle. Without an iterative approach, the positive screening rate (PSR) was expected to dip below the 20% measured in the first cycle; however, the cyclical approach increased the PSR to 23%. Conclusions Our study demonstrates that dynamic phenotyping can facilitate recruitment for prospective clinical study. Future directions include improved informatics infrastructure and governance policies to enable real-time updates to research repositories, tooling for EHR annotation, and methodologies to reduce human annotation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kavishwar B Wagholikar
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Lina Matta
- Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Calum A MacRae
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Benjamin M Scirica
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Akshay S Desai
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Shawn N Murphy
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.,Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Fares J, Kanojia D, Cordero A, Rashidi A, Miska J, Schwartz CW, Savchuk S, Ahmed AU, Balyasnikova IV, Cristofanilli M, Gradishar WJ, Lesniak MS. Current state of clinical trials in breast cancer brain metastases. Neurooncol Pract 2019; 6:392-401. [PMID: 31555454 DOI: 10.1093/nop/npz003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2018] [Revised: 12/05/2018] [Accepted: 01/10/2019] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) are the final frontier in neuro-oncology for which more efficacious therapies are required. In this work, we explore clinical trials in BCBM, and determine the shortcomings in the development of new BCBM therapies to shed light on potential areas for enhancement. Methods On July 9, 2018, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov for all interventional and therapeutic clinical trials involving BCBM, without limiting for date or location. Information on trial characteristics, including phase, status, start and end dates, study design, primary endpoints, selection criteria, sample size, experimental interventions, results, and publications were collected and analyzed. Results Fifty-three trials fulfilled the selection criteria. Median trial duration across phases ranged between 3 and 6 years. More than half of the trials were conducted in the United States. Although 94% of the trials were in early phases (I-II), 20% of patients were in phase III trials. Two phase III trials were anteceded by phase II trials that were non-randomized; one reported positive results. Approximately one-third of the trials were completed, whereas 23% of trials were terminated early; mostly due to inadequate enrollment. Only 13% of all trials and 22% of completed trials had published results directly linked to their primary outcomes. Conclusions The low number of trials and accrual numbers, the lack of diversity, and the scarcity of published results represent the main troubles in clinical BCBM research. Optimization of BCBM trials is necessary to achieve effective therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jawad Fares
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Deepak Kanojia
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Alex Cordero
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Aida Rashidi
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Jason Miska
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Charles W Schwartz
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Solomiia Savchuk
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Atique U Ahmed
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Irina V Balyasnikova
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Massimo Cristofanilli
- Lynn Sage Breast Cancer Program, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - William J Gradishar
- Lynn Sage Breast Cancer Program, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Maciej S Lesniak
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Improving Oncology Clinical Trial Participation and Experience. Trends Cancer 2018; 4:793-796. [PMID: 30470299 DOI: 10.1016/j.trecan.2018.10.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2018] [Accepted: 10/17/2018] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
Cancer patients are underrepresented in clinical trial populations because of protocol-, physician-, and patient-related barriers. We engaged focus groups of patients who had participated in breast and ovarian cancer trials to identify concerns regarding their experiences. The lessons learnt are applicable to improving patient experience during future trials.
Collapse
|
17
|
Besle S, Schultz E, Hollebecque A, Varga A, Baldini C, Martin P, Postel-Vinay S, Bahleda R, Gazzah A, Michot JM, Marabelle A, Angevin E, Armand JP, Ribrag V, Soria JC, Massard C. Organisational factors influencing early clinical trials enrollment: Gustave Roussy experience. Eur J Cancer 2018; 98:17-22. [PMID: 29859337 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.04.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/18/2018] [Accepted: 04/19/2018] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Enrolment process influences the likelihood of patients' inclusion in early clinical trials (ECT) through social, medical and organisational factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS All patients referred from 2008 to 2016 to the Drug Development Department (DITEP) of Gustave Roussy (GR) were reviewed. Referring physician, organisational factors, medical and socioeconomic characteristics for patients were analysed. Multivariate analysis was performed with regard to those factors. A telephone survey was conducted on a sample of referring physicians located outside GR (N = 142). RESULTS Between 2008 and 2016, 8694 requests were received with 49% from external physicians. Here, 4517 were male patients with a median age of 58 [49-66] years (range 18-85). Tumour types were gastrointestinal (28%), lung (19%), breast (9%) and gynaecologic (8%). Mean enrolment rate was 37% (ranging from 24 to 45%). From 2008 to 2016, the enrolment rate decreases from 39% to 24%. In the meantime, DITEP trials portfolio evolves with the part of precision medicine trials increase from 12% to 40%. Factors that were significantly associated with a lower likelihood of being enrolled were referral from an external physician (OR 0.15 s.16-0.21]) compared to a physician from DITEP and year of the request (2.74 [1.8-2.9] 2008 versus 2016). The enrolment rate and the number of patients addressed have a high variability regarding referring physicians, which is little explained by characteristics as training, previous experience or attitude regarding ECT. CONCLUSION Beyond patients' individual characteristics, we show that organisational and professional factors have a major impact on likelihood of enrolment in ECT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sylvain Besle
- Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Drug Development Department (DITEP), Villejuif, F-94805, France; Aix Marseille Univ, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, 232 Bd Ste Marguerite BP 156 13273 Marseille Cedex 9 France.
| | - Emilien Schultz
- Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Drug Development Department (DITEP), Villejuif, F-94805, France; Aix Marseille Univ, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, 232 Bd Ste Marguerite BP 156 13273 Marseille Cedex 9 France
| | - Antoine Hollebecque
- Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Drug Development Department (DITEP), Villejuif, F-94805, France
| | - Andreea Varga
- Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Drug Development Department (DITEP), Villejuif, F-94805, France
| | - Capucine Baldini
- Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Drug Development Department (DITEP), Villejuif, F-94805, France
| | - Patricia Martin
- Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Drug Development Department (DITEP), Villejuif, F-94805, France
| | - Sophie Postel-Vinay
- Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Drug Development Department (DITEP), Villejuif, F-94805, France
| | - Rastislav Bahleda
- Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Drug Development Department (DITEP), Villejuif, F-94805, France
| | - Anas Gazzah
- Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Drug Development Department (DITEP), Villejuif, F-94805, France
| | - Jean-Marie Michot
- Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Drug Development Department (DITEP), Villejuif, F-94805, France
| | - Aurélien Marabelle
- Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Drug Development Department (DITEP), Villejuif, F-94805, France
| | - Eric Angevin
- Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Drug Development Department (DITEP), Villejuif, F-94805, France
| | - Jean-Pierre Armand
- Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Drug Development Department (DITEP), Villejuif, F-94805, France
| | - Vincent Ribrag
- Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Drug Development Department (DITEP), Villejuif, F-94805, France
| | - Jean-Charles Soria
- Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Drug Development Department (DITEP), Villejuif, F-94805, France
| | - Christophe Massard
- Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Drug Development Department (DITEP), Villejuif, F-94805, France
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Merrill JT, Manzi S, Aranow C, Askanase A, Bruce I, Chakravarty E, Chong B, Costenbader K, Dall'Era M, Ginzler E, Hanrahan L, Kalunian K, Merola J, Raymond S, Rovin B, Saxena A, Werth VP. Lupus community panel proposals for optimising clinical trials: 2018. Lupus Sci Med 2018; 5:e000258. [PMID: 29657738 PMCID: PMC5894527 DOI: 10.1136/lupus-2018-000258] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2018] [Revised: 02/06/2018] [Accepted: 02/12/2018] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Formidable impediments stand in the way of treatment development for lupus. These include the unwieldy size of current trials, international competition for scarce patients, complex outcome measures and a poor understanding of these outcomes in the world at large. The heterogeneity of the disease itself coupled to superimposition of variegated background polypharmacy has created enough immunological noise to virtually ensure the failure of lupus treatment trials, leaving an understandable suspicion that at least some of the results in testing failed drugs over the years may not have been negative, but merely uninterpretable. The authors have consulted with many clinical trial investigators, biopharmaceutical developers and stakeholders from government and voluntary sectors. This paper examines the available evidence that supports workable trial designs and proposes approaches to improve the odds of completing interpretable treatment development programs for lupus.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joan T Merrill
- Arthritis & Clinical Immunology Program, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
| | - Susan Manzi
- Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Cynthia Aranow
- Autoimmune and Musculoskeletal Disease, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, USA
| | - Anca Askanase
- Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, New York, USA
| | - Ian Bruce
- University of Manchester, Manchester, England, UK
| | - Eliza Chakravarty
- Arthritis & Clinical Immunology Program, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
| | - Ben Chong
- Department of Dermatology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Karen Costenbader
- Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | | | - Ellen Ginzler
- Department of Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA
| | - Leslie Hanrahan
- Research and Education, Lupus Foundation of America, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Ken Kalunian
- Rheumatology, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, USA
| | - Joseph Merola
- Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Sandra Raymond
- Lupus Foundation of America, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
| | - Brad Rovin
- Internal Medicine/Nephrology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Amit Saxena
- Rheumatology, New York University, New York City, New York, USA
| | - Victoria P Werth
- Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Robinson BN, Newman AF, Tefera E, Herbolsheimer P, Nunes R, Gallagher C, Randolph-Jackson P, Omogbehin A, Dilawari A, Pohlmann PR, Mohebtash M, Lee Y, Ottaviano Y, Mohapatra A, Lynce F, Brown R, Mete M, Swain SM. Video intervention increases participation of black breast cancer patients in therapeutic trials. NPJ Breast Cancer 2017; 3:36. [PMID: 28944289 PMCID: PMC5603544 DOI: 10.1038/s41523-017-0039-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2016] [Revised: 07/24/2017] [Accepted: 08/03/2017] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
There is a striking racial and ethnic disparity in incidence and mortality of cancer yet minorities remain markedly underrepresented in clinical trials. This pilot study set out to determine the impact of a 15-min culturally tailored educational video on three outcomes relating to clinical trials: likely participation, attitudes (assessed based on six barriers), and actual enrollment. Breast cancer patients with Stage I-III, if diagnosed within previous 6 months, or metastatic disease who self-identified as black or African American were invited to participate. The primary outcome measure was the decision to participate in a therapeutic clinical trial after the intervention. Patients’ intention to enroll on a therapeutic clinical trial and the change in attitudes toward clinical trials were measured by the previously developed Attitudes and Intention to Enroll in Therapeutic Clinical Trials (AIET) questionnaire. Of the 200 patients that participated, 39 (19.5%) patients signed consent to participate in a therapeutic clinical trial; 27 (13.5%) patients enrolled, resulting in a 7.5% increase from our baseline comparison of 6% clinical trial enrollment rate in black cancer patients (p < .001). Pre-test versus post-test assessment demonstrated the proportion of patients expressing likelihood to enroll in a therapeutic trial following the intervention increased by 14% (p < .001). Among 31 AIET items, 25 (81%) showed statistically significant and positive change post-intervention. The findings suggest the promising utility of a culturally tailored video intervention for improving black patients’ attitudes regarding clinical trial participation and resultant enrollment. Future efforts should continue to target facilitators of population-specific recruitment, enrollment, and retention in therapeutic and non-therapeutic clinical trials. A culturally tailored educational video can boost participation among black patients in clinical trials of new breast cancer treatments. A US team led by Sandra Swain from Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC, created a 15-min video designed to address six of the concerns commonly cited by blacks about human subjects research. The researchers showed the video to 200 black patients, and saw a large bump in the number of women willing to sign up for a therapeutic trial. On average, only 6% of black cancer patients typically enroll in clinical trials. But in the video intervention study, 19.5% agreed to participate and then 13.5% went ahead with a trial. Video watchers also reported a positive change in their attitude toward clinical research. The study points to the need for population-specific recruitment efforts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brandi N Robinson
- MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, MD USA.,Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC USA
| | - Antoinette F Newman
- MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, MD USA.,Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC USA
| | - Eshetu Tefera
- MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, MD USA
| | - Pia Herbolsheimer
- Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC USA
| | - Raquel Nunes
- Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC USA
| | | | | | - Adedamola Omogbehin
- Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC USA
| | - Asma Dilawari
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC USA
| | - Paula R Pohlmann
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC USA
| | | | - Young Lee
- MedStar Harbor Hospital, Baltimore, MD USA
| | | | - Avani Mohapatra
- Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC USA
| | - Filipa Lynce
- Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC USA.,Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC USA
| | - Richard Brown
- Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA USA
| | - Mihriye Mete
- MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, MD USA
| | - Sandra M Swain
- Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC USA.,Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Carey M, Boyes AW, Smits R, Bryant J, Waller A, Olver I. Access to clinical trials among oncology patients: results of a cross sectional survey. BMC Cancer 2017; 17:653. [PMID: 28923028 PMCID: PMC5604159 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-017-3644-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2016] [Accepted: 09/11/2017] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical trials are necessary for the advancement of cancer treatment and care, however low rates of participation in such trials limit the generalisability of findings. The objective of this study was to examine the proportion of medical oncology outpatients in Australia who are invited and consent to participate in clinical trials and the factors associated with this. METHODS A sample of adult medical oncology patients was recruited from three Australian cancer treatment centres. Consenting patients completed two paper-and-pencil surveys; one at the time of consent and another approximately 1 month later. A multivariate logistic regression was conducted to explore factors associated with invitation and participation in a trial. RESULTS Thirty-eight percent (n = 146) of the 383 participants reported they had been invited to take part in a clinical trial. Of those invited, 93% reported consenting to participate in the trial, with the majority indicating that they did not regret their decision (89%). Treatment centre and time since diagnosis were significantly associated with being invited to take part in a clinical trial. None of the factors examined were associated with clinical trial consent rates. CONCLUSIONS The main barrier to clinical trial participation is not being invited to do so, with the centre the patient attends being a modifiable determinant of whether or not they are invited. Increasing the resources available to treatment centres to ensure all patients are offered participation in trials they are eligible for may help to improve rates of trial participation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mariko Carey
- Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, School of Medicine & Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, W4, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW 2308 Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, NSW Australia
| | - Allison W. Boyes
- Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, School of Medicine & Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, W4, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW 2308 Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, NSW Australia
| | - Rochelle Smits
- Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, School of Medicine & Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, W4, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW 2308 Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, NSW Australia
| | - Jamie Bryant
- Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, School of Medicine & Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, W4, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW 2308 Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, NSW Australia
| | - Amy Waller
- Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, School of Medicine & Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, W4, HMRI Building, Callaghan, NSW 2308 Australia
- Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, NSW Australia
| | - Ian Olver
- Samson Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia Australia
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Morgan SE, Occa A, Mouton A, Potter J. The Role of Nonverbal Communication Behaviors in Clinical Trial and Research Study Recruitment. HEALTH COMMUNICATION 2017; 32:461-469. [PMID: 27314155 DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2016.1140266] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/13/2023]
Abstract
Few studies have examined the communication behaviors of those who recruit for clinical trials and research studies, particularly of nonmedical professionals who often do the bulk of recruiting. This focus-group study of 63 recruiters analyzes the ways in which nonverbal communication behaviors support the process of recruitment, using the lens of communication accommodation theory. Results indicate that recruiters first "read" potential study participants' nonverbal communication for clues about their state of mind, then use nonverbal communication to achieve a sense of convergence. Specific nonverbal communication behaviors were discussed by recruiters, including smiling, variations in the use of voice, adjusting body position, the appropriate use of physical touch, the management of eye contact, and the effect of clothing and physical appearance. Implications for recruitment practice are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Aurora Occa
- a School of Communication , University of Miami
| | - Ashton Mouton
- b Brian Lamb School of Communication , Purdue University
| | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Morgan SE, Occa A, Potter J, Mouton A, Peter ME. "You Need to Be a Good Listener": Recruiters' Use of Relational Communication Behaviors to Enhance Clinical Trial and Research Study Accrual. JOURNAL OF HEALTH COMMUNICATION 2017; 22:95-101. [PMID: 28085636 DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2016.1256356] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
Medical and research professionals who discuss clinical trials and research studies with potential participants face an often daunting challenge, particularly when recruiting from minority and underserved populations. This study reports on findings from a focus group study of 63 research coordinators, study nurses, professional recruiters, and other professionals in Indianapolis, IN and Miami, FL who work to recruit from minority and underserved populations. These professionals discussed the importance of creating a sense of connection with potential participants as part of the recruitment and retention process. Building a relationship, however fleeting, involved a number of concrete behaviors, including listening to personal information, expressing empathy, and then providing reciprocal self-disclosures; having repeated contact, usually by working in the same environment over an extended period of time; demonstrating respect through politeness and the use of honorifics; going the extra mile for participants; offering flexibility in scheduling follow-up appointments; and creating a sense of personal and community trust by being truthful. The implications of these findings for clinical trial and research study accrual are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan E Morgan
- a School of Communication , University of Miami , Coral Gables , Florida , USA
| | - Aurora Occa
- a School of Communication , University of Miami , Coral Gables , Florida , USA
| | - JoNell Potter
- b Miller School of Medicine , University of Miami , Miami , Florida , USA
| | - Ashton Mouton
- c Brian Lamb School of Communication , Purdue University , West Lafayette , Indiana , USA
| | - Megan E Peter
- d Department of Health Behavior and Policy , Virginia Commonwealth University , Richmond , Virginia , USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Unger JM, Cook E, Tai E, Bleyer A. The Role of Clinical Trial Participation in Cancer Research: Barriers, Evidence, and Strategies. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY EDUCATIONAL BOOK. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY. ANNUAL MEETING 2017. [PMID: 27249699 DOI: 10.14694/edbk_156686] [Citation(s) in RCA: 93] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Fewer than one in 20 adult patients with cancer enroll in cancer clinical trials. Although barriers to trial participation have been the subject of frequent study, the rate of trial participation has not changed substantially over time. Barriers to trial participation are structural, clinical, and attitudinal, and they differ according to demographic and socioeconomic factors. In this article, we characterize the nature of cancer clinical trial barriers, and we consider global and local strategies for reducing barriers. We also consider the specific case of adolescents with cancer and show that the low rate of trial enrollment in this age group strongly correlates with limited improvements in cancer population outcomes compared with other age groups. Our analysis suggests that a clinical trial system that enrolls patients at a higher rate produces treatment advances at a faster rate and corresponding improvements in cancer population outcomes. Viewed in this light, the issue of clinical trial enrollment is foundational, lying at the heart of the cancer clinical trial endeavor. Fewer barriers to trial participation would enable trials to be completed more quickly and would improve the generalizability of trial results. Moreover, increased accrual to trials is important for patients, because trials provide patients the opportunity to receive the newest treatments. In an era of increasing emphasis on a treatment decision-making process that incorporates the patient perspective, the opportunity for patients to choose trial participation for their care is vital.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph M Unger
- From the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; St. Charles Health System, Quality Department, Bend, OR
| | - Elise Cook
- From the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; St. Charles Health System, Quality Department, Bend, OR
| | - Eric Tai
- From the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; St. Charles Health System, Quality Department, Bend, OR
| | - Archie Bleyer
- From the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; St. Charles Health System, Quality Department, Bend, OR
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Lee GE, Ow M, Lie D, Dent R. Barriers and facilitators for clinical trial participation among diverse Asian patients with breast cancer: a qualitative study. BMC WOMENS HEALTH 2016; 16:43. [PMID: 27449505 PMCID: PMC4957899 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-016-0319-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2015] [Accepted: 07/12/2016] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Background Recruitment rates for cancer trials are low for racial/ethnic minorities. Little is known about factors influencing trial recruitment in Asian patients. Our aim is to examine the barriers and facilitators for participation in trials among multi-ethnic Asian women with breast cancer. Methods We recruited a convenience sample from consecutive women seen at the National Cancer Centre. Two experienced bilingual (English and Chinese) moderators conducted focus groups to theme saturation. The question guide incorporated open-ended questions soliciting opinions about trial participation and knowledge. Women were first asked if they were willing, unwilling, or still open to participate in future trials. Sessions were audiotaped and transcribed. Transcripts were independently coded for emergent themes. Results Sixteen of 103 women approached participated in five focus groups. Chinese, Malay, and Indian participants aged 29 to 69 represented different cancer stages. Five had no prior knowledge of trials. We identified three major themes comprising of 22 minor themes for barriers and facilitators. The major themes were: 1) patient-related, 2) trial-related, and 3) sociocultural factors. Women willing to join trials expressed themes representing facilitators (better test therapy, cost-effective profile, or trust in doctors and local healthcare systems). Women unwilling to participate expressed themes associated with barriers, while women still open to participation expressed themes representing both facilitators and barriers. Malay women were more likely to express themes related to ‘fatalism’ as a barrier. Discussion/Conclusion We found that facilitators and barriers to trial participation among Asian women were similar to those previously reported in Western women. Knowledge of trials is limited among women receiving breast cancer treatment. Unique sociocultural factors suggest that approaches customised to local and community beliefs are needed to improve trial participation in minority groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guek Eng Lee
- National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11, Hospital drive, Postal code 169610, Singapore, Singapore.
| | - Mandy Ow
- Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Desiree Lie
- Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Rebecca Dent
- National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11, Hospital drive, Postal code 169610, Singapore, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Morgan SE, Mouton A, Occa A, Potter J. Clinical Trial and Research Study Recruiters' Verbal Communication Behaviors. JOURNAL OF HEALTH COMMUNICATION 2016; 21:765-72. [PMID: 27259754 DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2016.1157654] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/13/2023]
Abstract
The lack of accrual to research studies and clinical trials is a persistent problem with serious consequences: Advances in medical science depend on the participation of large numbers of people, including members of minority and underserved populations. The current study examines a critical determinant of accrual: the approach of patients by professional recruiters who request participation in research studies and clinical trials. Findings indicate that recruiters use a number of verbal strategies in the communication process, including translating study information (such as simplifying, using examples, and substituting specific difficult or problematic words), using linguistic reframing or metaphors, balancing discussions of research participation risks with benefits, and encouraging potential participants to ask questions. The identification of these verbal strategies can form the basis of new communication protocols that will help medical and nonmedical professionals communicate more clearly and effectively with patients and other potential participants about research studies and clinical trials, which should lead to increased accrual in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susan E Morgan
- a School of Communication , University of Miami , Coral Gables , Florida , USA
| | - Ashton Mouton
- b Brian Lamb School of Communication , Purdue University , West Lafayette , Indiana , USA
| | - Aurora Occa
- c School of Communication , University of Miami , Coral Gables , Florida , USA
| | - Jonell Potter
- d Miller School of Medicine , University of Miami , Coral Gables , Florida , USA
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Arnaout A, Kuchuk I, Bouganim N, Pond G, Verma S, Segal R, Dent S, Gertler S, Song X, Kanji F, Clemons M. Can the referring surgeon enhance accrual of breast cancer patients to medical and radiation oncology trials? The ENHANCE study. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2016; 23:e276-9. [PMID: 27330365 DOI: 10.3747/co.23.2394] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The accrual rate to clinical trials in oncology remains low. In this exploratory pilot study, we prospectively assessed the role that engaging a referring surgeon plays in enhancing nonsurgical oncologic clinical trial accrual. METHODS Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients were seen by a surgeon who actively introduced specific patient-and physician-centred strategies to increase clinical trial accrual. Patient-centred strategies included providing patients, before their oncology appointment, with information about specific clinical trials for which they might be eligible, as evaluated by the surgeon. The attitudes of the patients about clinical trials and the interventions used to improve accrual were assessed at the end of the study. The primary outcome was the clinical trial accrual rate during the study period. RESULTS Overall clinical trial enrolment during the study period among the 34 participating patients was 15% (5 of 34), which is greater than the institution's historical average of 7%. All patients found the information delivered by the surgeon before the oncology appointment to be very helpful. Almost three quarters of the patients (73%) were informed about clinical trials by their oncologist. The top reasons for nonparticipation reported by the patients who did not participate in clinical trials included lack of interest (35%), failure of the oncologist to mention clinical trials (33%), and inconvenience (19%). CONCLUSIONS Accrual of patients to clinical trials is a complex multistep process with multiple potential barriers. The findings of this exploratory pilot study demonstrate a potential role for the referring surgeon in enhancing nonsurgical clinical trial accrual.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Arnaout
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Ottawa General Hospital, and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON
| | - I Kuchuk
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Ottawa General Hospital, and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON
| | - N Bouganim
- Division of Medical Oncology, Segal Cancer Centre, and Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC
| | - G Pond
- Department of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
| | - S Verma
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Ottawa General Hospital, and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON
| | - R Segal
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Ottawa General Hospital, and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON
| | - S Dent
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Ottawa General Hospital, and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON
| | - S Gertler
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Ottawa General Hospital, and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON
| | - X Song
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Ottawa General Hospital, and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON
| | - F Kanji
- Clinical Trials Department, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON
| | - M Clemons
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Ottawa General Hospital, and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Strong S, Paramasivan S, Mills N, Wilson C, Donovan JL, Blazeby JM. '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. Trials 2016; 17:212. [PMID: 27113592 PMCID: PMC4845366 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1341-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2015] [Accepted: 04/14/2016] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sean Strong
- Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK.
| | - Sangeetha Paramasivan
- Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK
| | - Nicola Mills
- Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK
| | - Caroline Wilson
- Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK
| | - Jenny L Donovan
- Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK
| | - Jane M Blazeby
- Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, BS8 2PS, Bristol, UK.,Division of Surgery, Head and Neck, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Unger JM, Cook E, Tai E, Bleyer A. The Role of Clinical Trial Participation in Cancer Research: Barriers, Evidence, and Strategies. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2016; 35:185-98. [PMID: 27249699 PMCID: PMC5495113 DOI: 10.1200/edbk_156686] [Citation(s) in RCA: 358] [Impact Index Per Article: 44.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Abstract
Fewer than one in 20 adult patients with cancer enroll in cancer clinical trials. Although barriers to trial participation have been the subject of frequent study, the rate of trial participation has not changed substantially over time. Barriers to trial participation are structural, clinical, and attitudinal, and they differ according to demographic and socioeconomic factors. In this article, we characterize the nature of cancer clinical trial barriers, and we consider global and local strategies for reducing barriers. We also consider the specific case of adolescents with cancer and show that the low rate of trial enrollment in this age group strongly correlates with limited improvements in cancer population outcomes compared with other age groups. Our analysis suggests that a clinical trial system that enrolls patients at a higher rate produces treatment advances at a faster rate and corresponding improvements in cancer population outcomes. Viewed in this light, the issue of clinical trial enrollment is foundational, lying at the heart of the cancer clinical trial endeavor. Fewer barriers to trial participation would enable trials to be completed more quickly and would improve the generalizability of trial results. Moreover, increased accrual to trials is important for patients, because trials provide patients the opportunity to receive the newest treatments. In an era of increasing emphasis on a treatment decision-making process that incorporates the patient perspective, the opportunity for patients to choose trial participation for their care is vital.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Elise Cook
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Eric Tai
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Archie Bleyer
- St Charles Health System, Quality Department, Bend, Oregon
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Hurria A, Levit LA, Dale W, Mohile SG, Muss HB, Fehrenbacher L, Magnuson A, Lichtman SM, Bruinooge SS, Soto-Perez-de-Celis E, Tew WP, Postow MA, Cohen HJ. Improving the Evidence Base for Treating Older Adults With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement. J Clin Oncol 2015. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2015.63.0319] [Citation(s) in RCA: 270] [Impact Index Per Article: 30.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) convened a subcommittee to develop recommendations on improving the evidence base for treating older adults with cancer in response to a critical need identified by the Institute of Medicine. Older adults experience the majority of cancer diagnoses and deaths and make up the majority of cancer survivors. Older adults are also the fastest growing segment of the US population. However, the evidence base for treating this population is sparse, because older adults are underrepresented in clinical trials, and trials designed specifically for older adults are rare. The result is that clinicians have less evidence on how to treat older adults, who represent the majority of patients with cancer. Clinicians and patients are forced to extrapolate from trials conducted in younger, healthier populations when developing treatment plans. This has created a dearth of knowledge regarding the risk of toxicity in the average older patient and about key end points of importance to older adults. ASCO makes five recommendations to improve evidence generation in this population: (1) Use clinical trials to improve the evidence base for treating older adults with cancer, (2) leverage research designs and infrastructure for generating evidence on older adults with cancer, (3) increase US Food and Drug Administration authority to incentivize and require research involving older adults with cancer, (4) increase clinicians' recruitment of older adults with cancer to clinical trials, and (5) use journal policies to improve researchers' reporting on the age distribution and health risk profiles of research participants.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arti Hurria
- Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte; Louis Fehrenbacher, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Vallejo, CA; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico; Laura A. Levit and Suanna S. Bruinooge, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; William Dale, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Supriya G. Mohile and Allison Magnuson, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Stuart M. Lichtman, William P
| | - Laura A. Levit
- Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte; Louis Fehrenbacher, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Vallejo, CA; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico; Laura A. Levit and Suanna S. Bruinooge, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; William Dale, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Supriya G. Mohile and Allison Magnuson, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Stuart M. Lichtman, William P
| | - William Dale
- Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte; Louis Fehrenbacher, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Vallejo, CA; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico; Laura A. Levit and Suanna S. Bruinooge, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; William Dale, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Supriya G. Mohile and Allison Magnuson, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Stuart M. Lichtman, William P
| | - Supriya G. Mohile
- Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte; Louis Fehrenbacher, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Vallejo, CA; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico; Laura A. Levit and Suanna S. Bruinooge, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; William Dale, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Supriya G. Mohile and Allison Magnuson, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Stuart M. Lichtman, William P
| | - Hyman B. Muss
- Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte; Louis Fehrenbacher, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Vallejo, CA; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico; Laura A. Levit and Suanna S. Bruinooge, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; William Dale, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Supriya G. Mohile and Allison Magnuson, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Stuart M. Lichtman, William P
| | - Louis Fehrenbacher
- Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte; Louis Fehrenbacher, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Vallejo, CA; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico; Laura A. Levit and Suanna S. Bruinooge, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; William Dale, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Supriya G. Mohile and Allison Magnuson, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Stuart M. Lichtman, William P
| | - Allison Magnuson
- Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte; Louis Fehrenbacher, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Vallejo, CA; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico; Laura A. Levit and Suanna S. Bruinooge, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; William Dale, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Supriya G. Mohile and Allison Magnuson, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Stuart M. Lichtman, William P
| | - Stuart M. Lichtman
- Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte; Louis Fehrenbacher, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Vallejo, CA; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico; Laura A. Levit and Suanna S. Bruinooge, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; William Dale, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Supriya G. Mohile and Allison Magnuson, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Stuart M. Lichtman, William P
| | - Suanna S. Bruinooge
- Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte; Louis Fehrenbacher, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Vallejo, CA; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico; Laura A. Levit and Suanna S. Bruinooge, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; William Dale, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Supriya G. Mohile and Allison Magnuson, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Stuart M. Lichtman, William P
| | - Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis
- Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte; Louis Fehrenbacher, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Vallejo, CA; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico; Laura A. Levit and Suanna S. Bruinooge, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; William Dale, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Supriya G. Mohile and Allison Magnuson, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Stuart M. Lichtman, William P
| | - William P. Tew
- Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte; Louis Fehrenbacher, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Vallejo, CA; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico; Laura A. Levit and Suanna S. Bruinooge, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; William Dale, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Supriya G. Mohile and Allison Magnuson, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Stuart M. Lichtman, William P
| | - Michael A. Postow
- Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte; Louis Fehrenbacher, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Vallejo, CA; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico; Laura A. Levit and Suanna S. Bruinooge, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; William Dale, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Supriya G. Mohile and Allison Magnuson, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Stuart M. Lichtman, William P
| | - Harvey J. Cohen
- Arti Hurria, City of Hope, Duarte; Louis Fehrenbacher, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Vallejo, CA; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico; Laura A. Levit and Suanna S. Bruinooge, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; William Dale, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Supriya G. Mohile and Allison Magnuson, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester; Stuart M. Lichtman, William P
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Moritz S, Robinson JW, White LJ, Ernst DS, Venner P. Determinants of Accrual to Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2015. [DOI: 10.1080/1561095021000072227] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
|
31
|
Horwood J, Johnson E, Gooberman-Hill R. Understanding involvement in surgical orthopaedic randomized controlled trials: A qualitative study of patient and health professional views and experiences. Int J Orthop Trauma Nurs 2015; 20:3-12. [PMID: 26772763 PMCID: PMC4720819 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijotn.2015.05.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2014] [Revised: 03/06/2015] [Accepted: 05/05/2015] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
Background Factors influencing patients' motivations for enrolling in, and their experiences of, orthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not fully understood. Less is known about healthcare professionals' (HCP) experiences of RCT involvement. Aim This study investigates patients' and HCPs' views and experiences of RCT participation and delivery to inform the planning of future RCTs. Methods Total hip or knee replacement patients (n = 24) participating in the single-center double-blind APEX RCTs of an intra-operative anesthetic intervention and HCPs (n = 15) involved in trial delivery were interviewed. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymized and thematically analyzed. Results Although altruistic reasons for RCT participation were common, patients also weighed up demands of the RCT with the potential benefits of taking part, demonstrating the complex and conditional nature of trial participation. HCPs were interested in RCT involvement as a means of contributing towards advances in medical knowledge and also considered the costs and benefits of RCT involvement. Conclusion Patients and HCPs value involvement in RCTs that they see as relevant and of value, while imposing minimum burden. These findings have important implications for the design of methods to recruit patients to RCTs and for planning how an RCT might best interface with HCP clinical commitments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy Horwood
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
| | - Emma Johnson
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Rachael Gooberman-Hill
- Musculoskeletal Research Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Learning and Research Building, Level 1, Southmead Hospital, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Freyer DR, Seibel NL. The Clinical Trials Gap for Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer: Recent Progress and Conceptual Framework for Continued Research. CURRENT PEDIATRICS REPORTS 2015; 3:137-145. [PMID: 30613438 DOI: 10.1007/s40124-015-0075-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
Over the past 30 years, adolescents and young adults (AYA, 15-39 years of age) with cancer have shown significantly less improvement in survival than younger and older patients. Because evidence suggests this may be related to their low participation in cancer clinical trials, increasing accrual to these trials has become a priority for closing this "AYA gap." This paper reviews data documenting low AYA enrollment, presents a conceptual framework for research and intervention (Clinical Trials Pathway to Enrollment) and summarizes recent developments in the United States National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials enterprise that are expected to improve AYA enrollment, including the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and expanded scientific collaboration between the Children's Oncology Group and adult NCTN groups. While time will be required for the effects of these changes to be fully realized, they offer a mechanism for facilitating the breadth of clinical/translational research needed for advancing AYA oncology and measuring its impact.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David R Freyer
- Children's Center for Cancer and Blood Diseases, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Nita L Seibel
- Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA,
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
D'Alimonte L, Deabreu A, Marquez A, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Improving clinical trial accrual through a novel feedback approach: Lessons learned from a single disease site group. Pract Radiat Oncol 2014; 5:70-3. [PMID: 25413410 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2014.05.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2014] [Revised: 05/21/2014] [Accepted: 05/26/2014] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Physician participation is critical for the success of clinical trials. Many efforts have been made to aid physicians with accrual. The aim of our study was to determine what impact a new feedback initiative had on clinical trial accrual and recruitment within a large disease site group. METHODS AND MATERIALS A novel feedback initiative was implemented within a large multidisciplinary disease site group. Feedback on trial recruitment by physician and by study for the month and year to date was formally presented at the end of each trial month at weekly tumor board meetings. In addition, the feedback was sent via email. Trial recruitment was assessed both preintervention and postintervention. RESULTS A 9-month reporting period both preintervention and postintervention are reported. Total accruals within each observation window were 79 versus 209 patients, respectively. Preintervention, the mean number of patients accrued per month was 8.44 (range, 2-16). Postintervention, the mean number of patients accrued was 23.2 (range, 14-48). Preintervention, physicians only accrued to trials within their specialty. Postintervention, this improved by 4% monthly. CONCLUSIONS Physicians play a key role in the success of clinical trials. By adopting a simple monthly feedback communication initiative, we were able to improve clinical trial accruals. Long-term assessment is required to understand longitudinal impact on accrual rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura D'Alimonte
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada; Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
| | - Andrea Deabreu
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Arlynne Marquez
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Alexandre Mamedov
- Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada; Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Health Policy, Measurement and Evaluation, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Pfiffner PB, Oh J, Miller TA, Mandl KD. ClinicalTrials.gov as a data source for semi-automated point-of-care trial eligibility screening. PLoS One 2014; 9:e111055. [PMID: 25334031 PMCID: PMC4205089 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111055] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2014] [Accepted: 09/21/2014] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Implementing semi-automated processes to efficiently match patients to clinical trials at the point of care requires both detailed patient data and authoritative information about open studies. Objective To evaluate the utility of the ClinicalTrials.gov registry as a data source for semi-automated trial eligibility screening. Methods Eligibility criteria and metadata for 437 trials open for recruitment in four different clinical domains were identified in ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials were evaluated for up to date recruitment status and eligibility criteria were evaluated for obstacles to automated interpretation. Finally, phone or email outreach to coordinators at a subset of the trials was made to assess the accuracy of contact details and recruitment status. Results 24% (104 of 437) of trials declaring on open recruitment status list a study completion date in the past, indicating out of date records. Substantial barriers to automated eligibility interpretation in free form text are present in 81% to up to 94% of all trials. We were unable to contact coordinators at 31% (45 of 146) of the trials in the subset, either by phone or by email. Only 53% (74 of 146) would confirm that they were still recruiting patients. Conclusion Because ClinicalTrials.gov has entries on most US and many international trials, the registry could be repurposed as a comprehensive trial matching data source. Semi-automated point of care recruitment would be facilitated by matching the registry's eligibility criteria against clinical data from electronic health records. But the current entries fall short. Ultimately, improved techniques in natural language processing will facilitate semi-automated complex matching. As immediate next steps, we recommend augmenting ClinicalTrials.gov data entry forms to capture key eligibility criteria in a simple, structured format.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pascal B. Pfiffner
- Boston Children's Hospital Informatics Program, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - JiWon Oh
- Wellesley College, Wellesley, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Timothy A. Miller
- Boston Children's Hospital Informatics Program, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Kenneth D. Mandl
- Boston Children's Hospital Informatics Program, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- Center for Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Manders DB, Paulsen A, Richardson DL, Kehoe SM, Miller DS, Lea JS. Factors associated with clinical trial screening failures in gynecologic oncology. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 134:450-4. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.06.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2014] [Revised: 06/19/2014] [Accepted: 06/25/2014] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
|
36
|
Decision Making in the PICU: An Examination of Factors Influencing Participation Decisions in Phase III Randomized Clinical Trials. Int J Pediatr 2014; 2014:676023. [PMID: 25161672 PMCID: PMC4138893 DOI: 10.1155/2014/676023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2013] [Revised: 07/02/2014] [Accepted: 07/02/2014] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background. In stressful situations, decision making processes related to informed consent may be compromised. Given the profound levels of distress that surrogates of children in pediatric intensive care units (PICU) experience, it is important to understand what factors may be influencing the decision making process beyond the informed consent. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of clinician influence and other factors on decision making regarding participation in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Method. Participants were 76 children under sedation in a PICU and their surrogate decision makers. Measures included the Post Decision Clinician Survey, observer checklist, and post-decision interview. Results. Age of the pediatric patient was related to participation decisions in the RCT such that older children were more likely to be enrolled. Mentioning the sponsoring institution was associated with declining to participate in the RCT. Type of health care provider and overt recommendations to
participate were not related to enrollment. Conclusion. Decisions to participate in research by surrogates of children in the PICU appear to relate to child demographics and subtleties in communication; however, no modifiable characteristics were related to increased participation, indicating that the informed consent process may not be compromised in this population.
Collapse
|
37
|
Turner N, Zafarana E, Becheri D, Mottino G, Biganzoli L. Breast cancer in the elderly: which lessons have we learned? Future Oncol 2014; 9:1871-81. [PMID: 24295417 DOI: 10.2217/fon.13.140] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Management of older breast cancer patients is challenging due to a lack of good quality evidence regarding the role of adjuvant chemotherapy. Older women can benefit as much from adjuvant chemotherapy as younger women, although they have an increased risk of toxicities. Decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy should be made based on tumor biology and biological age, rather than chronological age. Geriatrician assessment can detect subtle functional deficits that may impact on the ability of the patient to tolerate chemotherapy; however, implementation of comprehensive geriatric assessment in the oncology setting is challenging. Instead, numerous frailty screening tools are in development. Future advances should incorporate more accurate and efficient means for determining the biological age of elderly breast cancer patients, which will better define the risk:benefit ratio of adjuvant chemotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natalie Turner
- Sandro Pitigliani' Medical Oncology Unit, Department of Oncology, Hospital of Prato, Istituto Toscano Tumori, Piazza dell'Ospedale 2, Prato, Italy
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
38
|
Fleisher L, Ruggieri DG, Miller SM, Manne S, Albrecht T, Buzaglo J, Collins MA, Katz M, Kinzy TG, Liu T, Manning C, Charap ES, Millard J, Miller DM, Poole D, Raivitch S, Roach N, Ross EA, Meropol NJ. Application of best practice approaches for designing decision support tools: the preparatory education about clinical trials (PRE-ACT) study. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2014; 96:63-71. [PMID: 24813474 PMCID: PMC4171039 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.04.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/09/2013] [Revised: 03/14/2014] [Accepted: 04/05/2014] [Indexed: 05/20/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This article describes the rigorous development process and initial feedback of the PRE-ACT (Preparatory Education About Clinical Trials) web-based- intervention designed to improve preparation for decision making in cancer clinical trials. METHODS The multi-step process included stakeholder input, formative research, user testing and feedback. Diverse teams (researchers, advocates and developers) participated including content refinement, identification of actors, and development of video scripts. Patient feedback was provided in the final production period and through a vanguard group (N=100) from the randomized trial. RESULTS Patients/advocates confirmed barriers to cancer clinical trial participation, including lack of awareness and knowledge, fear of side effects, logistical concerns, and mistrust. Patients indicated they liked the tool's user-friendly nature, the organized and comprehensive presentation of the subject matter, and the clarity of the videos. CONCLUSION The development process serves as an example of operationalizing best practice approaches and highlights the value of a multi-disciplinary team to develop a theory-based, sophisticated tool that patients found useful in their decision making process. Practice implications Best practice approaches can be addressed and are important to ensure evidence-based tools that are of value to patients and supports the usefulness of a process map in the development of e-health tools.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linda Fleisher
- Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, USA; Fox Chase Cancer Center/Temple University Health System, USA.
| | | | | | | | - Terrance Albrecht
- Karmanos Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, Wayne State University, USA
| | | | | | | | - Tyler G Kinzy
- University Hospitals Case Medical Center Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, USA
| | - Tasnuva Liu
- University Hospitals Case Medical Center Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, USA
| | | | | | | | - Dawn M Miller
- University Hospitals Case Medical Center Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, USA
| | - David Poole
- Fox Chase Cancer Center/Temple University Health System, USA
| | | | | | - Eric A Ross
- Fox Chase Cancer Center/Temple University Health System, USA
| | - Neal J Meropol
- University Hospitals Case Medical Center Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, USA
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Köpcke F, Prokosch HU. Employing computers for the recruitment into clinical trials: a comprehensive systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2014; 16:e161. [PMID: 24985568 PMCID: PMC4128959 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3446] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2014] [Revised: 05/15/2014] [Accepted: 05/31/2014] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Medical progress depends on the evaluation of new diagnostic and therapeutic interventions within clinical trials. Clinical trial recruitment support systems (CTRSS) aim to improve the recruitment process in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. OBJECTIVE The goals were to (1) create an overview of all CTRSS reported until the end of 2013, (2) find and describe similarities in design, (3) theorize on the reasons for different approaches, and (4) examine whether projects were able to illustrate the impact of CTRSS. METHODS We searched PubMed titles, abstracts, and keywords for terms related to CTRSS research. Query results were classified according to clinical context, workflow integration, knowledge and data sources, reasoning algorithm, and outcome. RESULTS A total of 101 papers on 79 different systems were found. Most lacked details in one or more categories. There were 3 different CTRSS that dominated: (1) systems for the retrospective identification of trial participants based on existing clinical data, typically through Structured Query Language (SQL) queries on relational databases, (2) systems that monitored the appearance of a key event of an existing health information technology component in which the occurrence of the event caused a comprehensive eligibility test for a patient or was directly communicated to the researcher, and (3) independent systems that required a user to enter patient data into an interface to trigger an eligibility assessment. Although the treating physician was required to act for the patient in older systems, it is now becoming increasingly popular to offer this possibility directly to the patient. CONCLUSIONS Many CTRSS are designed to fit the existing infrastructure of a clinical care provider or the particularities of a trial. We conclude that the success of a CTRSS depends more on its successful workflow integration than on sophisticated reasoning and data processing algorithms. Furthermore, some of the most recent literature suggest that an increase in recruited patients and improvements in recruitment efficiency can be expected, although the former will depend on the error rate of the recruitment process being replaced. Finally, to increase the quality of future CTRSS reports, we propose a checklist of items that should be included.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Felix Köpcke
- Center for Information and Communication, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Trinczek B, Köpcke F, Leusch T, Majeed RW, Schreiweis B, Wenk J, Bergh B, Ohmann C, Röhrig R, Prokosch HU, Dugas M. Design and multicentric implementation of a generic software architecture for patient recruitment systems re-using existing HIS tools and routine patient data. Appl Clin Inform 2014; 5:264-83. [PMID: 24734138 DOI: 10.4338/aci-2013-07-ra-0047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2013] [Accepted: 01/26/2014] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE (1) To define features and data items of a Patient Recruitment System (PRS); (2) to design a generic software architecture of such a system covering the requirements; (3) to identify implementation options available within different Hospital Information System (HIS) environments; (4) to implement five PRS following the architecture and utilizing the implementation options as proof of concept. METHODS Existing PRS were reviewed and interviews with users and developers conducted. All reported PRS features were collected and prioritized according to their published success and user's request. Common feature sets were combined into software modules of a generic software architecture. Data items to process and transfer were identified for each of the modules. Each site collected implementation options available within their respective HIS environment for each module, provided a prototypical implementation based on available implementation possibilities and supported the patient recruitment of a clinical trial as a proof of concept. RESULTS 24 commonly reported and requested features of a PRS were identified, 13 of them prioritized as being mandatory. A UML version 2 based software architecture containing 5 software modules covering these features was developed. 13 data item groups processed by the modules, thus required to be available electronically, have been identified. Several implementation options could be identified for each module, most of them being available at multiple sites. Utilizing available tools, a PRS could be implemented in each of the five participating German university hospitals. CONCLUSION A set of required features and data items of a PRS has been described for the first time. The software architecture covers all features in a clear, well-defined way. The variety of implementation options and the prototypes show that it is possible to implement the given architecture in different HIS environments, thus enabling more sites to successfully support patient recruitment in clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Trinczek
- Institute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster , Germany
| | - F Köpcke
- Chair of Medical Informatics, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg , Germany
| | - T Leusch
- Department of Information- and Communication-Technology, Düsseldorf University Hospital , Germany
| | - R W Majeed
- Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Justus-Liebig University Gießen , Germany
| | - B Schreiweis
- Center for Information Technology and Medical Engineering, Heidelberg University Hospital , Germany
| | - J Wenk
- Coordination Centre for Clinical Trials, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf , Germany
| | - B Bergh
- Center for Information Technology and Medical Engineering, Heidelberg University Hospital , Germany
| | - C Ohmann
- Coordination Centre for Clinical Trials, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf , Germany
| | - R Röhrig
- Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Justus-Liebig University Gießen , Germany
| | - H U Prokosch
- Chair of Medical Informatics, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg , Germany
| | - M Dugas
- Institute of Medical Informatics, University of Münster , Germany
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Hawkins MS, Hough LJ, Berger MA, Mor MK, Steenkiste AR, Gao S, Stone RA, Burkitt KH, Marcus BH, Ciccolo JT, Kriska AM, Klinvex DT, Sevick MA. Recruitment of veterans from primary care into a physical activity randomized controlled trial: the experience of the VA-STRIDE study. Trials 2014; 15:11. [PMID: 24398076 PMCID: PMC3923270 DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2013] [Accepted: 12/09/2013] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Much of the existing literature on physical activity (PA) interventions involves physically inactive individuals recruited from community settings rather than clinical practice settings. Recruitment of patients into interventions in clinical practice settings is difficult due to limited time available in the clinic, identification of appropriate personnel to efficiently conduct the process, and time-consuming methods of recruitment. The purpose of this report is to describe the approach used to identify and recruit veterans from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Pittsburgh Healthcare System Primary Care Clinic into a randomized controlled PA study. METHODS A sampling frame of veterans was developed using the VA electronic medical record. During regularly scheduled clinic appointments, primary care providers (PCPs) screened identified patients for safety to engage in moderate-intensity PA and willingness to discuss the study with research staff members. Research staff determined eligibility with a subsequent telephone screening call and scheduled a research study appointment, at which time signed informed consent and baseline measurements were obtained. RESULTS Of the 3,482 veterans in the sampling frame who were scheduled for a primary care appointment during the study period, 1,990 (57.2%) were seen in the clinic and screened by the PCP; moderate-intensity PA was deemed safe for 1,293 (37.1%), 871 (25.0%) agreed to be contacted for further screening, 334 (9.6%) were eligible for the study, and 232 (6.7%) enrolled. CONCLUSIONS Using a semiautomated screening approach that combined an electronically-derived sampling frame with paper and pencil prescreening by PCPs and research staff, VA-STRIDE was able to recruit 1 in 15 veterans in the sampling frame. Using this approach, a high proportion of potentially eligible veterans were screened by their PCPs. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinical trials.gov identifier: NCT00731094.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marquis S Hawkins
- Division of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst School of Public Health and Health Sciences, Amherst, MA 01003, USA
| | - Linda J Hough
- VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Pittsburgh, PA 15206, USA
| | - Marie A Berger
- VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Pittsburgh, PA 15206, USA
| | - Maria K Mor
- VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Pittsburgh, PA 15206, USA
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
| | - Ann R Steenkiste
- VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Pittsburgh, PA 15206, USA
| | - Shasha Gao
- VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Pittsburgh, PA 15206, USA
| | - Roslyn A Stone
- VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Pittsburgh, PA 15206, USA
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
| | - Kelly H Burkitt
- VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Pittsburgh, PA 15206, USA
| | - Bess H Marcus
- Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
| | - Joseph T Ciccolo
- Department of Biobehavioral Sciences, Columbia University Teachers College, New York, NY 10027, USA
| | - Andrea M Kriska
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
| | - Deborah T Klinvex
- University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
| | - Mary A Sevick
- Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Wightman AG, Oron AP, Symons JM, Flynn JT. Pediatric nephrologists' beliefs regarding randomized controlled trials. J Investig Med 2014; 62:84-7. [PMID: 24379023 DOI: 10.2310/jim.0000000000000019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pediatrics and pediatric nephrology lag behind adult medicine in producing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Physician attitudes have been shown to play a significant role in RCT enrollment. METHODS We surveyed members of the American Society of Pediatric Nephrology regarding beliefs about RCTs and factors influencing decisions to recommend RCT enrollment. Regression analyses were used to identify the effects of variables on an aggregate score summarizing attitudes toward RCTs. RESULTS One hundred thirty replies were received. Sixty-six percent had enrolled patients in RCTs. Respondents in practice for more than 15 years were more likely to have recruited a patient to an RCT than those in practice for less than 5 years. Respondents were more willing to recommend RCT enrollment if the study was multicenter, patients were sicker or had a poorer prognosis, or if the parent or participant received a financial incentive versus the provider. In multiple regression analysis, history of enrolling patients in an RCT was the only significant predictor of higher aggregate RCT-friendly attitude. CONCLUSIONS Many pediatric nephrologists have never enrolled a patient in an RCT, particularly those in practice for less than 5 years. Respondents who have not enrolled patients in RCTs have a less RCT-friendly attitude. Provision of improved training and resources might increase participation of junior providers in RCTs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aaron G Wightman
- From the *Division of Nephrology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine; †Division of Nephrology, Seattle Children's Hospital; and ‡Core for Biomedical Statistics, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
Somkin CP, Ackerson L, Husson G, Gomez V, Kolevska T, Goldstein D, Fehrenbacher L. Effect of medical oncologists' attitudes on accrual to clinical trials in a community setting. J Oncol Pract 2013; 9:e275-83. [PMID: 24151327 PMCID: PMC5706122 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2013.001120] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Oncology clinical trials (OCTs) are crucial in evaluating new cancer treatments, but only 2% to 3% of US adult patients with cancer enter OCTs. This study assessed barriers to participation in clinical trials among oncologists in a large integrated health care delivery system with an active clinical trials program. Although many studies have identified major physician barriers to enrollment, few have examined how these barriers affect actual trial accrual. METHODS Using information from a mailed survey, we examined the effect of oncologists' attitudes, beliefs, experiences, sociodemographic factors, and practice characteristics on clinical trial accrual in the 2 years following the survey. We identified relationships between these variables and subsequent clinical trial accrual using correlations and mixed effects models. RESULTS A construct combining questions that assessed oncologist attitudes, beliefs, and experiences substantially influenced OCT enrollment (r = .51; P < .0001). This construct included awareness of open clinical trials and specific eligible patients, as well as the practice of initiating a discussion about OCTs with most eligible patients. This broad concept of awareness had the greatest correlation with enrollment and mediated the effect on enrollment of other values and beliefs, such as welcoming a patient's initiation of a trial discussion and valuing the support of research nurses and coordinators. CONCLUSION Even in a health care setting with an active clinical trials program, substantial research personnel, infrastructure support, and widespread access to trials among oncologists and patients, oncologists' participation remains quite variable. Oncologist values, beliefs, and awareness of clinical trials play an important role in OCT accrual.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carol P. Somkin
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland; and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Vallejo, CA
| | - Lynn Ackerson
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland; and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Vallejo, CA
| | - Gail Husson
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland; and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Vallejo, CA
| | - Vicky Gomez
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland; and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Vallejo, CA
| | - Tatjana Kolevska
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland; and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Vallejo, CA
| | - Desiree Goldstein
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland; and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Vallejo, CA
| | - Louis Fehrenbacher
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland; and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Vallejo, CA
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Denicoff AM, McCaskill-Stevens W, Grubbs SS, Bruinooge SS, Comis RL, Devine P, Dilts DM, Duff ME, Ford JG, Joffe S, Schapira L, Weinfurt KP, Michaels M, Raghavan D, Richmond ES, Zon R, Albrecht TL, Bookman MA, Dowlati A, Enos RA, Fouad MN, Good M, Hicks WJ, Loehrer PJ, Lyss AP, Wolff SN, Wujcik DM, Meropol NJ. The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations. J Oncol Pract 2013; 9:267-76. [PMID: 24130252 PMCID: PMC3825288 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2013.001119] [Citation(s) in RCA: 109] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Many challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions. METHODS The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature. RESULTS Few rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations. CONCLUSIONS A combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea M. Denicoff
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Worta McCaskill-Stevens
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Stephen S. Grubbs
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Suanna S. Bruinooge
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Robert L. Comis
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Peggy Devine
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - David M. Dilts
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Michelle E. Duff
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Jean G. Ford
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Steven Joffe
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Lidia Schapira
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Kevin P. Weinfurt
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Margo Michaels
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Derek Raghavan
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Ellen S. Richmond
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Robin Zon
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Terrance L. Albrecht
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Michael A. Bookman
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Afshin Dowlati
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Rebecca A. Enos
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Mona N. Fouad
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Marjorie Good
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - William J. Hicks
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Patrick J. Loehrer
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Alan P. Lyss
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Steven N. Wolff
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Debra M. Wujcik
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Neal J. Meropol
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Gonzalez LE, Sutton SK, Pratt C, Gilbertson M, Antonia S, Quinn GP. The bottleneck effect in lung cancer clinical trials. JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER EDUCATION 2013; 28:488-93. [PMID: 23733149 PMCID: PMC4501775 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-013-0491-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/02/2023]
Abstract
Clinical trials provide the most promising way to improve treatment outcomes in cancer. This study examined the rate at which eligible patients with lung cancer, at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in the South, were offered a clinical trial and explored for reasons for ineligibility. We retrospectively reviewed 300 randomly selected lung cancer patients' medical records seen in 2010, to assess clinical trial offers to eligible patients, reasons for not offering an eligible patient a trial, demographic factors associated with eligibility, and reasons for refusal among those offered a trial. Of the 300 patient charts, seven were excluded for lack of confirmed lung cancer diagnosis. Forty-six of the remaining 293 (15.7%) patients were eligible for a clinical trial. Forty-five of the 46 (97.8%) were considered for a trial by their oncologist. Thirty-five of the 45 (77.8%) were offered a trial: 15 agreed (42.9% of those offered, 5.1% of patients reviewed), 11 declined, and 9 were undecided at the end of the review window. Patients with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status levels and small cell (SC) diagnoses were significantly less likely to be eligible for a trial. Results suggest that oncologists at the cancer center are effectively presenting all eligible patients with the option of a clinical trial; however, there is a need to increase the number of approved clinical trials for patients with SC or ECOG score greater than 2.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luis E. Gonzalez
- Department of Health Outcomes & Behavior, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer and Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Drive, MRC CANCONT, Tampa, FL 33612, USA
| | - Steven K. Sutton
- Department of Health Outcomes & Behavior, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer and Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Drive, MRC CANCONT, Tampa, FL 33612, USA
| | - Christie Pratt
- Thoracic Oncology Program, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | | | - Scott Antonia
- Thoracic Oncology Program, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA. College of Medicine, Department of Oncologic Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Gwendolyn P. Quinn
- Department of Health Outcomes & Behavior, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer and Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Drive, MRC CANCONT, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. College of Medicine, Department of Oncologic Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Kaplan CP, Nápoles AM, Dohan D, Shelley Hwang E, Melisko M, Nickleach D, Quinn JA, Haas J. Clinical trial discussion, referral, and recruitment: physician, patient, and system factors. Cancer Causes Control 2013; 24:979-88. [PMID: 23420328 DOI: 10.1007/s10552-013-0173-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2012] [Accepted: 02/08/2013] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Patient participation in cancer clinical trials is imperative to the advancement of medical science. Physicians play an important role in recruitment by discussing clinical trials with their cancer patients. Patient-physician discussion is influenced by many factors relating to the physician, the patient, and the healthcare system. METHODS Physicians selected from the 2008-2009 American Medical Association Physician Masterfile who practiced in California, Florida, Illinois, or New York and specialized in medical oncology, surgery, or radiation oncology were surveyed about their attitudes and practices with respect to breast cancer clinical trials. Practice types were categorized according to the classifications provided by the American College of Surgeons, and clinical trial and practice addresses were geocoded. RESULTS Surveys were completed by 706 of 1,534 eligible physicians (46 %). Medical oncologists were more likely than surgical or radiation oncologists to discuss the possibility, benefits, and risks of clinical trial enrollment with their breast cancer patients. Physicians who spent the most time in patient care were least likely to discuss clinical trials with their patients. Distance from a physician's practice to the nearest clinical trial site was inversely associated with referral and recruitment. Perceived barriers to clinical trial participation were associated with greater referral activity suggesting that physicians who were more involved in trials were also more likely to understand barriers to participation. CONCLUSIONS Multilevel interventions may be successful at increasing participation of women in clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Celia P Kaplan
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143-0856, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Donovan D. Special considerations in the management of older adult patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2013; 17 Suppl:41-8. [PMID: 23360702 DOI: 10.1188/13.cjon.s1.41-48] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
A majority of new cancer cases occur in older adults (aged 65 years and older); however, older adult patients often are underrepresented in clinical trials. Because of this, sufficient evidence is lacking for the creation of treatment guidelines for older adult patients. Evidence has shown that many therapeutic agents are effective in both older and younger adult patients. Although efficacy outcomes may be similar, safety profiles may differ by age because of inherent differences in drug metabolism or other reasons. The underrepresentation of older adult patients in clinical trials is explored in this article, along with the current recommendations for treating older adult patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In addition, current evidence from clinical trials and subanalyses of older adult patients with MBC are discussed. Finally, nursing considerations for the management of older adult patients with MBC are provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diana Donovan
- Weill Cornell Breast Center, New York-Presbyterian, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Penberthy L, Brown R, Wilson-Genderson M, Dahman B, Ginder G, Siminoff LA. Barriers to therapeutic clinical trials enrollment: differences between African-American and white cancer patients identified at the time of eligibility assessment. Clin Trials 2012; 9:788-97. [PMID: 23033547 DOI: 10.1177/1740774512458992] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical trials (CTs) are the mechanism by which research is translated into standards of care. Low recruitment among underserved and minority populations may result in inequity in access to the latest technology and treatments, compromise the generalizability, and lead to failure in identification of important positive or negative treatment effects among under-represented populations. METHODS Data were collected over a 39-month period on patient eligibility for available therapeutic cancer CTs. Reasons for ineligibility and refusal were collected. The data were captured using an automated software tool for tracking eligibility pre-enrollment. We examined characteristics associated with being evaluated for a trial, and reasons for ineligibility and refusal, overall and by patient race. RESULTS African-Americans (AAs) were more likely than Whites to be ineligible (odds ratio, (OR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0-1.58) and if eligible, to refuse participation (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.27-2.52), even after adjusting for insurance, age, gender, study phase, and cancer type. White patients were more likely to be ineligible due to study-specific or cancer characteristics. AAs were more likely to be ineligible due to mental status or perceived noncompliance. Whites were more likely to refuse due to extra burden, due to concerns with randomization and toxicity, or because they express a positive treatment preference. AAs were more likely to refuse because they were not interested in CTs, because of family pressures, or they felt overwhelmed (NS)). DISCUSSION This study is the first to directly compare ineligibility and refusal rates and reasons captured prospectively in AA and White cancer patients. The data are consistent with earlier studies that indicated that AA patients more often are deemed ineligible and, when eligible, more often refuse participation. However, differences in reasons for ineligibility and refusal by race have implications for a cancer center to participate in CTs appropriate for the population of patients served. On a broader scale, consideration should be given to modifying eligibility criteria and other design aspects to permit broader participation of minority and other underserved groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lynne Penberthy
- Department of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, 23298-0306, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Grand MM, O'Brien PC. Obstacles to participation in randomised cancer clinical trials: a systematic review of the literature. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2012; 56:31-9. [PMID: 22339743 DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2011.02337.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melissa M Grand
- TROG Cancer Research, Calvary Mater Newcastle Calvary Mater Newcastle University of Newcastle, HRMC, New South Wales, Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Embi PJ, Leonard AC. Evaluating alert fatigue over time to EHR-based clinical trial alerts: findings from a randomized controlled study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19:e145-8. [PMID: 22534081 PMCID: PMC3392862 DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000743] [Citation(s) in RCA: 143] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective Inadequate participant recruitment is a major problem facing clinical research. Recent studies have demonstrated that electronic health record (EHR)-based, point-of-care, clinical trial alerts (CTA) can improve participant recruitment to certain clinical research studies. Despite their promise, much remains to be learned about the use of CTAs. Our objective was to study whether repeated exposure to such alerts leads to declining user responsiveness and to characterize its extent if present to better inform future CTA deployments. Methods During a 36-week study period, we systematically documented the response patterns of 178 physician users randomized to receive CTAs for an ongoing clinical trial. Data were collected on: (1) response rates to the CTA; and (2) referral rates per physician, per time unit. Variables of interest were offset by the log of the total number of alerts received by that physician during that time period, in a Poisson regression. Results Response rates demonstrated a significant downward trend across time, with response rates decreasing by 2.7% for each advancing time period, significantly different from zero (flat) (p<0.0001). Even after 36 weeks, response rates remained in the 30%–40% range. Subgroup analyses revealed differences between community-based versus university-based physicians (p=0.0489). Discussion CTA responsiveness declined gradually over prolonged exposure, although it remained reasonably high even after 36 weeks of exposure. There were also notable differences between community-based versus university-based users. Conclusions These findings add to the limited literature on this form of EHR-based alert fatigue and should help inform future tailoring, deployment, and further study of CTAs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter J Embi
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|