scholarly journals Cancer clinical trials – Survey evaluating patient participation and acceptance in a university-based Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC)

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 44-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerstin A. Kessel ◽  
Marco M.E. Vogel ◽  
Carmen Kessel ◽  
Henning Bier ◽  
Tilo Biedermann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Patient Participation ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials

Increasing Clinical Trials Accrual at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 1266-1266
Author(s):  
Bayard L. Powell ◽  
Debbie Olson ◽  
Robert M. Morrell ◽  
Terry L. Hales ◽  
Kevin P High ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Point System ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Treatment Trials ◽  
Academic Year ◽  
Year 2013

Abstract Background: During the academic year 2013 (July 2012-June 2013) our accrual to cancer clinical trials, a critical measure of success for a Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC), was lower than prior years and below the desired level for CCC core grant renewal. Academic physicians were faced with increasing pressures to meet clinical demands, often at the expense of academic productivity, including clinical research. Methods: Our Dean and clinical leadership committed to support our efforts to increase accrual to clinical trials by providing salary support for our Section on Hematology and Oncology for specific milestones of 5%, 10%, and 15% increases in accrual to all clinical trials and in accrual to treatment (NCI definition) trials. The goal of the faculty was to increase accrual by > 15% to all trials and to treatment trials to maximize the “pool”. To determine how to divide the pool among investigators we developed a point system recognizing clinical investigators for roles as a) PI for trials (with additional points for all accrual to their trials) and b) for entering patients on clinical trials. The point system for both roles (PI and entering patients) was weighted relative to the value of the trial to the CCC, e.g. investigator initiated > cooperative group > industry initiated, and treatment trials >> non-treatment trials. In addition, we awarded points for publications (first and senior author > co-author) and presentations (oral > poster; major national meeting > other meetings). Results: During academic year 2014 (July 2013-June 2014) accrual to all cancer clinical trials increased by 140% (276 to 663) and accrual to treatment trials increased 40% (114 to 160). These increases occurred in both hematologic malignancies (95% all; 16% treatment) where we had a strong track record for accruals, and in solid tumors (200% all; 76% treatment) where our prior record was not as strong. Discussion: Accrual to clinical trials, both treatment and non-treatment improved dramatically. Interpretation of cause and effect is complex. The baseline year (2013) included implementation of a new EMR and the recent year (2014) included recruitment of additional faculty. However, 2014 was complicated by implementation of a new practice plan heavily weighted toward individual RVU production, and a decrease in available co-operative group trials to historically low levels. However, we can conclude that attention to this critical role of clinical investigators is important and can influence behavior. We cannot determine whether financial incentives are needed or whether the funding is one of several potential methods of recognition of the importance of clinical trials. It is possible that the commitment to provide financial support for clinical research demonstrated to clinical investigators that the leadership valued clinical trials activity and this recognition was more important than the actual funds. Future efforts will also need to find ways to recognize/reward clinical trials productivity of groups of investigators for their multidisciplinary contributions to the care of patients on clinical trials, without generating internal competition within the groups. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Factors Associated With Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Participation and Enrollment at a Large Academic Medical Center

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (11) ◽  
pp. 2046-2052 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S. Simon ◽  
Wei Du ◽  
Lawrence Flaherty ◽  
Philip A. Philip ◽  
Patricia Lorusso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Poor Performance Status ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Factors Associated

Purpose The practice patterns of medical oncologists at a large National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center in Detroit, MI were evaluated to better understand factors associated with accrual to breast cancer clinical trials. Patients and Methods From 1996 to 1997, physicians completed surveys on 319 of 344 newly evaluated female breast cancer patients. The 19-item survey included clinical data, whether patients were offered clinical trial (CT) participation and enrollment, and when applicable, reasons why they were not. Multivariate analyses using logistic regression were performed to evaluate predictors of an offer and enrollment. Results The patients were 57% white, 32% black, and 11% other/unknown race. One hundred six (33%) were offered participation and 36 (34%) were enrolled. In multivariate analysis, CTs were less likely offered to older women (mean age, 52 years for those offered v 57 years for those not offered; P = .0005) and black women (21% of blacks offered v 42% of whites; P = .0009). Women with stage 1 disease, poor performance status, and those who were previously diagnosed were also less likely to be offered trials. None of these factors were significant predictors of enrollment. Women were not offered trials because of ineligibility (57%), lack of available trials (41%), and noncompliance (2%). Reasons for failed enrollment included patient refusal (88%) and failed eligibility (12%). Conclusion It is important for cooperative groups to design studies that will accommodate a broader spectrum of patients. Further work is needed to assess ways to improve communication about breast cancer CT participation to all eligible women.

scholarly journals The Impact of Insurance on Access to Cancer Clinical Trials at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (24) ◽  
pp. 5997-6003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin F. Klamerus ◽  
Suanna S. Bruinooge ◽  
Xiaobu Ye ◽  
Mandi L. Klamerus ◽  
Dorothy Damron ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Barriers to Enrollment of Elderly Adults in Early-Phase Cancer Clinical Trials

2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 162-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Basche ◽  
Anna E. Barón ◽  
S. Gail Eckhardt ◽  
Lodovico Balducci ◽  
Martha Persky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Early Phase ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Experimental Treatment ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Barriers To Participation ◽  
University Center ◽  
Barriers To Enrollment

Purpose: To describe patient/family and logistical barriers to participation in university-based, early-phase cancer clinical trials for adults age ≥ 65 years, and to identify influences on their decisions to participate. Participants and Methods: In-person surveys were administered to subjects age ≥ 65 years with advanced tumors who had received prior chemotherapy. Subjects were recruited from private medical oncology practices collaborating with the University of Colorado and Moffitt Cancer Center research networks. Results: Three hundred individuals (51% age 65 to 74 and 49% age 75 or older) responded. Overall, 60% reported one or more barriers to participation in an early-phase trial; logistical barriers such as driving or time demands (34%) or reluctance to be treated at a university center (21%) were most common. Seniors age 75 or older were more reluctant to be treated at a university center (27% v 14%; P = .005), or concerned about loss of continuity with their primary oncologist (24% v 15%, P = .05). Older seniors were also significantly more reluctant than younger seniors to consider treatments with substantial nausea, vomiting, or fatigue. Older and younger seniors differed little in their preferred sources of information; both age groups emphasized the importance of the primary oncologist (100%), a nurse who provides experimental treatment (93%), other patients (83%) or acquaintances who had received experimental treatment (83%). Conclusion: Potential strategies to overcome barriers to enrollment of seniors into early-phase trials include providing more information about trials to community oncologists and prospective enrollees and assisting these individuals in navigating logistical barriers to enrollment.

scholarly journals Definition and Coordination of Roles and Responsibilities Among Cancer Center Clinic and Research Personnel

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. e64-e74
Author(s):  
Simon J. Craddock Lee ◽  
Torsten Reimer ◽  
Sandra Garcia ◽  
Erin L. Williams ◽  
Mary West ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Physician Attitudes ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Research Staff ◽  
Research Personnel ◽  
Delivery Of Care ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities ◽  
Clinic Staff ◽  
Staff Members

PURPOSE: Effective enrollment and treatment of patients in cancer clinical trials require definition and coordination of roles and responsibilities among clinic and research personnel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a survey that incorporated modified components of the Survey of Physician Attitudes Regarding the Care of Cancer Survivors. Surveys were administered to clinic nursing staff and research personnel at a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center. Results were analyzed using χ2-tests, t tests, and analyses of variance. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 105 staff members (n = 50 research staff, n = 55 clinic staff; 61% response rate). Research staff were more likely to feel that they had the skills to answer questions, convey information, and provide education for patients on trials (all P < .05). Both clinic and research staff reported receipt of communication about responsibilities in fewer than 30% of cases, although research staff reported provision of such information in more than 60% of cases. Among 20 tasks related to care of patients in trials, no single preferred model of responsibility assignment was selected by the majority of clinic staff for nine tasks (45%) or by research staff for three tasks (15%). Uncertainty about which team coordinates care was reported by three times as many clinic staff as research staff ( P = .01). There was also substantial variation in the preferred model for delivery of care to patients in trials ( P < .05). CONCLUSION: Knowledge, attitudes, and perception of care and responsibilities for patients on clinical trials differ between and among clinic and research personnel. Additional research about how these findings affect efficiency and quality of care on clinical trials is needed.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patterns of care: Implications for clinical trial design

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4079-4079 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. S. Denlinger ◽  
M. A. Collins ◽  
Y. Wong ◽  
S. Litwin ◽  
N. J. Meropol
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Treatment Change ◽  
Therapy Regimen

4079 Background: New approaches have expanded options for patients (pts) with mCRC. To characterize current practice paradigms that might bear on clinical trial design, we analyzed decision-making and treatment patterns in pts treated at a Comprehensive Cancer Center since the introduction of cetuximab (CET), and bevacizumab (BV). Methods: A retrospective review of all pts diagnosed with mCRC between 3/1/04 and 8/28/06 treated at Fox Chase Cancer Center. Results: 160 pts were treated, with 157 pts receiving at least one therapy regimen by 10 attending oncologists. There were 350 changes in therapy with 246 (70%) including continuation of at least one prior drug (92 BV, 111 fluoropyrimidines, 43 other). The most common reasons for treatment change were toxicity (33%), progressive disease (PD) (29%), treatment breaks (15%), and metastasectomy (11%) ( Table ). PD was a more common cause for treatment discontinuation in later phases of treatment (18% initial regimen vs. 36% subsequent regimens, p=0.0002). 24% of pts treated with oxaliplatin (OX) discontinued due to neuropathy. Hypersensitivity caused discontinuation in 5% of pts with OX and 7% of pts with CET. Resection of metastases was undertaken in 38% of pts. 43% of these pts received neoadjuvant therapy, and 56% received adjuvant therapy. 30% of pts have died, 29% remain on active treatment, 28% are on a treatment break, 3% are on hospice, and 11% are lost to follow-up. Conclusions: PD is no longer the primary reason for change of therapy in pts with mCRC. Metastasectomy is common and OX neuropathy is often treatment-limiting. These findings have important implications for endpoint selection and design of clinical trials in mCRC. Future clinical trials in mCRC must recognize treatment complexities and capture key components of decision-making that may result in prolonged survival. Furthermore, treatment breaks represent a potential window for the evaluation of new drugs. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Health care worker attitudes about clinical trials at a comprehensive cancer center.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20633-e20633
Author(s):  
Erica Leigh Campagnaro ◽  
Seunghee Margevicius ◽  
Barbara J. Daly ◽  
Jennifer Rachel Eads ◽  
Tyler G. Kinzy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Normative Beliefs ◽  
The Impact

e20633 Background: Cancer patient (pt) participation in clinical trials (CT) is low. Little is known about the beliefs and attitudes of health care workers (HCW) and how they impact intention to discuss CT with pts. The overall goal of this project was to develop a conceptual model to guide future interventions to enhance communication about CT between HCW and cancer pts. Methods: Two email surveys of non-physician HCW at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center were conducted. The first was sent to a random sample of 150 HCW. The second was sent to 80 who completed the first survey. Based on our prior work (Eads et al. ASCO 2011) and Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior, domains of the first included CT knowledge (19 items, agree/disagree) and attitudes (27 items, 5-point Likert); the second included normative beliefs about institutional attitudes toward CT (6 items, 5-point Likert), self-efficacy about engaging in discussion about CT (14 items, 5-point Likert), and intention to discuss CT with pts (4 items, 7-point Likert). Results: 41 HCW completed both anonymous surveys; 27 could be matched by demographics. Median age of matched respondents was 44.3 yrs (range 24-63), 26 female, 22 caucasian, 9 nurses. Overall, CT knowledge was high (median 17/19 items correct). There were strong associations between attitudes and self-efficacy (Spearman r=-0.425, p=0.03), as well as perceived normative beliefs and self-efficacy (r=0.651, p=0.0002). These associations were strong amongst nurses (r=-0.818, p=0.007 and r=0.656, p=0.05, respectively), with a particularly strong correlation between self-efficacy and intention to discuss clinical trials with pts (r=0.891, p=0.001). Conclusions: In spite of a small sample size, these pilot data strongly support a behavioral framework to understand and address the impact of HCW attitudes and beliefs about CT on discussions of CT with pts. Insofar as HCW (especially nurses) have substantial pt contact, and serve as a resource for pts regarding treatment decisions, educational interventions to address HCW barriers to discussing CT with pts (i.e. attitudes, beliefs, and self-efficacy) could positively impact pt attitudes and improve decision making.

Invisible Barriers to Clinical Trials: The Impact of Structural, Infrastructural, and Procedural Barriers to Opening Oncology Clinical Trials

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (28) ◽  
pp. 4545-4552 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Dilts ◽  
Alan B. Sandler
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Community Practice ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Scientific Review ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
The Impact

Purpose To investigate the administrative barriers that impact the opening of clinical trials at the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (VICC) and at VICC Affiliate Network (VICCAN) sites. Methods VICC, a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center, and three VICCAN community practice sites were studied. Methodology used was identification and mapping of existing processes and analysis of historical timing data. Results At course granularity, the process steps required at VICC and VICCAN main office plus local sites are 20 v 17 to 30 steps, respectively; this gap widens with finer granularity, with more than 110 v less than 60 steps, respectively. Approximately 50% of the steps are nonvalue added. For example, in the institutional review board (IRB) process, less than one third of the steps add value to the final protocol. The numbers of groups involved in the approval processes are 27 (VICC) and 6 to 14 (VICCAN home office and local sites). The median times to open a trial are 171 days (95% CI, 158 to 182 days) for VICC and 191 days (95% CI, 119 to 269 days) for the VICCAN sites. Contrary to expectations, the time for IRB review and approval (median, 47 days) is the fastest process compared with the scientific review committee review and approval (median, 70 days) and contracts and grants review (median, 78.5 days). Opening a cooperative group clinical trial is significantly (P = .05) more rapid because they require fewer review steps. Conclusion There are numerous opportunities to remove nonvalue-added steps and save time in opening clinical trials. With increasing numbers of new agents, fewer domestic principal investigators, and more companies off-shoring clinical trials, overcoming such barriers is of critical importance for maintenance of core oncology research capabilities in the United States.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document