scholarly journals Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the oncologic activities (diagnosis, treatment, clinical trials enrollment) of a general hospital in a district with high prevalence of SARS-COV-2 in Italy

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Massimo Ambroggi ◽  
Chiara Citterio ◽  
Stefano Vecchia ◽  
Alessandra Riva ◽  
Patrizia Mordenti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
General Hospital ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Real World ◽  
Oral Treatment ◽  
The Real ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Research Studies

Abstract Purpose Little is known about the real impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the qualitative and quantitative fall-out on the management of cancer patients. Our objective was to provide evidence of the effects of SARS-COV-2 on the management of cancer patients in the real world. Methods In a general hospital in a district in Italy with high prevalence of COVID-19 during the first wave, we retrospectively analyzed the data of oncologic activity, namely new cancer diagnosis, types of treatment (intravenous or by mouth), clinical research studies, and drug utilization, and compared the findings with those of 2019, before the pandemic. The data have been summarized in boxplot figures for median and interquartile range. Results In 2020, a significant reduction in new cancer diagnosis was demonstrated when compared with 2019, with 17.4% fewer cancer diagnoses, 84.5% fewer patients enrolled in clinical trials, a 10.6% reduction in intravenous antitumor treatment, and a 42.7% increase in oral anticancer treatment. Conclusion Our data indicate a significant reduction in cancer diagnosis, antitumor venous treatment, and patients enrolled in clinical research studies in 2020 compared with 2019, although there was a significant increase in oral treatment. These data suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic had a deep impact on the real-world management of cancer patients in a district of Italy with a high prevalence of COVID-19.

Improving hematology/oncology clinical research recruitment via universal prescreening: The VA Connecticut (VACT) Cancer Center experience.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 79-79
Author(s):  
Jenny Jing Xiang ◽  
Alicia Roy ◽  
Christine Summers ◽  
Monica Delvy ◽  
Jessica Lee O'Donovan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Research Recruitment ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Study Enrollment

79 Background: Patient-trial matching is a critical step in clinical research recruitment that requires extensive review of clinical data and trial requirements. Prescreening, defined as identifying potentially eligible patients using select eligibility criteria, may streamline the process and increase study enrollment. We describe the real-world experience of implementing a standardized, universal clinical research prescreening protocol within a VA cancer center and its impact on research enrollment. Methods: An IRB approved prescreening protocol was implemented at the VACT Cancer Center in March 2017. All patients with a suspected or confirmed diagnosis of cancer are identified through tumor boards, oncology consults, and clinic lists. Research coordinators perform chart review and manually enter patient demographics, cancer type and stage, and treatment history into a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) database. All clinical trials and their eligibility criteria are also entered into REDCap and updated regularly. REDCap generates real time lists of potential research studies for each patient based on his/her recorded data. The primary oncologist is alerted to a patient’s potential eligibility prior to upcoming clinic visits and thus can plan to discuss clinical research enrollment as appropriate. Results: From March 2017 to December 2020, a total of 2548 unique patients were prescreened into REDCAP. The mean age was 71.5 years, 97.5% were male, and 15.5% were African American. 32.57 % patients had genitourinary cancer, 17.15% had lung cancer, and 46.15% were undergoing malignancy workup. 1412 patients were potentially eligible after prescreening and 556 patients were ultimately enrolled in studies. The number of patients enrolled on therapeutic clinical trials increased after the implementation of the prescreening protocol (35 in 2017, 64 in 2018, 78 in 2019, and 55 in 2020 despite the COVID19 pandemic). Biorepository study enrollment increased from 8 in 2019 to 15 in 2020. The prescreening protocol also enabled 200 patients to be enrolled onto a lung nodule liquid biopsy study from 2017 to 2019. Our prescreening process captured 98.57% of lung cancer patients entered into the cancer registry during the same time period. Conclusions: Universal prescreening streamlined research recruitment operations and was associated with yearly increases in clinical research enrollment at a VA cancer center. Our protocol identified most new lung cancer patients, suggesting that, at least for this malignancy, potential study patients were not missed. The protocol was integral in our program becoming the top accruing VA site for NCI’s National Clinical Trial Network (NCTN) studies since 2019.

scholarly journals SAT-418 Finding the Needles in the Haystack: Harnessing the Electronic Health Record to Find Thyroid Immune Related Adverse Events

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoe Quandt ◽  
Laura Trupin ◽  
Michael Evans ◽  
Gabriela Schmajuk ◽  
Mark Stuart Anderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Electronic Health Record ◽  
Real World ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Thyroid Disease ◽  
Thyroid Dysfunction ◽  
Health Record ◽  
The Real ◽  
New Onset

Abstract Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) are being used to effectively treat a growing number of cancers but can cause immune related adverse events (irAE). Thyroid dysfunction is the most common endocrine irAE. A meta-analysis of clinical trials estimated that following CPI exposure, 6.6% will become hypothyroid and 2.9% will have hyperthyroidism1. It is unclear if this reflects the real-world incidence of these irAEs. We used electronic health record (EHR) data to identify patients who developed thyroid dysfunction after CPI to estimate the real-world incidence of these irAEs. Methods: Data were derived from the EHR of a large U.S. academic center. We identified subjects treated with CPIs between 2012 and 2018 and excluded those with thyroid cancer or pre-existing thyroid disease. Thyroid dysfunction was identified as either a TSH > 10, an abnormal free T4 or a prescription for thyroid hormone replacement or anti-thyroid medication. Those with thyroid dysfunction were then categorized as having pre-existing disease or a new-onset thyroid irAE based on the timing of CPI initiation. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association of thyroid irAE with age, gender, CPI and type of cancer. Results: In total, 1146 individuals without pre-existing thyroid disease that received CPIs were assessed. Pembrolizumab was the most common treatment (45%), followed by nivolumab (20%). Less than 10% of subjects received atezolizumab, durvalumab, ipilimumab monotherapy, combined ipilimumab/nivolumab, or other combinations of CPIs. Melanoma was the most common cancer treated (32%), followed by non-small cell lung cancer (13%). The prevalence of any other cancer was < 10% each. Overall, 19% developed thyroid irAEs. After adjustment for gender and age, the type of cancer was significantly associated with new onset thyroid dysfunction (p=0.01). The rates of thyroid irAEs ranged from 10% in glioblastoma to 40% in renal cell cancer. Although there was no significant association between irAEs and specific CPIs in the overall analysis, thyroid irAEs were more common in subjects who received combined ipilimumab/ nivolumab (31%) compared to pembrolizumab (18%, p=0.03), nivolumab (18%, p<0.01) and ipilimumab (15%, p=0.02). Conclusion: Thyroid irAEs are much more common in real world practice than in clinical trials and there is emerging evidence that certain cancer types incur a higher risk of thyroid irAEs even after adjustment for CPI exposure. Clinicians and patients should be educated about these risks. Future work should focus on exploring the reasons underlying the differing rates of thyroid irAEs among different cancers including effect on cancer outcomes. 1Barroso-Sousa et al. Incidence of Endocrine Dysfunction Following the Use of Different Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Regimens. JAMA Oncol. 2017; 02215: 1–10.

CLINICAL TRIALS VERSUS THE REAL WORLD

2008 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 146
Author(s):  
R S Taylor ◽  
H JN Bethell ◽  
D A Brodie
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Real World ◽  
The Real

scholarly journals Exploring the real-world effect of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the molecular diagnostics for cancer patients and high-risk individuals

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Milena Cavic ◽  
Ana Krivokuca ◽  
Ivana Boljevic ◽  
Jelena Spasic ◽  
Milica Mihajlovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Molecular Diagnostics ◽  
Real World ◽  
The Real

Do the Safety and Efficacy Outcomes Reported in the Clinical Trials of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOAC) Translate to the Real-World?

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 2335-2335
Author(s):  
Shammim Haji ◽  
Jignesh P Patel ◽  
Vivian Auyeung ◽  
Lara N Roberts ◽  
Julia Czuprynska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
World Population ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
The Real ◽  
Pooled Data

Abstract Do the safety and efficacy outcomes reported in the clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) translate to the 'real-world'? Background: A number of DOACs are now available for clinicians to prescribe in clinical practice. Whilst the results from large clinical trials demonstrate that these agents are as effective as vitamin K antagonists, there is some concern that the patients studied in the trials were not representative of patients, clinicians encounter in everyday practice. The aim of our study was to compare the real-world clinic population commenced on a DOAC to that from the clinical trials for these agents, in order to assess potential differences in safety and efficacy. Patients and methods: A retrospective observational cohort study was undertaken. Patients who were initiated on a DOAC (apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban) at a large teaching hospital in South East London between 1st August 2012 and 31st July 2014 were identified through pharmacy issue data with those followed-up for a minimum of 6 months included. Baseline demographic data, rates of stroke/VTE and rates of major/non-major clinically relevant (NMCR) (ISTH definition) bleeding were assessed and compared to pooled data reported from the corresponding Phase III trials. Differences between groups were compared using t-tests or chi-squared tests. Results: During the review period, 748 patients were initiated on a DOAC, 365 for atrial fibrillation (AF) and 383 for venous thromboembolism (VTE). In terms of demographic differences, the real-world AF population comprised more females, were significantly older, had poorer renal function and a lower body weight. In contrast, the real-world VTE population typically had a higher body weight and poorer renal function, compared to the trial population, (table 1). Efficacy of DOACs was found to be similar across both the VTE and AF populations. With respect to safety, the real-world AF population experienced similar rates of major bleeding and a significantly lower rate of NMCR bleeding compared to the trial populations. In contrast, the real-world VTE population experienced a significantly higher rate of major bleeding, particularly gastrointestinal bleeding. Although the rate of NMCR bleeding was similar, there was a significantly higher rate of urogenital bleeding in the real-world VTE population, specifically heavy menstrual bleeding in women. Conclusions: The efficacy outcomes of DOAC use in a real-world AF and VTE population are consistent with the Phase III trials, despite some significant differences in baseline characteristics. However, a significantly increased rate of major bleeding was observed in the real-world VTE population, which requires further investigation. Table 1. Baseline demographic characteristics, efficacy and safety outcomes in the real-world population versus the trial population Atrial Fibrillation Venous Thromboembolism Trial population+N=28,342 Real-world population Trial population++ Real-world population N=365 N=8,716 N=383 Baseline Demographics, mean (SD) unless otherwise specified Age, years 72 (9.6) 76.8 * (12.1) 56.9 (14.2) 55.6 (18.7) Female (%) 10451 (36.9) 215 * (58.9) 3753 (43.1) 184 (48.0) Weight, kg 82.7 (19.5) 77.3 * (22.6) 84.9 (19.6) 88.2 * (23.0) Creatinine clearance, mL/min 69 (26.7) 58.1 * (26.9) 105.8 (40.7) 91.1 * (37.6) Concomitant aspirin therapy 10341 (36.5) 49 * (13.4) - 0 (0) Previous VKA use (%) 15711 (55.4) 193 (52.9) - 85 (22.2) Efficacy (%) All-cause mortality 1695 (6.0) 37 * (9.1) 160 (1.8) 10 (2.5) Stroke 676 (2.4) 8 (2.0) - 1 (0.3) VTE 39 (0.1) 1 (0.2) 192 (2.2) 7 (1.8) Safety (%) Major Bleeding 1419 (5.0) 17 (4.2) 79 (0.9) 15 * (3.8) Intracranial 170 (0.6) 1 (0.2) 6 (0.1) 2 * (0.5) Gastrointestinal 644 (2.3) 8 (2.0) 8 (0.1) 8 * (2.0) Non-major Clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding 4824 (17.0) 30 * (7.4) 540 (6.2) 26 (6.6) Gastrointestinal - 9 (2.2) 53 (4.2) 10 (2.5) Urogenital 296 (4.2) 16 (3.9) 100 (2.5) 38 * (9.6) +Pooled data from ARISTOTLE, RE-LY and ROCKET-AF trials ++Pooled data from AMPLIFY, RE-COVER and EINSTEIN-PE/DVT trials *p<0.05 Disclosures Patel: Bayer plc: Research Funding. Auyeung:Bayer PLC: Research Funding. Arya:Bayer plc: Research Funding.

Survival among metastatic colorectal patients in clinical trials compared to the real world.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 673-673
Author(s):  
Ziwei Wang ◽  
Lindsay Hwang ◽  
James Don Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Real World ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
The Real ◽  
Clinical Trial Results

673 Background: Randomized clinical trials play a central role in clinical research though only a small fraction of patients partake in clinical studies. Questions thus arise regarding the generalizability of clinical trial results to the remainder of the population. This study evaluated whether patient survival from randomized clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer reflects real world outcomes. Methods: A Pubmed search was used to identify randomized phase III clinical trials of first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer published between 2005 and 2010. We excluded secondary or pooled analyses, second-line treatments, non-metastatic patients, non-English language, and non-randomized studies. Thirty-one clinical trials met these criteria, comprised of 79 distinct clinical trial arms. Overall survival among clinical trial patients was compared to metastatic colorectal cancer patients within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Within SEER, we restricted the analysis time-period and age of patients to match the enrollment period and age of patients within each individual clinical trial. Results: The clinical trials enrolled a total of 16,614 patients. Among all clinical trial arms the median survival ranged from 6.7-62 months, 1-year survival ranged from 30-97%, and 2-year survival ranged from 6-88%. Compared to SEER, the median survival was higher in 95% of the individual clinical trial arms by an average of 5.4 months (p<0.0001). The 1-year survival was higher in 94% of the clinical trial arms by an average of 16.7% (p<0.0001). The 2-year survival was higher in 71% of the clinical trial arms by an average of 7.2% (p<0.0001). Conclusions: This study found substantially improved survival among clinical trial participants compared to patients in the SEER database suggesting that survival estimates from clinical trials may not generalize to the “real world.” Potential patient factors such as differences in underlying comorbidity, performance status, disease burden, as well as variation in treatment could not be addressed in this study, though these factors likely explain some of the observed survival differences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document