The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations

Strategies for increasing accrual in cancer clinical trials: What is the evidence?

INTRODUCTION

Despite the importance of clinical trial participation among cancer patients, few participate-and even fewer patients from ethnic and racial minoritized groups. It is unclear whether suggested approaches to increase accrual are successful. We conducted a scoping review to identify evidence-based approaches to increase participation in cancer treatment clinical trials that demonstrated clear increases in accrual. Notably, more stringent than other published reviews, only those studies with comparison data to measure a difference in accrual rates were included.

METHODS

We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science for English-language articles published from January 1, 2012, to August 8, 2022. Studies were included if they were conducted in the United States, described single or multicomponent interventions, and provided data to measure accrual relative to baseline levels or that compared accrual rates with other interventions.

RESULTS

Sixteen articles were included: six with interventions addressing patient barriers, two addressing provider barriers, seven describing institutional change, and one describing policy change. Key themes emerged, such as a focus on patient education, cultural competency, and building the capacity of clinics. Few studies provide comparative accrual data, making it difficult to identify with certainty any effective, evidence-based approaches for increasing accrual. Some patient- and system-level interventions studies showed modest increases in accrual primarily through pre-post measurement.

CONCLUSION

Despite an extensive body of literature about the barriers that impede cancer treatment trial accrual, along with numerous recommendations for how to overcome these barriers, results reveal surprisingly little evidence published in the last 10 years on interventions that increase accrual relative to baseline levels or compared with other interventions. As clinical trials are a primary vehicle through which we improve cancer care, it is critical that evidence-based approaches are used to inform all efforts to increase accrual. Strategies for increasing participation in cancer clinical trials must be developed and rigorously evaluated so that these strategies can be disseminated, participation in trials can increase and become more equitable, and trial results can become more generalizable.

Using Bayesian hierarchical modeling for performance evaluation of clinical trial accrual for a cancer center

Introduction

Slow patient accrual in cancer clinical trials is always a concern. In 2021, the University of Kansas Comprehensive Cancer Center (KUCC), an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center, implemented the Curated Cancer Clinical Outcomes Database (C3OD) to perform trial feasibility analyses using real-time electronic medical record data. In this study, we proposed a Bayesian hierarchical model to evaluate annual cancer clinical trial accrual performance.

Methods

The Bayesian hierarchical model uses Poisson models to describe the accrual performance of individual cancer clinical trials and a hierarchical component to describe the variation in performance across studies. Additionally, this model evaluates the impacts of the C3OD and the COVID-19 pandemic using posterior probabilities across evaluation years. The performance metric is the ratio of the observed accrual rate to the target accrual rate.

Results

Posterior medians of the annual accrual performance at the KUCC from 2018 to 2023 are 0.233, 0.246, 0.197, 0.150, 0.254, and 0.340. The COVID-19 pandemic partly explains the drop in performance in 2020 and 2021. The posterior probability that annual accrual performance is better with C3OD in 2023 than pre-pandemic (2019) is 0.935.

Conclusions

This study comprehensively evaluates the annual performance of clinical trial accrual at the KUCC, revealing a negative impact of COVID-19 and an ongoing positive impact of C3OD implementation. Two sensitivity analyses further validate the robustness of our model. Evaluating annual accrual performance across clinical trials is essential for a cancer center. The performance evaluation tools described in this paper are highly recommended for monitoring clinical trial accrual.

Randomized controlled trials in lung cancer surgery: How are we doing?

Objective

Randomized control trials are considered the highest level of evidence, yet the scalability and practicality of implementing randomized control trials in the thoracic surgical oncology space are not well described. The aim of this study is to understand what types of randomized control trials have been conducted in thoracic surgical oncology and ascertain their success rate in completing them as originally planned.

Methods

The ClinicalTrials.gov database was queried in April 2023 to identify registered randomized control trials performed in patients with lung cancer who underwent surgery (by any technique) as part of their treatment.

Results

There were 68 eligible randomized control trials; 33 (48.5%) were intended to examine different perioperative patient management strategies (eg, analgesia, ventilation, drainage) or to examine different intraoperative technical aspects (eg, stapling, number of ports, port placement, ligation). The number of randomized control trials was relatively stable over time until a large increase in randomized control trials starting in 2016. Forty-four of the randomized control trials (64.7%) were open-label studies, 43 (63.2%) were conducted in a single facility, 66 (97.1%) had 2 arms, and the mean number of patients enrolled per randomized control trial was 236 (SD, 187). Of 21 completed randomized control trials (31%), the average time to complete accrual was 1605 days (4.4 years) and average time to complete primary/secondary outcomes and adverse events collection was 2125 days (5.82 years).

Conclusions

Given the immense investment of resources that randomized control trials require, these findings suggest the need to scrutinize future randomized control trial proposals to assess the likelihood of successful completion. Future study is needed to understand the various contributing factors to randomized control trial success or failure.

Broadening Eligibility Criteria and Diversity among Patients for Cancer Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Certain populations have been historically underrepresented in clinical trials. Broadening eligibility criteria is one approach to inclusive clinical research and achieving enrollment goals. How broadened trial eligibility criteria affect the diversity of eligible participants is unknown.

METHODS

Using a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database, we identified a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with 22 cancer types between April 1, 2013 and December 31, 2022 who received systemic therapy (N=235,234) for cancer. We evaluated strict versus broadened eligibility criteria using performance status and liver, kidney, and hematologic function around first line of therapy. We performed logistic regression to estimate odds ratios for exclusion by strict criteria and their association with measures of patient diversity, including sex, age, race or ethnicity, and area-level socioeconomic status (SES); estimated the impact of broadening criteria on the number and distribution of eligible patients; and performed Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios for real-world overall survival (rwOS) comparing patients meeting strict versus broadened criteria.

RESULTS

When applying common strict cutoffs for eligibility criteria to patients with complete data and weighting each cancer type equally, 48% of patients were eligible for clinical trials. Female (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25 to 1.35), older (age 75+ vs. 18 to 49 years old: odds ratio, 3.04; 95% CI, 2.85 to 3.24), Latinx (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.39 to 1.54), non-Latinx Black (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.16), and lower-SES patients were more likely to be excluded using strict eligibility criteria. Broadening criteria increased the number of eligible patients by 78%, with the strongest impact for older, female, non-Latinx Black, and lower-SES patients. Patients who met only broadened criteria had worse rwOS versus those with strict criteria (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Data-driven evaluation of clinical trial eligibility criteria may optimize the eligibility of certain historically underrepresented groups and promote access to more inclusive trials. (Sponsored by Flatiron Health.).

Addressing disparities in European cancer outcomes: a qualitative study Protocol of the BEACON project

Introduction

Health disparities represent a crucial factor in cancer survival rates, awareness, quality of life, and mental health of people receiving a cancer diagnosis and their families. Income, education, geographic location, and ethnicity are some of the most important underlying reasons for health disparities in cancer across Europe. Costs of healthcare, access to information, psycho-oncological support options, integration of cancer research and innovative care, and multidisciplinary cancer teams are the main target areas when it comes to addressing disparities in the cancer context. As part of the Beacon Project (BEACON), we developed a protocol for a qualitative study to explore and identify any relevant reasons for cancer inequalities and disparities in Europe.

Methods

Our four stakeholders namely, cancer patients, healthcare providers, researchers, and policymakers will be recruited online, facilitated by collaborative efforts with cancer organizations from various European countries, including but not limited to Italy, Croatia, Estonia, and Slovenia. Qualitative online focus group discussions for each stakeholder will be conducted and transcribed. Subsequently, thematic analysis will be used to identify reasons and aspects that may contribute to the existing disparities in cancer outcomes at various levels of engagement and from different stakeholders' perspectives. Results from focus groups will inform a subsequent Delphi study and a SWOT analysis methodology.

Discussion

Although advances in medical research, cancer screening and treatment options are constantly progressing, disparities in access to and awareness of healthcare in cancer patients are even more noticeable. Thus, mapping the capacity and capability of cancer centres in the European Union, creating decision support tools that will assist the four stakeholders' information needs and improving the quality of European cancer centres will be the main objectives of the BEACON project. The current protocol will outline the methodological and practical procedures to conduct online focus group discussions with different stakeholders.

Matching Patients to Accelerate Clinical Trials (MPACT): Enabling Technology for Oncology Clinical Trial Workflow

Clinical trial enrollment is impeded by the significant time burden placed on research coordinators screening eligible patients. With 50,000 new cancer cases every year, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has made increased access for Veterans to high-quality clinical trials a priority. To aid in this effort, we worked with research coordinators to build the MPACT (Matching Patients to Accelerate Clinical Trials) platform with a goal of improving efficiency in the screening process. MPACT supports both a trial prescreening workflow and a screening workflow, employing Natural Language Processing and Data Science methods to produce reliable phenotypes of trial eligibility criteria. MPACT also has a functionality to track a patient's eligibility status over time. Qualitative feedback has been promising with users reporting a reduction in time spent on identifying eligible patients.

Do Tobacco Treatment Trials Address Disparities in Smoking Outcomes Among Black and Hispanic Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Smoking Cessation Interventions for Black and Hispanic Patients Diagnosed with Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the representation of Black and Hispanic cancer patients in tobacco treatment trials, and to offer recommendations for future research.

METHODS

We conducted two systematic searches of the literature (2018, 2021) using 5 databases (MEDLINE via EBSCO, Pubmed, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE)) to examine the prevalence of tobacco trials that included Black or Hispanic cancer patients. Two coders independently screened all articles at title, abstract, and full-text to identify eligible trials. Information about the proportion of Black and Hispanic patients included, trial design features, and whether the authors analyzed outcomes for Black and Hispanic patients were documented.

RESULTS

Of 4682 identified studies, only 10 published trials included and reported on the rates of Black or Hispanic cancer patients enrolled in their tobacco trial. The proportion of enrolled Black cancer patients ranged from 2 to 55.6%. Only our studies documented enrollment rates for Hispanics, and rates were less than 6%. None of the studies offered strategies to promote or the accrual of Black or Hispanic patients.

DISCUSSION

There remains a large gap in the literature regarding the reach and efficacy of tobacco treatment for Black and Hispanic cancer patients. Black and Hispanic cancer patients remain largely under-represented in tobacco cessation trials, limiting the applicability of existing, evidence-based treatments. To optimize intervention generalizability, future studies should emphasize the targeted recruitment and engagement of these patients in tobacco trials.

What's in it for me?: A value assessment of gynecologic cancer clinical trials for Black women

OBJECTIVE

Underrepresented groups may be dissuaded from clinical trial participation without perceived value. We therefore comprehensively assessed gynecologic cancer clinical trial protocols for the inclusion of items of value most important to Black individuals.

METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for NCI-sponsored gynecologic cancer clinical trials in the US between Jan.1994 and Nov.2021. Pre-specified return of value (ROV) items were abstracted from each protocol. Inclusion proportions were calculated for each ROV item and temporal changes assessed with chi-square tests. Temporality of proportional trends was further assessed by slope and departure from linearity calculations.

RESULTS

279 gynecologic cancer clinical trials were included. Most commonly trials had first accrual in 2001-2007 (37%) and involved ovarian cancer (48%), phase II studies (53%), and chemotherapy (60%) or targeted therapy (34%). Trials often included ROV items in basic information (99%), medical record information (99%), and imaging (82%). 41% of trials included ROV items in biomarker testing, 20% genetic testing, and 20% in patient-reported outcome questionnaires. Over time, there were significant increases in the proportion of trials that included genetic (3% to 51%; p < 0.001) and biomarker testing (14 to 78%, p < 0.001). Information on lifestyle risk factors was rare (1%). No trials included ROV items in ancestry, how to connect with other participants, or remuneration.

CONCLUSIONS

Gynecologic cancer clinical trials include few design elements that provide high value to Black individuals like lifestyle risk factors, ancestry, and remuneration. In any multi-pronged effort to improve diversity in clinical trial enrollment, inclusion of items valued by Black individuals should be considered.

Enrollment of Racial and Ethnic Minoritized Groups in Gynecologic Oncology Clinical Trials: A Review of the Scope of the Problem, Contributing Factors, and Strategies to Improve Inclusion

Racial inequities are well-documented across the gynecologic oncology care continuum, including the representation of racial and ethnic minoritized groups (REMGs) in gynecologic oncology clinical trials. We specifically reviewed the scope of REMG disparities, contributing factors, and strategies to improve inclusion. We found systematic and progressively worsening under-enrollment of REMGs, particularly of Black and Latinx populations. In addition, race/ethnicity data reporting is poor, yet a prerequisite for accountability to recruitment goals. Trial participation barriers are multifactorial, and successful remediation likely requires multi-level strategies. More rigorous, transparent data on trial participants and effectiveness studies on REMG recruitment strategies are needed to improve enrollment.

Qualitative study of Oncology Clinicians' Perceptions of Barriers to Offering Clinical Trials to Underserved Populations

INTRODUCTION

Cancer clinical trials represent the "gold standard" for advancing novel cancer therapies. Optimizing trial participation is critical to ensuring the generalizability of findings across patients, yet trial enrollment rates, particularly among minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, remain suboptimal.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with oncologists at a large academic medical center to explore their (1) attitudes and perceived barriers to offering clinical trials to minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, and (2) recommendations for improving the enrollment of minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients in cancer clinical trials.

RESULTS

Of 23 medical oncologists approached, 17 enrolled (74% response rate; mean age = 47; female = 42%; White = 67%). Content analysis revealed several barriers to enrollment: (1) ethical dilemmas; (2) ambivalence about trial risks and benefits; and (3) concern about patient well-being. Concerns about the legitimacy of informed consent, perceived lack of equipoise, and fear of personal bias influenced clinicians' decisions to recommend trials during treatment discussions. Concerns about creating an imbalance between trial risks and benefits among patients with high-level needs, including patients with literacy, psychiatric, and other socioeconomic vulnerabilities, impacted clinicians' enthusiasm to engage in trial discussions. Clinicians identified patient, provider, and system-level solutions to address challenges, including increasing patient and clinician support as well as involving external personnel to support trial enrollment.

CONCLUSION

Findings reveal multi-level barriers to offering cancer clinical trials to underrepresented patients. Targeted solutions, including system level changes to support clinicians, patient financial support, and implementation of clinical trial navigation programs were recommended to help reduce access barriers and increase enrollment of underrepresented patients into cancer clinical trials.

Radiotherapy reimagined: Integrating nanomedicines into radiotherapy clinical trials

Radioenhancing nanoparticles (NPs) are being evaluated in ongoing clinical trials for various cancers including head and neck, lung, esophagus, pancreas, prostate, and soft tissue sarcoma. Supported by decades of preclinical investigation and recent randomized trial data establishing clinical activity, these agents are poised to influence future multimodality treatment paradigms involving radiotherapy. Although the physical interactions between NPs and ionizing radiation are well characterized, less is known about how these agents modify the tumor microenvironment, particularly regarding tumor immunogenicity. In this review, we describe the key multidisciplinary considerations related to radiation, surgery, immunology, and pathology for designing radioenhancing NP clinical trials. This article is categorized under: Therapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > Nanomedicine for Oncologic Disease.

Public knowledge and information sources for clinical trials among adults in the USA: evidence from a Health Information National Trends Survey in 2020

BACKGROUND

Lack of clinical trial awareness has been identified as a barrier to clinical trial recruitment. Identifying factors associated with clinical trial knowledge could inform ongoing efforts to improve diversity in clinical trials.

METHODS

Using data from the Health Information National Trends Survey, 2020, we examined the knowledge of clinical trials, associated characteristics, sources of clinical trial information and motives to participate in clinical trials among the general population in the USA.

RESULTS

Of 3,772 US adults, 41.3% reported not knowing about clinical trials. Prevalence of having no knowledge of clinical trials was higher among Hispanic adults (51.8%) and non-Hispanic Black adults (41.8%) compared with non-Hispanic White adults (37.4%; p=0.013). Other significant predictors of knowledge about clinical trials included higher education, online health information-seeking behaviour and patient portal access. Most respondents (73.2%) reported that healthcare providers were the most trusted source of information. Helping other people (71.6%) was the primary motivation for clinical trial participation, followed by financial compensation (12.5%) and receiving better treatment (5.1%).

CONCLUSION

There is a gap in knowledge about clinical trials among the US population. Development of multimodal approaches, including online and offline information broadcasting, is needed to improve knowledge and clinical trial recruitment in diverse populations.

A nationwide analysis of clinical trial participation for common hepato-pancreato-biliary malignancies demonstrates survival advantages for subsets of trial patients but disparities in and infrequency of enrollment

BACKGROUND

We describe factors associated with trial enrollment for patients with hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) malignancies. We analyzed the association and effect of trial enrollment on overall survival (OS).

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (2004-2017) was queried for common HPB malignancies (pancreatic adenocarcinoma [PDAC] & neuroendocrine tumors, hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC], biliary tract cancers [BTC]). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with trial enrollment. OS was analyzed by multivariable Cox regression. Inverse-probability-weighted Cox regression was utilized to determine the effect of trial enrollment on OS.

RESULTS

A total of 1573 (0.3%) of 511,639 patients were enrolled in trials; pancreatic malignancy: 1214 (0.4%); HCC: 217 (0.14%); BTC: 106 (0.15%). HCC and BTC were associated with lower likelihood of enrollment compared with pancreatic malignancy. Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to be enrolled compared to White patients. Treatment at academic facilities and metastatic disease were associated with higher likelihood of enrollment. Enrollment was associated with higher OS for PDAC, metastatic HCC, and metastatic BTC. Trial enrollment exhibited an OS advantage for PDAC and metastatic HCC.

CONCLUSION

Nationally, fewer than 1% of patients with HPB malignancies were enrolled in clinical trials. There are racial, sociodemographic, and facility-based disparities in trial enrollment.

A Scoping Review of Strategies to Increase Black Enrollment and Retention in Cancer Clinical Trials

To address health disparities faced by Black patients with cancer, it is critical that researchers conducting cancer clinical trials (CCTs) equitably recruit and retain Black participants, develop strategies toward this aim, and document associated outcomes. This narrative scoping literature review, as part of a larger study, aimed to identify, describe, and categorize strategies and interventions intended to improve the recruitment and retention of Black participants with breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, or multiple myeloma cancer into CCTs. We conducted comprehensive searches in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science with three main concepts: Black persons, neoplasms, and clinical trial recruitment. The search resulted in 1,506 articles, of which 15 met inclusion criteria. Five main categories of recruitment and retention strategies and interventions were identified based on their specific population focus and type of approach: (1) participant identification, (2) provider awareness/resources, (3) focused research staff interventions, (4) patient and community–focused awareness strategies, and (5) participant-directed resources. Thirteen studies had recruitment acceptance rates of over 30%. Eight studies with acceptance rates of ≥ 50% reported implementing ≥ 5 strategies, with an average use of seven strategies across multiple categories. Five studies with acceptance rates ≥ 50% implemented strategies in ≥ 3 categories. Four studies reported retention rates ≥ 74%. Three studies with reported retention rates ≥ 74% used strategies in ≥ 3 categories, and all included strategies aimed at meeting participant needs beyond the study. Our results show that many efforts that aim to increase the recruitment and retention of Black participants into CCTs have great potential, but the most promising strategies use a multiprong approach.

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials: An American Society of Clinical Oncology and Association of Community Cancer Centers Joint Research Statement

A concerted commitment across research stakeholders is necessary to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and address barriers to cancer clinical trial recruitment and participation. Racial and ethnic diversity among trial participants is key to understanding intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may affect patient response to cancer treatments. This ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Research Statement presents specific recommendations and strategies for the research community to improve EDI in cancer clinical trials. There are six overarching recommendations: (1) clinical trials are an integral component of high-quality cancer care, and every person with cancer should have the opportunity to participate; (2) trial sponsors and investigators should design and implement trials with a focus on reducing barriers and enhancing EDI, and work with sites to conduct trials in ways that increase participation of under-represented populations; (3) trial sponsors, researchers, and sites should form long-standing partnerships with patients, patient advocacy groups, and community leaders and groups; (4) anyone designing or conducting trials should complete recurring education, training, and evaluation to demonstrate and maintain cross-cultural competencies, mitigation of bias, effective communication, and a commitment to achieving EDI; (5) research stakeholders should invest in programs and policies that increase EDI in trials and in the research workforce; and (6) research stakeholders should collect and publish aggregate data on racial and ethnic diversity of trial participants when reporting results of trials, programs, and interventions to increase EDI. The recommendations are intended to serve as a guide for the research community to improve participation rates among people from racial and ethnic minority populations historically under-represented in cancer clinical trials. ASCO and ACCC will work at all levels to advance the recommendations in this publication.

An Electronic Information Kiosk for Enhancing Patient Accrual for Cancer Clinical Trials: A Pilot and Feasibility Study

Introduction

Low accrual to clinical trials for solid tumors at our institution led to a review of possible modifiable factors within our control. This led to a pilot project to determine whether improved patient awareness could alter accrual rates to active trials.

Methods

An information kiosk was located at the patient library on the ground floor of the London Regional Cancer Program. Adult cancer patients were invited to learn more about clinical trials from our research navigator, including specific trials open in our center, and to participate in the study, which involved a brief satisfaction and demographics survey.

Results

Three hundred and eighty-six (386) patients interacted with the clinical trial information kiosk over the eight weeks it was open. Of these, 32 patients consented and filled out surveys, which indicated an overall positive interaction with the kiosk. Unfortunately, in the time period examined, clinical trial accrual rates appeared to decrease when the pre- and post-kiosk activation periods were compared (44 versus 37 patients accrued to various trials).

Conclusion

Our pilot study found that the implementation of a clinical trial information kiosk was easy to understand and useful for patients to learn more about clinical trials. Barriers to this patient satisfaction translating into increased accrual rates in our center included suboptimal kiosk location and lack of guidance to the kiosk from clerical staff. High patient satisfaction scores support the potential value of permanent clinical trial information kiosks in our cancer center, but this requires increased attention to visibility, location, and staff education.

Equitable Representation of Latinos in Clinical Research Is Needed to Achieve Health Equity in Cancer Care

PURPOSE

Identify key barriers that keep Latinos from participating in clinical trials (CTs) and interventions proven effective in increasing their representation in clinical research.

METHODS

Utilize our own extensive research experience and review the literature to: identify key barriers, summarize strategies that have been proven effective in increasing Latino representation in CTs, issue a call to action for programs/practices and practitioners to implement what is proven effective, and make recommendations for further research to address current gaps.

RESULTS

Participation barriers are complex, multifactorial, and exist at different levels, including study design (eg, protocol complexity, patient exclusion criteria, trial duration and frequency), healthcare system barriers (eg, lack of minority staff), patient-related factors (eg, lack of awareness, low health literacy, language, social determinants of health [SDoH]), and medical team issues (eg, lack of cultural competence, lack of referrals, implicit bias, provider/patient communication). Research has shown that the most effective strategies to increase participation of underrepresented minorities in CTs include culturally sensitive educational tools aimed at community members, patients, and physicians, and strategies to address the multiple SDoH and other barriers to participation facing cancer patients and the factors that influence patient decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Raising awareness or offering clinical trials to everyone will not alone increase Latino participation. Other key barriers at different levels must also be addressed, especially SDoH and patients' contextual factors. To achieve equitable participation of Latinos and other underrepresented groups in clinical research, comprehensive approaches that address interrelated multilevel and multifactorial barriers to participation can produce a substantial, sustained impact-ensuring everyone equitably benefits from scientific advances in cancer treatment, improved cancer outcomes and quality of life, and reduced health care costs.

Comparing Perceptions and Decisional Conflict Towards Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials Among African American Patients Who Have and Have Not Participated

Despite efforts to increase the diversity of cancer clinical trial participants, African Americans are still underrepresented. While perceptions of participation have been studied, the objective of this study was to compare perceptions and decisional conflict towards clinical trials among African American cancer patients who have and have not participated in clinical trials to identify key areas for intervention. Post hoc analysis also looked at whether they had been asked to participate and how that group differed from those who did. Forty-one African American cancer patients were surveyed at two urban cancer centers and asked to agree/disagree to statements related to clinical trials perceptions (facilitators, barriers, beliefs, values, support, and helpfulness), and complete the O'Connor Decisional Conflict Scale. Independent-samples t tests compared participants by clinical trials participation status; 41% had participated in a clinical trial. Results revealed significant perceptual differences among the groups in three main areas: helpfulness of clinical trials, facilitators to participate in clinical trials, and barriers to participating in clinical trials. Post hoc analysis indicated that those who were not asked about clinical trials and had not participated differed significantly in all areas compared with participants. Additionally, clinical trial participants reported significantly lower decisional conflict in most items compared with both those who had and had not be asked to participate. These differences can give practitioners clues as to how to bridge the gap from non-participator to participator. Messages could then be infused in the clinician-patient dyad when introducing and discussing clinical trials, potentially providing a more effective strategy for communicating with African American patients.

Oncologic patients' misconceptions may impede enrollment into clinical trials: a cross-sectional study

Background

Clinical trials are an essential source for advances in oncologic care, yet the enrollment rate is only 2-4%. Patients' reluctance to participate is an important barrier. This study evaluates patients' level of understanding and attitudes towards clinical trials.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted in the oncology department and day care unit at the oncology division Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Israel. From January 2015 to September 2016. Two-hundred patients’ currently receiving active anti-cancer therapy at a large tertiary hospital completed an anonymous questionnaire comprised of demographic information, past experience in clinical research and basic knowledge on clinical trials.

Results

The majority of respondents did not meet the minimum knowledge level criteria. In those who replied they would decline to participate in a clinical trial, concern were related to potential assignment to the placebo arm, provision of informed consent and trust issues with their oncologist. Those with sufficient knowledge were significantly more interested in participating. Patients with past experience in clinical trials had a higher level of academic education, were less religious, had a better understanding of medical research and were inclined to participate in future research.

Conclusions

Misperceptions of clinical trials may contribute substantially to the unwillingness to participate in them.

Addressing the Barriers to Clinical Trials Accrual in Community Cancer Centres Using a National Clinical Trials Navigator:A Cross-Sectional Analysis

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.

The Recruitment Innovation Center: Developing novel, person-centered strategies for clinical trial recruitment and retention

Clinical trials continue to face significant challenges in participant recruitment and retention. The Recruitment Innovation Center (RIC), part of the Trial Innovation Network (TIN), has been funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health to develop innovative strategies and technologies to enhance participant engagement in all stages of multicenter clinical trials. In collaboration with investigator teams and liaisons at Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions, the RIC is charged with the mission to design, field-test, and refine novel resources in the context of individual clinical trials. These innovations are disseminated via newsletters, publications, a virtual toolbox on the TIN website, and RIC-hosted collaboration webinars. The RIC has designed, implemented, and promised customized recruitment support for 173 studies across many diverse disease areas. This support has incorporated site feasibility assessments, community input sessions, recruitment materials recommendations, social media campaigns, and an array of study-specific suggestions. The RIC’s goal is to evaluate the efficacy of these resources and provide access to all investigating teams, so that more trials can be completed on time, within budget, with diverse participation, and with enough accrual to power statistical analyses and make substantive contributions to the advancement of healthcare.

Social Media and Clinical Research in Dermatology

Purpose of Review

The immense growth of social media has afforded new opportunities in dermatology clinical research. This review serves to outline how social media has impacted clinical research and to explore future avenues for which social media can make a significant impact in dermatology clinical research.

Recent Findings

Recent clinical trials augmented by social media have demonstrated increased participant enrollment, shortened recruitment timelines, and decreased recruitment cost. The incorporation of social media into clinical research has also afforded greater access to teledermatology and the initiation of virtual clinical trials.

Summary

Clinical research serves as a primary source of evidence for refining healthcare practices by expanding the understanding of patient demographics, methods for improving patient care, and new therapeutic discoveries. Since its initiation, social media has played an integral and ever-expanding role in clinical research.

The Impact of an Online Training Program About Cancer Clinical Trials on Primary Care Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs, and Behavior

Participation in cancer clinical trials (CCTs) is critical to improving cancer treatments and quality of care. However, rates of patient participation remain low. Research has shown that a trusted physician recommendation is an important influence on patients' decisions to enroll in a CCT. Improving primary care providers' (PCPs') knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about CCTs is a promising potential path for improving CCT participation. The aim of this pilot study was to test the effect of an online educational course for PCPs about clinical trials on primary care providers' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, and behavior. Forty-one PCPs in the New York City area participated in a 1-h online training session on cancer clinical trials. These PCPs had self-selected to complete the training in a previous survey. The objectives of the training module were to (1) educate the PCPs about clinical trials, with a focus on overcoming misconceptions; and (2) discuss roles of PCPs in partnering with oncologists to help patients gain access to clinical trials. The training module included didactics, audio excerpts, and case descriptions. Participants completed a pre-test immediately before taking the course, a post-test immediately after taking the course, and a 3-month post-course survey. All three assessments included a general T/F knowledge test, a 7-item attitude/belief scale, and a knowledge test focused specifically on local resources and access for clinical trials. Forty-one PCPs completed the module and the pre-post course surveys. Eighty percent (33/41) also completed the 3-month post-course survey. General knowledge and local knowledge increased significantly (p < .05) from pre- to post-course. At 3 months post-training, both general and local knowledge scores remained significantly increased from baseline. For those who completed the 3-month post-course survey, attitudes and beliefs increased significantly from pre- to post-course, but this change was not sustained at 3 months post-training. At 3 months post-training, 52% of the PCPs who had an interaction with a recently diagnosed cancer patient reported speaking with patients about CCTs as a result of the training. A brief online course showed significant and sustained improvement in PCPs' general and local knowledge about cancer clinical trials, which translated into self-reported behavior change. Future dissemination of the course and further research into its impact are important next steps.

Use of Video Education Interventions to Increase Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Less than 5% of eligible adult cancer survivors participate in cancer clinical trials. Survivors identifying as Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) are less likely to participate in clinical trials compared to those identifying as non-Hispanic White. Common barriers to BIPOC participation are lack of knowledge, lack of access, and mistrust. These barriers are all factors in the disparities observed in BIPOC cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Clinical trials need adequate BIPOC representation to garner generalizable findings that can reduce or eliminate cancer disparities associated with the social construct of race.

AIM

This systematic review examined the use of video education interventions to impact BIPOC survivor participation in clinical trials.

METHODS

Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, PsycInfo, and CINAHL databases were queried for articles that described or tested video interventions aimed at increasing adult, BIPOC survivor clinical trial participation. Two authors independently screened articles for inclusion, appraised quality, and abstracted relevant data. All authors synthesized the data into themes through discussion and consensus.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2,512 articles. Seven selected articles described six distinct interventions. Although the six interventions reduced barriers to participation in clinical trials, their findings varied on Black and Hispanic survivors' readiness to enroll and participate in trials. Four themes emerged: (a) cultural sensitivity is needed in video development and delivery; (b) video content should be aimed to educate and change attitudes about clinical trials; (c) video interventions are feasible and acceptable; and (d) video interventions affect outcomes on intention or actual enrollment.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

Video interventions are well-received by BIPOC survivors and may improve representation in clinical trials. Yet, video interventions are underutilized. More studies are needed to establish best practices for video interventions aimed at diversifying clinical trial participation as widening cancer disparities and rapidly changing cancer care continue to emerge.

Observational study investigating Tolerance Of Anticancer Systemic Therapy In the Elderly (TOASTIE): a protocol

INTRODUCTION

The number of older adults diagnosed with cancer is increasing. Older adults are more likely to have pre-existing frailty, which is associated with greater chemotherapy-related toxicity. Early identification of those at risk of toxicity is important to reduce patient morbidity and mortality. Current chemotherapy toxicity prediction tools including the Cancer and Ageing Research Group (CARG) tool exist but are not in routine clinical use and have not been prospectively validated in a UK population. This study is the first prospective study to investigate the CARG tool in a UK population with cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Tolerance Of Anticancer Systemic Therapy In the Elderly is a prospective observational study of patients, aged ≥65 years, commencing first-line (any indication) chemotherapy for a solid-organ malignancy. Patients receiving other systemic anticancer agents or radiotherapy will be excluded. The primary objective will be to validate the ability of the CARG score to predict grade 3+ toxicity in this population. Secondary objectives include describing the feasibility of screening for frailty, as well as the prevalance of frailty in this population and assessing patient and clinician perception of chemotherapy toxicity risk. 500 patients will be recruited over a two year period. Baseline assessments will be recorded. At the end of the 6-month follow-up period, toxicity data will be retrospectively collected. A descriptive analysis of the recruited population will be performed. The validity of the CARG model will be analysed using receiver-operating characteristic curves and calculation of the area under the curve (c-statistic).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has received ethical approval from the East of Scotland Research Ethics Service 20/ES/0114. Results will be reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals and disseminated to patient organisations and media.

Demographic and Health Behavior Factors Associated With Clinical Trial Invitation and Participation in the United States

IMPORTANCE

Representative enrollment in clinical trials is critical to ensure equitable and effective translation of research to practice, yet disparities in clinical trial enrollment persist.

OBJECTIVE

To examine person-level factors associated with invitation to and participation in clinical trials.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study analyzed responses from 3689 US adults who participated in the nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey, collected February through June 2020 via mailed questionnaires.

EXPOSURES

Demographic, clinical, and health behavior-related characteristics.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

History of invitation to and participation in a clinical trial, primary information sources, trust in information sources, and motives for participation in clinical trials were described. Respondent characteristics are presented as absolute numbers and weighted percentages. Associations between respondent demographic, clinical, and health behavior-related characteristics and clinical trial invitation and participation were estimated using survey-weighted logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The median (IQR) age of the 3689 respondents was 48 (33-61) years, and most were non-Hispanic White individuals (2063 [59%]; non-Hispanic Black, 452 [10%]; Hispanic, 521 [14%]), had more than a high school degree (2656 [68%]), were employed (1809 [58%]), and had at least 1 medical condition (2535 [61%]). Overall, 439 respondents (9%) had been invited to participate in any clinical trial. Respondents with increased odds of invitation were non-Hispanic Black compared with non-Hispanic White (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.13-3.02), had greater than a high school education compared with less than high school education (eg, ≥college degree: aOR, 4.84; 95% CI, 1.89-12.39), were single compared with married or living as married (aOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.73), and had at least 1 medical condition compared to none (eg, 1 medical condition: aOR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.32-3.82). Respondents residing in rural vs urban areas had 77% decreased odds of invitation to a clinical trial (aOR 0.33; 95% CI 0.17-0.65). Of invited respondents, 199 (47%) participated. Compared with non-Hispanic White respondents, non-Hispanic Black respondents had 72% decreased odds of clinical trial participation (aOR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.87). Respondents most frequently reported "health care providers" as the first and most trusted source of clinical trial information (first source: 2297 [59%]; most trusted source: 2597 [70%]). The most frequently reported motives for clinical trials participation were "wanting to get better" (2294 [66%]) and the standard of care not being covered by insurance (1448 [41%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that invitation to and participation in clinical trials may differ by person-level demographic and clinical characteristics. Strategies toward increasing trial invitation and participation rates across diverse patient populations warrant further research to ensure equitable translation of clinical benefits from research to practice.

Feasibility of Randomized Controlled Trials for Cancer Drugs Approved by the Food and Drug Administration Based on Single-Arm Studies

Background

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced an Accelerated Approval (AA) pathway to expedite patient access to new drugs. AA accepts less rigorous trial designs, including single-arm studies (SAS), owing to perceived lack of feasibility of timely randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

We designed hypothetical RCTs with endpoints of overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for FDA approvals based on SAS for solid tumors during 2010-2019. Existing standards of care served as controls. RCTs were designed to detect a difference with power of 0.80, α-error of 5% (2-sided), and 1:1 randomization. Accrual duration was estimated based on participation by less than 5% of eligible patients derived from cancer-specific incidence and mortality rates in the United States.

Results

Of 172 (18.0%) approvals during the study period, 31 (18.0%) were based on SAS. Median sample size was 104 (range = 23-411), and 77.4% were AA. All studies reported ORR, 55% reported duration of response, 19.4% reported PFS, and 22.5% reported OS. Median sample sizes needed to conduct RCTs with endpoints of ORR, PFS, and OS were 206, 130, and 396, respectively. It would have been theoretically possible to conduct RCTs within duration comparable with that required by SAS for 84.6%, 94.1%, and 80.0% of approvals with endpoints of ORR, PFS, and OS, respectively.

Conclusion

An overwhelming majority of FDA approvals based on SAS should be feasible as RCTs within a reasonable time frame. Given the collateral harms to patients and to scientific rigor, drug approval based on SAS should only be permitted under exceptional circumstances.

Automated Electronic Health Record-Based Tool for Identification of Patients With Metastatic Disease to Facilitate Clinical Trial Patient Ascertainment

PURPOSE

To facilitate identification of clinical trial participation candidates, we developed a machine learning tool that automates the determination of a patient's metastatic status, on the basis of unstructured electronic health record (EHR) data.

METHODS

This tool scans EHR documents, extracting text snippet features surrounding key words (such as metastatic, progression, and local). A regularized logistic regression model was trained and used to classify patients across five metastatic categories: highly likely and likely positive, highly likely and likely negative, and unknown. Using a real-world oncology database of patients with solid tumors with manually abstracted information as reference, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV). We validated the performance in a real-world data set, evaluating accuracy gains upon additional user review of tool's outputs after integration into clinic workflows.

RESULTS

In the training data set (N = 66,532), the model sensitivity and specificity (% [95% CI]) were 82.4 [81.9 to 83.0] and 95.5 [95.3 to 96.7], respectively; the PPV was 89.3 [88.8 to 90.0], and the NPV was 94.0 [93.8 to 94.2]. In the validation sample (n = 200 from five distinct care sites), after user review of model outputs, values increased to 97.1 [85.1 to 99.9] for sensitivity, 98.2 [94.8 to 99.6] for specificity, 91.9 [78.1 to 98.3] for PPV, and 99.4 [96.6 to 100.0] for NPV. The model assigned 163 of 200 patients to the highly likely categories. The error prevalence was 4% before and 2% after user review.

CONCLUSION

This tool infers metastatic status from unstructured EHR data with high accuracy and high confidence in more than 75% of cases, without requiring additional manual review. By enabling efficient characterization of metastatic status, this tool could mitigate a key barrier for patient ascertainment and clinical trial participation in community clinics.

Awareness of breast cancer patients in Poland about clinical trials as available treatment options

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women in Poland and worldwide. Due to growing morbidity and mortality, patients are looking for new therapeutic options. Clinical trials give cancer patients a chance to access innovative treatment often not available in the national healthcare system. Patient awareness of clinical trials is an essential element for the development of the clinical trials market.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this survey was to obtain information from breast cancer patients about their knowledge of clinical trials.

METHODS

One hundred people were invited to take part in the study, and were recruited into two groups: 50 patients diagnosed with breast cancer less than 40 years of age, and 50 patients with the same disease over 40 years of age. The survey was completed by female patients online.

RESULTS

Most of the subjects correctly understood the assumptions of the clinical trial; most often, both groups of subjects obtained information about medical experiments from the Internet. According to the respondents, the most important motivating factor to participate in the clinical trial was the proposed study drug and their current state of health. Patients would more frequently decide to participate in a clinical trial at the time of cancer progression compared to immediately after diagnosis. Commuting to the research center made recruitment of older patients more difficult (40% of older patients versus 16% of younger patients, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Patients with breast cancer are aware of clinical trials and decide to participate in them based on the proposed study drug and their current state of health. Progression of the disease is a factor that increases the willingness to participate in clinical trials.

Clinical trial participation assessed by age, sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status

INTRODUCTION

Individual demographic data and socioeconomic status (SES) factors from Census block group data may help define groups with disadvantaged access to clinical trials.

METHODS

Individual demographic data from the Aurora Cancer Registry and SES factors corresponding to the Census block group of the patient's address were studied for a six-year period ending July 31, 2019.

RESULTS

The final study cohort included 39,968 patients (enrolled = 772, and not enrolled = 39,196). In univariate analysis, significantly fewer patients older than age 65 (p < 0.001) and fewer men (p < 0.001) were enrolled in clinical trials. Socioeconomic factors found to be significant during univariate analysis included: low household income (p < 0.001), percentage below the poverty line (p < 0.001), low percentage home ownership (p = 0.006), unemployment (p = 0.003), absence of a college degree (p = 0.037) and absence of a high school degree (p = 0.007). In multivariate analysis, patients older than age 65 were less likely to participate in a trial (odds ratio 0.574, p < 0.001) and men were less likely to participate (odds ratio = 0.703, p < 0.001). Only 1.4% of the variance in clinical trial participation was accounted for demographic and SES factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The only groups with disadvantaged access to clinical trials in our institution were the elderly and men. Whether demographic or SES factors are related to accrual rates of clinical trials in other geographic regions or in other types of research studies warrants further investigation.

Use of a clinical trial screening tool to enhance patient accrual

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial patient accrual continues to be challenging despite the identification of multiple physician, patient, and system barriers. Expanded collection of demographic data, including socioeconomic status (employment, income, education) and comorbidities, can enhance our understanding of the identified barriers, inform the development of interventions to overcome these barriers, and recognize their impact on treatment outcomes. A clinical trials screening tool was developed to collect expanded demographic data and barriers to trial enrollment; it has been implemented in the National Cancer Institute Clinical Oncology Research Program. The purpose of this article is to describe the development and implementation of the tool and to share information obtained during the first 43 months of its use.

METHODS

There were 19,373 entries collected; 74% of those screened enrolled in a clinical trial. Demographic characteristics were compared between those screened and those enrolled. They varied significantly between the groups.

RESULTS

Reasons for nonenrollment included ineligibility (50%), eligible but declined (47%), eligible but physician declined to offer participation (2%), and eligible but the study was suspended (1%). The most common reasons for ineligibility were failure to meet the protocol-specific stage of cancer, the presence of comorbidities, and the symptom-eligibility score was not met. The most common reason for eligible patients declining participation was that they had no desire to participate in research.

CONCLUSIONS

The tool provides valuable information about the characteristics of individuals who are screened and enrolled in National Cancer Institute-sponsored trials, as well as about barriers to enrollment in trials. The data also inform protocol development and interventions at the patient, provider, and institutional level.

IMPROVE, a community-based exercise intervention versus support group to improve functional and health outcomes among older African American and Non-Hispanic White breast cancer survivors from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds: Recruitment strategies and baseline characteristics

BACKGROUND

Behavioral intervention studies in older breast cancer survivors, particularly older African American (AA) and socioeconomic status-disadvantaged breast cancer survivors, are lacking. To inform future studies, the authors examined recruitment strategies in older breast cancer survivors who participated in an exercise intervention study.

METHODS

IMPROVE is a randomized trial designed to evaluate a group-based exercise intervention versus a support group (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02763228). Participants were aged ≥65 years who had survived stage I through III breast cancer and were within 5 years of treatment completion. Participants were recruited through multiple approaches, including peripheral, linguistic, and constituent-involving strategies that incorporated the identification of potentially eligible patients from 3 local hospitals and from State of Ohio registries and through direct clinician and community organization referrals.

RESULTS

Between October 2016 and November 2019, 7487 patients were screened, 4790 were potentially eligible, and 213 were randomized into the study. The eligible:randomization rates were 4.4% overall and 84%, 8%, and 2% for recruitment using direct referrals, hospital registries, and state registries, respectively. The median age of the randomized cohort was 70 years (range, 65-88 years) and included 44% AA and 44% socioeconomic status-disadvantaged breast cancer survivors. Compared with all registry-eligible patients, directly referred-eligible patients were more likely to be AA versus Non-Hispanic White (41% vs 19%; P = .006), to be contacted successfully (100% vs 33%; P < .0001), and to accept study participation (88% vs 16%; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct referrals appeared to be the most efficient strategy for recruiting AA survivors. Behavioral intervention studies seeking to target older AA and socioeconomic status-disadvantaged breast cancer survivors should include strategies that foster direct referrals to study participation.

The Effectiveness of Shared Compared to Informed Decision Making for Prostate Cancer Screening in a High-Risk African American Population: A Randomized Control Trial

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer incidence and mortality in the United States in African Americans (AA) are higher than in Caucasians. Eastern Cuyahoga County in Ohio is majority AA and is considered an underserved population particularly vulnerable to healthcare disparities. There is a paucity of data about shared decision making among high-risk AA men with regard to prostate cancer screening. This study aims to examine shared versus informed decision making (SDM versus IDM) in a randomized, control trial among a large, high-risk AA population.

METHODS

Patients were included in annual one-day outreach events, each held over 3 years (2017-2019), and were randomized at each event into IDM (control) and SDM (investigational) groups and then were offered screening via prostate specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal exam (DRE). The primary endpoints were proportion of participants over 40 who did not demonstrate decisional conflict about prostate cancer screening measured by the SURE score, as well as change of knowledge score about prostate cancer screening.

RESULTS

Overall, 175 patients were enrolled in the trial; 79 in the SDM arm and 96 in the IDM arm. The investigational (SDM) arm had 3/79 (3.9%) conflict versus 6/96 (6.4%) in the control (IDM) arm (p = 0.74). With regard to knowledge improvement, the SDM cohort demonstrated improvement following educational tools for 66/79 (81%) of participants versus 76/96 (79%) in the IDM cohort (p = 0.85). There was no difference in the proportion (63%) of participants in either group who found the information very helpful (using a Likert scale).

CONCLUSIONS

Our education-based study showed no significant difference between SDM and IDM with regard to decisional conflict about prostate cancer screening. The study also demonstrated significant improvement in knowledge about prostate cancer screening in a high-risk AA population in both groups. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to several limitations; however, the study can serve as a benchmark for future studies in this very important topic.

Older adult participation in cancer clinical trials: A systematic review of barriers and interventions

Cancer is a disease of aging and, as the world's population ages, the number of older persons with cancer is increasing and will make up a growing share of the oncology population in virtually every country. Despite this, older patients remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments. Consequently, most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients, and effective strategies to improve clinical trial participation of older adults with cancer remain sparse. For this systematic review, the authors evaluated published studies regarding barriers to participation and interventions to improve participation of older adults in cancer trials. The quality of the available evidence was low and, despite a literature describing multifaceted barriers, only one intervention study aimed to increase enrollment of older adults in trials. The findings starkly amplify the paucity of evidence-based, effective strategies to improve participation of this underrepresented population in cancer trials. Within these limitations, the authors provide their opinion on how the current cancer research infrastructure must be modified to accommodate the needs of older patients. Several underused solutions are offered to expand clinical trials to include older adults with cancer. However, as currently constructed, these recommendations alone will not solve the evidence gap in geriatric oncology, and efforts are needed to meet older and frail adults where they are by expanding clinical trials designed specifically for this population and leveraging real-world data.

Clinical Trial Metrics: The Complexity of Conducting Clinical Trials in North American Cancer Centers

Cancer clinical trials offices (CTOs) support the investigation of cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment at cancer centers across North America. CTOs are a centralized resource for clinical trial conduct and typically use research staff with expertise in four functional areas of clinical research: finance, regulatory, clinical, and data operations. To our knowledge, there are no publicly available benchmark data sets that characterize the size, cost, volume, and efficiency of these offices, nor whether the metrics differ by National Cancer Institute (NCI) designation. The Association of American Cancer Institutes (AACI) Clinical Research Innovation (CRI) steering committee developed a survey to address this knowledge gap.

Site engagement for multi-site clinical trials

Multi-site clinical trials are essential within medical practice to help drive reliable and generalizable knowledge on advancing medical treatments. Although the success of multi-site trials is significantly dependent on local clinician and site research teams, best practices for engagement of site teams, or "site engagement," has not been extensively discussed. Site engagement centers on including sites in the planning and implementation of clinical trials to promote trial enrollment, compliance, and applicability to local contexts. Using a case example from the RadComp Trial, a longitudinal, multi-site clinical trial, novel site engagement practices are provided across three major research phases. In the Planning Phase, site engagement builds partnerships and commitment by active elicitation of information on site specific processes and feedback on trial design. In the Conducting Phase, sustained engagement encourages bi-directional communication and facilitates learning networks for enhanced site performance. In the Dissemination Phase, site and community partnerships are leveraged to create locally designed dissemination plans for broader scientific reach and impact. Site engagement practices discussed in this paper can be replicated or molded for application in other multi-site clinical trials.

Understanding and Attitudes toward Cancer Clinical Trials among Patients with a Cancer Diagnosis: National Study through Cancer Trials Ireland

Cancer clinical trials (CCTs) are critical to translation and development of better therapies to improve outcomes. CCTs require adequate patient involvement but accrual rates are low globally. Several known barriers impede participation and knowing how subpopulations differ in understanding of CCTs can foster targeted approaches to aid accrual and advance cancer treatments. We conducted the first nationwide survey of 1089 patients attending 14 Irish cancer centres, assessing understanding of fundamental concepts in CCT methodology and factors that influence participation, to help tailor patient support for accrual to CCTs. Two-thirds (66%) of patients reported never having been offered a CCT and only 5% of those not offered asked to participate. Misunderstanding of clinical equipoise was prevalent. There were differences in understanding of randomisation of treatment by age (p < 0.0001), ethnicity (p = 0.035) and marital status (p = 0.013), and 58% of patients and 61% previous CCT participants thought that their doctor would ensure better treatment in CCTs. Females were slightly more risk averse. Males indicated a greater willingness to participate in novel drug trials (p = 0.001, p = 0.003). The study identified disparities in several demographics; older, widowed, living in provincial small towns and fewer years-educated patients had generally poorer understanding of CCTs, highlighting requirements for targeted support in these groups.

Barriers to Clinical Trial Accrual: Perspectives of Community-Based Providers

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.

Porcine cancer models: potential tools to enhance cancer drug trials

INTRODUCTION

The amount of time and money invested into cancer drug research, development, and clinical trials has continually increased over the past few decades. Despite record high cancer drug approval rates, cancer remains a leading cause of death. This suggests the need for more effective tools to help bring novel therapies to clinical practice in a timely manner.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, current issues associated with clinical trials are discussed, specifically focusing on poor accrual rates and time for trial completion. In addition, details regarding preclinical studies required before advancing to clinical trials are discussed, including advantages and limitations of current preclinical animal cancer models and their relevance to human cancer trials. Finally, new translational porcine cancer models (Oncopig Cancer Model (OCM)) are presented as potential co-clinical trial models.

EXPERT OPINION

In order to address issues impacting the poor success rate of oncology clinical trials, we propose the incorporation of the transformative OCM 'co-clinical trial' pathway into the cancer drug approval process. Due to the Oncopig's high homology to humans and similar tumor phenotypes, their utilization can provide improved preclinical prediction of both drug safety and efficacy prior to investing significant time and money in human clinical trials.

A Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Trial Accrual of Patients Presented in a Multidisciplinary Tumor Board at a Tertiary Health Care Center and Associated Barriers

INTRODUCTION

Cancer clinical trial accruals have been historically low and are affected by several factors. Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Meetings (MTBM) are conducted regularly and immensely help to devise a comprehensive care plan including discussions about clinical trial availability and eligibility.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether patient discussion at MTBM was associated with a higher consent rate for clinical trials at a single tertiary care center.

METHODS

Institutional electronic medical records (EMR) and clinical trials management system (OnCore) were queried to identify all new patient visits in oncology clinics, consents to clinical trials, and MTBM notes between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2015. The association between MTBM discussion and subsequent clinical trial enrollment within 16 weeks of the new patient visit was evaluated using a χ2 test.

RESULTS

Between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2015, 11,794 new patients were seen in oncology clinics, and 2,225 patients (18.9%) were discussed at MTBMs. MTBM discussion conferred a higher rate of subsequent clinical trial consent within 16 weeks following the patient's first consultation in an oncology clinic: 4.1% for those who were discussed at a MTBM compared to 2.8% for those not discussed (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that MTBMs may be effective in identifying patients eligible for available clinical trials by reviewing eligibility criteria during MTBM discussions. We recommend discussion of all new patients in MTBM to improve the quality of care provided to those with cancer and enhanced clinical trial accrual.

Patient barriers to cancer clinical trial participation and navigator activities to assist

Clinical research is vital to the discovery of new cancer treatments that can enhance health and prolong life for cancer patients, but breakthroughs in cancer treatment are limited by challenges recruiting patients into cancer clinical trials (CT). Only 3-5% of cancer patients in the United States participate in a cancer CT and there are disparities in CT participation by age, race and gender. Strategies such as patient navigation, which is designed to provide patients with education and practical support, may help to overcome challenges of CT recruitment. The current study evaluated an intervention in which lay navigators were utilized to provide patient education and practical support for helping patients overcome barriers to CT participation and related clinical care. A patient barrier checklist was utilized to record patient barriers to CT participation and care, actions taken by navigators to assist patients with these barriers, and whether or not these barriers could be overcome. Forty patients received patient navigation services. The most common barriers faced by navigated patients were fear (n=9), issues communicating with medical personnel (n=9), insurance issues (n=8), transportation difficulties (n=6) and perceptions about providers and treatment (n=4). The most common activities undertaken by navigators were making referrals and contacts on behalf of patients (e.g., support services, family, clinicians; n=25). Navigators also made arrangement for transportation, financial, medication and equipment services for patients (n=11) and proactively navigated patients (n=8). Barriers that were not overcome for two or more patients included insurance issues, lack of temporary housing resources for patients in treatment and assistance with household bills. The wide array of patient barriers to CT participation and navigator assistance documented in this study supports the CT navigator role in facilitating quality care.

[Awareness and Influencing Factors of Clinical Trial Among Cancer Patients in China]

背景与目的

早期研究表明患者对临床试验的认知度是影响其参与度的重要因素。本文主要为掌握中国肿瘤患者临床试验的认知度情况并探索相关影响因素，比较参加过和未参加试验患者认知度差异。

方法

2018年6月-2019年4月，采用标准化问卷收集中国医学科学院肿瘤医院肿瘤患者（参加过vs未参加过试验）基本信息、对临床试验整体看法及其他认知相关的10个维度，计算认知度合计得分，重新分为“认知较高组”和“认知较低组”，采用二元Logistics进行认知度的单因素和多因素影响分析。

结果

共纳入617例肿瘤患者，38.6%患者参加过试验。338例（54.6%）对试验整体看法认知正确，但仍有44例（7.1%）患者认为“参与临床试验患者是科学研究的牺牲品”。除外试验补偿维度（51.5% vs 48.7%）和法律法规（52.3% vs 45.5%）维度，参加过试验患者在研究意义（86.2% vs 77.6%）、风险收益告知（91.2% vs 71.6%）、资料保密（73.2% vs 59.7%）、自愿参与（95.8% vs 76.3%）、随时退出（86.6% vs 68.2%）、费用影响（62.8% vs 39.2%）6个维度相比未参加过试验患者认知正确比例均有一定提高。多因素分析结果显示，参加过试验（OR=1.83, 95%CI: 1.11-3.00）、未婚/离异（OR=5.04, 95%CI: 1.73-14.66）、退休（OR=2.53, 95%CI: 1.16-5.50）患者认知度较高，对医务人员印象一般/差（OR=0.43, 95%CI: 0.26-0.72）者认知度较低。

结论

我国肿瘤患者对临床试验的认知度较为有限，包括参加过试验患者。促进医患和谐、开展临床试验知识普及对提高患者认知度十分有必要；同时，针对性地加强临床试验知情同意告知的充分性和有效性也是未来工作的重要方向。

Knowledge of and attitudes toward clinical trials in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Clinical trials (CTs) are considered an important method for developing new treatments and providing access to potentially effective drugs that are still under investigation. Measuring the public's knowledge of and attitudes toward CTs is important for assessing their readiness for and acceptance of human drug testing, which has previously not been assessed in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). The objective of this study is to explore the Saudi public's knowledge of and attitudes toward CTs as well as participation in trials to test new or approved drugs.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

SETTING

The 2016 Al Jenadriyah cultural/heritage festival in Riyadh, KSA.

PARTICIPANTS

Participating booths and exhibition halls, as well as festival visitors, were approached to participate in the study.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Knowledge of and attitudes toward CTs.

RESULTS

The final number of participants was 938. The responses were converted to a percentage mean score (out of 100) for each knowledge-related response and attitude. The total mean knowledge score was 56.8±24.8 and the attitude-related score was 61.5±28.0. Although most of the participants supported testing approved or off-label and new drugs on adult and paediatric patients, only a third (30.5%) agreed that new drugs could be tested on healthy volunteers. The results indicated that gender, educational level, income, medical background, age and health insurance were independently associated with the level of knowledge of CTs. In terms of attitudes toward CTs, the factors that were independently associated were gender, educational level and medical background.

CONCLUSIONS

The Saudi public has a low level of knowledge and a moderately positive attitude toward CTs. There is a moderate positive correlation between the two factors such that as knowledge of CTs increases, the Saudi public will hold more positive attitudes toward CTs.

Priorities for Rural Lymphoma Survivors: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

We gathered rural patient perspectives on lymphoma care and unmet needs throughout the treatment course to better understand their attitudes toward treatment and their barriers to participating in clinical research studies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted 12 individual semi-structured telephone interviews in the spring of 2018 with lymphoma survivors from rural counties in Georgia. Patients were identified by a residential address in counties classified as rural according to the Rural-Urban Commuting Areas codes. Participants were recruited from regional patient education conferences and from current research participants at a university research hospital in Georgia. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis and MAXQDA, version 18.0.8, were used to facilitate a constant comparative coding process during theme development.

RESULTS

The greatest barrier to care was the travel distance. The participants described difficulty navigating between local clinics and larger cancer centers. The lack of communication between the local and specialized clinics complicated the process, and participants had difficulty contacting or seeking advice from the team at the larger cancer centers. Seeking treatment from specialized clinics farther away introduced additional barriers. Most participants agreed that the use of technology was important for improved communication. Participants described lymphoma etiology, subtype-specific studies, alternative therapies, and quality of life as key research priorities.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that targeted research and interventions are necessary to address the specific needs of rural patients with and survivors of lymphoma. To address the disparity in health outcomes within rural populations, healthcare professionals and investigators can use these data to engage rural patients in treatment decision-making and research planning.

Barriers to accrual and enrollment in brain tumor trials

Many factors contribute to the poor survival of malignant brain tumor patients, some of which are not easily remedied. However, one contributor to the lack of progress that may be modifiable is poor clinical trial accrual. Surveys of brain tumor patients and neuro-oncology providers suggest that clinicians do a poor job of discussing clinical trials with patients and referring patients for clinical trials. Yet, data from the Cancer Action Network of the American Cancer Society suggest that most eligible oncology patients asked to enroll on a clinical trial will agree to do so. To this end, the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) in collaboration with the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, including the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium (ABTC), and other partners are working together with the intent to double clinical trial accrual over the next 5 years. Here we describe the factors contributing to poor clinical trial accrual in neuro-oncology and offer possible solutions.

Physician Perceptions of the Use of Social Media for Recruitment of Patients in Cancer Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Social media campaigns have been successfully implemented in nontherapeutic trials. However, evidence to support their utility in cancer therapeutic trials is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To examine physician attitudes toward and perceptions of social media use for therapeutic trial recruitment of patients with cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study engaged 44 physicians (24 academic based and 20 community based) at the main academic and 6 affiliated community sites of City of Hope in Duarte, California. Semistructured interviews were conducted in person or by telephone from March to June 2018. An interview guide was developed to explore perceptions of social media use for accrual of cancer therapeutic trials. Responses were recorded digitally and transcribed. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Physicians' perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of using social media for clinical trial recruitment, strategies to improve uptake of social media in clinical trials, and the barriers and facilitators to social media use for professional purposes in general.

RESULTS

Of the 44 participants, 16 (36%) were women, 30 (68%) had more than 10 years of practice experience, 24 (55%) practiced in academia, and 20 (45%) practiced in the community. Physicians most commonly cited increased trial awareness and visibility as an advantage of using social media for trial recruitment. Cited disadvantages were increased administrative burden and risk of misinformation. Physicians also reported a need for institutional-level interventions (eg, restructuring of clinical trial offices to include personnel with social media expertise), increased evidence-based approaches to social media use, and more physician training on the use of social media. Perceived facilitators to professional social media use were networking and education; barriers included lack of time and lack of evidence of benefit.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this qualitative study, physicians recognized the benefits of using social media for clinical trial recruitment but noted that barriers, including increased administrative burden, increased time, and the risk of misinformation, remain. Future interventions to address these concerns are a required first step in increasing digital engagement for clinical trial accrual purposes.

Efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab as first-line therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer with at least 50% PD-L1 positivity: a multicenter retrospective cohort study (HOPE-001)

Objectives As first line therapy, pembrolizumab provides longer progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) than platinum doublets in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with tumor propensity scores (TPS) ≥50%. However, clinical trials do not represent real-world patients. Materials and Methods This multicenter retrospective study conducted across 11 medical centers in Japan analyzed clinical data from patients receiving first-line pembrolizumab for NSCLC between February 1, 2017 and April 30, 2018. The efficacy, safety, and suitability of pembrolizumab monotherapy were evaluated. Results The median age of the 213 enrolled patients was 71 (range: 39-91) years. Among them, 176 (82.6%) were male, 20 (9.4%) were never smokers (median Brinkman index: 900), 172 (80.8%) had an ECOG PS of 0-1, 55 (25.8%) had squamous-cell carcinoma (SQ). PD-L1 TPS were 50-74%, 75-89%, and 90-100% in 97 (45.5%), 47 (22.1%), and 69 (32.4%) patients, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) of grades ≥3 were observed in 39 (18.3%) patients. Pneumonitis was the most common severe AE, occurring in 10 patients (4.7%) including 1 with grade 4 toxicity; no severe AE-related deaths occurred. The overall response rate, median PFS, and median OS was 51.2%, 8.3 months, and 17.8 months, respectively. On multivariate analysis, ECOG PS (0-1 vs. ≥2: HR: 1.69, 95.0% CI: 1.05-2.72; p = 0.03138), CRP/Alb (<0.3 vs. ≥0.3: HR: 1.92, 95.0% CI: 1.28-2.87; p = 0.00153), steroid usage (not usage vs. usage: HR: 2.94, 95.0% CI: 1.45-5.95; p = 0.00267), and PD-L1 TPS (50-89% vs. 90-100%: HR: 0.65, 95.0% CI: 0.43-1.00; p = 0.04984) were significantly and independently correlated with PFS of pembrolizumab. Conclusion The results confirm the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in real-world patients. Poor PS and steroid usage at the time of commencing pembrolizumab treatment indicate poor outcomes. First-line pembrolizumab particularly benefits patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥90% or low inflammatory states (CRP/ALB<0.3).