The quality of life of cancer patients participating in phase I clinical trials using SEIQoL‐DW

1999 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophia Campbell ◽  
Fiona Whyte
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials

Perceptions of Patients and Physicians Regarding Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials: Implications for Physician-Patient Communication

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (13) ◽  
pp. 2589-2596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal J. Meropol ◽  
Kevin P. Weinfurt ◽  
Caroline B. Burnett ◽  
Andrew Balshem ◽  
Al B. Benson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Phase I Trial ◽  
Experimental Therapy ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Length Of Life

Purpose: To describe and compare the perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians regarding phase I clinical trials. Methods: Eligible patients had been offered phase I trial participation and had decided to participate but had not yet begun treatment. Each patient’s physician also served as a study subject. Patients and physicians completed questionnaires with domains including perceptions of potential benefit and harm from treatment (experimental and standard), relative value of quality and length of life, and perceived content of patient-physician consultations. Results: Three hundred twenty-eight patients and 48 physicians completed surveys. Patients had high expectations regarding treatment outcomes (eg, median 60% benefit from experimental therapy), with those choosing to participate in a phase I trial being more optimistic than those declining phase I participation. Patients predicted a higher likelihood of both benefit and adverse reactions from treatment (experimental and standard) than their physicians (P < .0001 for all comparisons). Although 95% of patients reported that quality of life was at least as important as length of life, only 28% reported that changes in quality of life with treatment were discussed with their physicians. In contrast, 73% of physicians reported that this topic was discussed (P < .0001). Conclusion: Cancer patients offered phase I trial participation have expectations for treatment benefit that exceed those of their physicians. The discordant perceptions of patients and physicians may possibly be explained by patient optimism and confidence; however, the discrepancies in reports of consultation content, particularly given patients’ stated values regarding quality of life, raise the possibility that communication in this context is suboptimal.

scholarly journals Do Patients With Advanced Cancer Have the Ability to Make Informed Decisions for Participation in Phase I Clinical Trials?

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (24) ◽  
pp. 2483-2491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fay J. Hlubocky ◽  
Greg A. Sachs ◽  
Eric R. Larson ◽  
Halla S. Nimeiri ◽  
David Cella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Executive Function ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Trail Making Test ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Trail Making

Purpose Patients with advanced cancer (ACPs) participating in phase I clinical trials inadequately understand many elements of informed consent (IC); however, the prevalence and impact of cognitive impairment has not been described. Patients and Methods ACPs enrolled onto phase I trials underwent neuropsychological assessment to evaluate cognitive functioning (CF) covering the following domains: memory (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test), executive functioning (Trail Making Test B), language (Boston Naming Test-Short Version and Controlled Oral Word Association Test), attention (Trail Making Test A and Wechsler Adult Intelligenence Scale-IV Digit Span), comprehension (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV), and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Cognitive Function). Structured interviews evaluated IC and decisional capacity. Psychological measures included distress (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale) and depression (Beck Depression Inventory-II). Results One hundred eighteen ACPs on phase I trials were evaluated, with CF ranging from mild impairment to superior performance. Only 45% of ACPs recalled physician disclosure of the phase I trial purpose. The 50% of ACPs who correctly identified the phase I research purpose had greater CF compared with ACPs who did not, as revealed by the mean T scores for memory (37.2 ± 5.6 v 32.5 ± 5.1, respectively; P = .001), attention (29 ± 2.7 v 26.9 ± 2.4, respectively; P < .001), visual attention (35.2 ± 6.6 v 31.5 ± 6.2, respectively; P = .001), and executive function (38.9 ± 7.5 v 34 ± 7.1, respectively; P < .001). Older ACPs (≥ 60 years) were less likely to recall physician disclosure of phase I purpose than younger ACPs (30% v 70%, respectively; P = .02) and had measurable deficits in total memory (34.2 ± 5.0 v 37.3 ± 5.6, respectively; P = .002), attention (24.5 ± 2.6 v 28 ± 2.8, respectively; P < .001), and executive function (32.8 ± 7.3 v 36.4 ± 7.6, respectively; P = .01). Older ACPs, compared with younger ACPs, also had greater depression scores (10.6 ± 9.2 v 8.1 ± 5.2, respectively; P = .03) and lower quality-of-life scores (152 ± 29.6 v 167 ± 20, respectively; P = .03). After adjustment by age, no psychological or neuropsychological variable was further significantly associated with likelihood of purpose identification. Conclusion CF seems to play a role in ACP recall and comprehension of IC for early-phase clinical trials, especially among older ACPs.

Impact of Quality of Life on Patient Expectations Regarding Phase I Clinical Trials

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 421-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan D. Cheng ◽  
James Hitt ◽  
Bogda Koczwara ◽  
Kevin A. Schulman ◽  
Caroline B. Burnett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Patient Expectations ◽  
Experimental Therapy ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Research Nurses ◽  
The Impact

PURPOSE: Quality of life (QOL) is increasingly recognized as a critical cancer-treatment outcome measure, but little is known about the impact of QOL on the patient decision-making process. A pilot study was conducted in an effort to (1) measure the expectations of patients, physicians, and research nurses regarding the potential benefits and toxicities from experimental and standard therapies, and (2) determine the relationship of QOL to patient perceptions regarding treatment options. METHODS: Thirty cancer patients enrolling in phase I clinical trials, their physicians, and their research nurses were administered questionnaires that assessed demographics, QOL, and treatment expectations. RESULTS: Compared with their physicians, patients overestimated potential benefits and toxicities from experimental therapy (mean expected benefit, 59.8% v 23.8%, P < .01; mean expected toxicity, 29.8% v 16.0%, P < .01). Patients estimated a greater potential for benefit (59.8% v 36.8%, P < .01) and less potential for toxicity (29.8% v 45.6%, P = .01) for experimental therapy, compared with standard therapy. Short Form- 36 general health perception correlated with patient perception of potential benefit from experimental therapy (r = .48, P = .01). CONCLUSION: Participants in phase I clinical trial have high expectations regarding the success of experimental therapy and discount potential toxicity. Patient QOL may affect the expectation of benefit from experimental therapy and, ultimately, treatment choice. Understanding the interactions between QOL and patient expectations may guide the development of improved strategies to present appropriate information to patients considering early-phase clinical trials.

Assessment of quality of life using FACT-G survey in a phase I trial in cancer patients

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20709-e20709
Author(s):  
G. Jung ◽  
D. Knight ◽  
A. Moadel ◽  
K. Desai ◽  
I. Chaudhary ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Phase I Trial ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
The Mean

e20709 Background: Quality of life (QoL) assessment in clinical trials has been gaining more attention. FACT-G surveys have been validated to assess QoL in clinical trials involving oncology patient (Cella DF et al, J Clin Oncol 11:570–579, 1993). However, there is paucity of evaluation of QoL in patients with advanced cancer participating in Phase I clinical trials. Methods: FACT-G surveys were conducted within the context of a Phase I trial to identify a safe dose and potential drug-drug interations of capecitabine and irinotecan combination (Goel, S et al, Invest New Drugs 25:237–245, 2007). The FACT-G survey consists of 28 questions in 5 sections, namely, physical well-being, social/family well-being, emotional well-being, relationship with doctor, and functional well-being). Patients were requested to complete the FACT-G surveys at baseline and every two cycles thereafter (each cycle of 3 weeks duration). Results: Forty-one of 47 patients with advanced solid tumors who participated in the clinical trial completed FACT-G surveys. Mean scores were calculated for each time point. The mean QoL scores at baseline and post cycle 2 were 53 and 58, respectively (p = 0.1). Post cycle 4, the mean QoL score was 62 [p = 0.01, (vs. baseline)]. Following cycle 4, the number of respondents decreased to the extent where we were unable to ascertain any further changes in the QoL scores. Conclusions: It is feasible to use FACT-G survey as a tool to assess QoL in patients participating in an oncology phase I clinical trial. Although the sample size of the patient population was not powered for any statistical significance, there was a trend toward improving QoL based on FACT-G survey scores. This suggests that phase I clinical trials may provide improvement of QoL for some patients. FACT-G is a useful tool in assessing QoL in oncology phase I trial study population. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Prognostic factors for cancer patients with good performance status considered for inclusion in phase I clinical trials

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2568-2568
Author(s):  
M. Bonneterre ◽  
N. Penel ◽  
M. Vanseymortier ◽  
E. Dansin ◽  
S. Clisant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Serum Albumin ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cox Model ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials

2568 Background: For investigators, the selection of patients to be considered for phase I clinical trials is difficult, because of the lack of objective criteria for a rational decision-making process. From October 1997 to October 2002, we retrospectively assessed prognostic factors for cancer patients considered for Phase 1 trials. Methods: 148 consecutive patients who had been screened for inclusion in 6 different phase I trials were included in the present study. 70 out of them actually received the phase I treatment. Univariate (Log-Rank test) and multivariate analysis (Cox proportional hazard ratio model) were performed to determine the prognostic factors related to overall survival (OS) after screening. Results: The study comprised 63 men and 85 women, with a median age of 54 (range 23–79). The most frequent primary cancer sites were: breast (38 cases), head and neck (28 cases), lung (18 cases) and colorectal (17 cases). 91 out of them had a performance status PS = 0. The median OS of the 148 patients was 5.7 months (173 days, range 1–2,421). Univariate analysis identified PS = 1, Body Mass Index < 20, liver and visceral metastasis, serum albumin < 38 g/L, lymphocytes count < 0.7 x 109/L and granulocytes count > 7.5 x 109/L as poor prognostic factors. The Cox model identified serum albumin < 38 g/L (HR 2.51 [1.51–4.18], p=0.0001) and lymphocyte count < 0.7 x 109/L (HR 2.27 [1.13–4.62], p=0.024) as independent prognostic variables for OS. All patients presenting with both prognostic factors died within 90 days. Conclusion: We propose a simple model, easily obtained at the patient bedside, which can discriminate patients who have a life expectancy of over 3 months and thus could be enrolled in phase-I anti-cancer trials. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document