scholarly journals Realizing better doctor-patient dialogue about choices in palliative care and early phase clinical trial participation: towards an online value clarification tool (OnVaCT)

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liza G. G. van Lent ◽  
Nicole K. Stoel ◽  
Julia C. M. van Weert ◽  
Jelle van Gurp ◽  
Maja J. A. de Jonge ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Patients with advanced cancer for whom standard systemic treatment is no longer available may be offered participation in early phase clinical trials. In the decision making process, both medical-technical information and patient values and preferences are important. Since patients report decisional conflict after deciding on participation in these trials, improving the decision making process is essential. We aim to develop and evaluate an Online Value Clarification Tool (OnVaCT) to assist patients in clarifying their values around this end-of-life decision. This improved sharing of values is hypothesized to support medical oncologists in tailoring their information to individual patients’ needs and, consequently, to support patients in taking decisions in line with their values and reduce decisional conflict. Methods In the first part, patients’ values and preferences and medical oncologists’ views hereupon will be explored in interviews and focus groups to build a first prototype OnVaCT using digital communication (serious gaming). Next, we will test feasibility during think aloud sessions, to deliver a ready-to-implement OnVaCT. In the second part, the OnVaCT, with accompanied training module, will be evaluated in a pre-test (12–18 months before implementation) post-test (12–18 months after implementation) study in three major Dutch cancer centres. We will include 276 patients (> 18 years) with advanced cancer for whom standard systemic therapy is no longer available, and who are referred for participation in early phase clinical trials. The first consultation will be recorded to analyse patient-physician communication regarding the discussion of patients’ values and the decision making process. Three weeks afterwards, decisional conflict will be measured. Discussion This project aims to support the discussion of patient values when considering participation in early phase clinical trials. By including patients before their first appointment with the medical oncologist and recording that consultation, we are able to link decisional conflict to the decision making process, e.g. the communication during consultation. The study faces challenges such as timely including patients within the short period between referral and first consultation. Furthermore, with new treatments being developed rapidly, molecular stratification may affect the patient populations included in the pre-test and post-test periods. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Registry number: NTR7551 (prospective; July 17, 2018).

PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e83279 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Pinato ◽  
Chara Stavraka ◽  
Michael J. Flynn ◽  
Martin D. Forster ◽  
Séan M. O'Cathail ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2540-2540
Author(s):  
Goldy George ◽  
Eucharia Chiege Iwuanyanwu ◽  
Alizeh Yusuf ◽  
Karen O Anderson ◽  
Sarina Anne Piha-Paul ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9651-9651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Paul Dohan ◽  
Laura Trupin ◽  
Christopher Koenig ◽  
Fay J. Hlubocky ◽  
Christopher Daugherty

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14025-e14025
Author(s):  
Sarah Watson ◽  
Clement Bonnet ◽  
Jessica Menis ◽  
Jean-Marie Michot ◽  
Antoine Hollebecque ◽  
...  

e14025 Background: Progression-free survival ratio (PFSr) has been proposed as a direct evaluation of treatment benefit in advanced cancer patients, based on the hypothesis that the natural history of cancer is accelerating and therefore successive lines of treatments become less efficient over time. Consequently, PFS at line +2 (PFS2) is expected to be shorter than PFS at line +1 (PFS1), whereas a PFS2/PFS1 ratio > 1.3 might reflect treatment benefit. However, this hypothesis has been poorly documented, especially in the context of early phase trials where determining treatment benefit is becoming key. We therefore proposed to evaluate PFSr in a large cohort of cancer patients enrolled in early phase clinical trials at Gustave Roussy Drug Development Department. Methods: Patients enrolled in at least two phase 1 studies for advanced solid tumors or lymphomas were retrospectively identified. Demographical, clinical and therapeutic data were collected. Time to progression (PFS) was measured from treatment initiation to progression, using radiological evaluations. Patients who had gone off-trial for reasons other than progression were censored. PFSr was defined as the ratio of the PFS under line 2 divided by the PFS under line 1 and might be censored in presence of censored PFS2. Ratio distribution in this population was estimated using Kaplan Meier. Calibration of the ratio was proposed for hypothesis testing. The influence of therapeutic class and combination versus monotherapy was studied via non parametric Gehan-Wilcoxon tests or Mick tests. Results: 212 patients enrolled between 2009 and 2016 in at least two phase 1 clinical trials were included, corresponding to 113 different clinical trials. PFSr distribution was described and correlated with demographical, clinical and therapeutic data. The relevance of the usual 1.3 PFSr cut-off to determine treatment benefit was evaluated. Final analysis results will be presented at the time of the congress. Conclusions: This study, one of the first to establish PFSr in a large cohort of patients treated in early phase clinical trials, provides guidelines for using PFSr to assess the impact of treatment sequences in advanced cancer patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document