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

Decision making in a clinical trial for a life-threatening illness: Therapeutic expectation, not misconception

Potential participants for clinical trials which aim to define treatments for life-threatening conditions are often extremely unwell. When exploring why individuals participate in clinical trials one common observation is a misplaced expectation of personal benefit - a therapeutic misconception. The care offered in some clinical trials is of a higher standard than is routinely available and this has led to criticism around the freedom of choice to enrol - structural coercion. We embedded an ethnographic study within a randomised controlled trial for HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis in Gaborone, Botswana and Kampala, Uganda. We aimed to gain an understanding of decision-making around the trial and how this was impacted by the study design and broader social context. We conducted in-depth interviews with trial participants, surrogate decision makers and researchers, combined these with direct observations and analysed data using thematic analysis. Between January 2020 and June 2021 we interviewed 89 individuals. We found previous exposure to and awareness of clinical research was limited, as was understanding of the trial objectives and design. Through observations and engagement with healthcare facilities decision-makers were able to identify the trial as providing the best possible chance of survival. Hesitation and reluctance were mostly due to fear of lumbar punctures which was sometimes based on rumours but often based on tragic personal experience. Despite fear, and sometimes conviction that they would die, individuals agreed to consent, often against the wishes of family members. Reassurance and confidence came from trust in routine care staff and the research team but also from fellow participants and their surrogates. We argue that participants made informed decisions based on a therapeutic expectation from the trial and that rather than being the result of structural coercion this was an informed and voluntary choice.

Health Literacy and Clinical Trial Participation in French Cancer Patients: A National Survey

Few studies have explored the relationship between health literacy (HL) and trial participation. In this context, we aimed to study this relationship in French cancer patients. We used data from the French national VIe après le CANcer (VICAN) survey. Two questionnaire items focused on previous invitations to participate in clinical trials and subsequent enrollment. The Single Item Literacy Screener was used to measure functional HL. In total, 1954 cancer patients responded to both VICAN surveys (two and five years after diagnosis). Mean age was 54.1 ± 12.7 years at diagnosis, and 37.6% were classified as having limited HL. One in ten (10.3%) respondents reported having been previously invited to participate in a clinical trial. Of these, 75.5% had enrolled. Limited HL was associated with fewer trial invitations but not with enrollment once invited. Multivariate analysis confirmed the negative effect of limited HL on clinical trial invitation (adjOR = 0.55 (0.39 to 0.77), p < 0.001) after adjustment for multiple characteristics. Patients with limited HL received fewer invitations to participate in trials but were likely to enroll when asked. Addressing HL is necessary to create a more inclusive health system and to reduce inequalities not only in access to innovative cancer care, but to health inequalities in general.

The cost of cancer care: how far would you go for a trial?

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are often considered the gold standard in cancer care. However, patients face barriers in trial participation including distances to cancer centres and personal costs including changing employment status, cost of medications, inpatient admissions, and parking tariffs.

AIM

Our aim was to compare the distances patients travelled for clinical trials compared to those receiving standard systemic anticancer therapy (SACT). We also investigated the additional costs associated with this.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of electronic patient medical records. The distance from the patients' home address to Beaumont was calculated as a one-way journey in kilometres. Patients attending for clinical trials were compared to those receiving standard of care SACT.

RESULTS

A total of 271 patients receiving standard SACT over a 5-day period and 111 patients enrolled on 24 clinical trials were included. The median one-way distance travelled by patients enrolled in clinical trials was 41.4 km, compared to 14 km in those patients' receiving standard of care SACT. The median estimated cost was €13 vs €4.20 for those enrolled on clinical trials compared to those receiving standard of care treatment, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients enrolled on clinical trials often travel more than twice as far to receive their anti-cancer treatment compared to those receiving standard of care SACT and incur an increased cost of travel expenses.