Disparities Among Cancer Patients Seen in Gaps in Clinical Trial Participation

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Valerie Neff Newitt
2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gwendolyn P. Quinn ◽  
Alexis Koskan ◽  
Kristen J. Wells ◽  
Luis E. Gonzalez ◽  
Cathy D. Meade ◽  
...  

BMC Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zandra Engelbak Nielsen ◽  
Stefan Eriksson ◽  
Laurine Bente Schram Harsløf ◽  
Suzanne Petri ◽  
Gert Helgesson ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Research and cancer care are closely intertwined; however, it is not clear whether physicians and nurses believe that clinical trials offer the best treatment for patients and, if so, whether this belief is justified. The aim of this study was therefore: (i) to explore how physicians and nurses perceive the benefits of clinical trial participation compared with standard care and (ii) whether it is justified to claim that clinical trial participation improves outcomes for cancer patients. Methods A mixed methods approach was used employing semi-structured interviews with 57 physicians and nurses in oncology and haematology and a literature review of the evidence for trial superiority, i.e. the idea that receiving treatment in a clinical trial leads to a better outcome compared with standard care. Inductive thematic analysis was used to examine the interview data. A literature review comprising nine articles was conducted according to a conceptual framework developed by Peppercorn et al. and evaluated recent evidence on trial superiority. Results Our findings show that many physicians and nurses make claims supporting trial superiority, however very little evidence is available in the literature comparing outcomes for trial participants and non-participants that supports their assertions. Conclusions Despite the recent rapid development and use of targeted therapy and immunotherapy, we find no support for trial participation to provide better outcomes for cancer patients than standard care. Hence, our present results are in line with previous results from Peppercorn et al. A weaker version of the superiority claim is that even if a trial does not bring about a direct positive effect, it brings about indirect positive effects. However, as the value of such indirect effects is dependent on the individual’s specific circumstances and preferences, their existence cannot establish the general claim that treatment in trials is superior. Belief in trial superiority is therefore unfounded. Hence, if such beliefs are communicated to patients in a trial recruitment context, it would provide misleading information. Instead emphasis should be on patients volunteering to give an altruistic contribution to the furthering of knowledge and to the potential benefit of future patients.


Author(s):  
Erin M. Ellis ◽  
Rebecca A. Ferrer

Being diagnosed with cancer introduces the need to make many high-stakes decisions about treatments, clinical trial participation, palliative care, advanced care planning, and (sometimes) end-of-life preferences. These decisions can be intensely emotional themselves, and occur within the affectively laden context of cancer-related issues, such as symptom management, interpersonal concerns, and existential questions about life and death. This chapter outlines how affect/emotion influences several decisions faced by cancer patients, and how emotions are relevant to the interpersonal context in which these decisions occur. Emotion has pervasive and predictable—sometimes deleterious and sometimes advantageous—influences on decision making. Fundamental knowledge regarding how affect influences cancer-related decision making could be leveraged to develop interventions to optimize decisions about treatment, clinical trial participation, and palliative care among cancer patients and survivors, thereby improving cancer-related outcomes.


2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (14_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8260-8260 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. T. Tam ◽  
J. Payne ◽  
B. Teplitzky ◽  
W. Ershler ◽  
L. Balducci

2007 ◽  
Vol 5 (8) ◽  
pp. 753-762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal J. Meropol ◽  
Joanne S. Buzaglo ◽  
Jennifer Millard ◽  
Nevena Damjanov ◽  
Suzanne M. Miller ◽  
...  

Although clinical trial research is required for the development of improved treatment strategies, very few cancer patients participate in these studies. The purpose of this study was to describe psychosocial barriers to clinical trial participation among oncologists and their cancer patients. A survey was distributed to all medical oncologists in Pennsylvania and a subset of their patients. Relevant background information and assessment of practical and psychosocial barriers to clinical trial participation were assessed. Among 137 oncologists and 170 patients who completed the surveys, 84% of patients were aware of clinical trials, and oncologists and patients generally agreed that clinical trials are important to improving cancer treatment. However, oncologists and patients were more likely to consider clinical trials in advanced or refractory disease. When considering 7 potential barriers to clinical trials, random assignment and fear of receiving a placebo were ranked highly by both patients and oncologists. Patients identified fear of side effects as the greatest barrier to clinical trial participation, whereas oncologists ranked this psychosocial barrier as least important to their patients. Overall, the study found that although oncologists and patients are aware of clinical trials and have favorable attitudes toward them, psychosocial barriers exist for patients that may impact participation in clinical trials. Furthermore, important discrepancies exist between the perceptions of oncologists and those of patients regarding what the psychosocial barriers are. We concluded that characterizing oncologist and patient perceived barriers can help improve communication and decision making about clinical trials, such that participation may be optimized.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document