Evaluation of barriers to clinical trial enrollment through a novel pharmacy quality assurance tool

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 17026-17026
Author(s):  
D. C. Vamos ◽  
M. P. Kane ◽  
J. Nishioka ◽  
S. Lisi ◽  
J. R. Neceskas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Pharmacy Service ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Limiting Factor ◽  
Available N ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Barriers To Enrollment ◽  
Pharmacy Quality

17026 Background: Clinical trials offer the best treatment for patients with cancer, yet less than 5 percent of adults and less than 60 percent of children are enrolled on clinical trials. To determine reasons for lack of enrollment on clinical trials and to assess areas for potential trial development, we designed a ‘non-protocol’ form for use at our center. Our goal was to assess deficiencies in our menu of trials, identify other barriers to enrollment, and to indirectly increase awareness of trials. Methods: Completion of a ‘non-protocol’ form was required by the pharmacy with the first set of new chemotherapy orders for all Cancer Institute of New Jersey ambulatory patients who were not enrolled on a clinical trial. The form required completion of one of three areas for lack of enrollment: trial availability, reason for ineligibility, or other reason for not enrolling the patient. Results: From June 2003 through December 2005, 474 forms were collected for patients not enrolled on a clinical trial. The median age of patients not enrolled on trial was 56 years (range 1 to 88 years) and females outnumbered males (69% vs 31%). Lack of trial availability limited enrollment for 51% of patients (n=241) while administration of standard therapy was listed for 10 patients. Of those patients where a trial was available (n=223), 65% (n=145) of patients were not eligible, most commonly due to performance status (n=55). The remaining 78 patients refused participation. To determine if implementation of this pharmacy service changed the reasons for lack of enrollment, the data was evaluated by year: Conclusion: Lack of trial availability has been a rate-limiting factor in enrollment on clinical trials at our center. The data generated from the implementation of this novel pharmacy service is of strategic importance to the center. It is reviewed with the tumor-focused groups of the cancer center to identify areas for developing clinical trials. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Artificial Intelligence Tool for Optimizing Eligibility Screening for Clinical Trials in a Large Community Cancer Center

2020 ◽  
pp. 50-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Thaddeus Beck ◽  
Melissa Rammage ◽  
Gretchen P. Jackson ◽  
Anita M. Preininger ◽  
Irene Dankwa-Mullan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Attribute Extraction ◽  
Time Required ◽  
Manual Review

PURPOSE Less than 5% of patients with cancer enroll in clinical trials, and 1 in 5 trials are stopped for poor accrual. We evaluated an automated clinical trial matching system that uses natural language processing to extract patient and trial characteristics from unstructured sources and machine learning to match patients to clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS Medical records from 997 patients with breast cancer were assessed for trial eligibility at Highlands Oncology Group between May and August 2016. System and manual attribute extraction and eligibility determinations were compared using the percentage of agreement for 239 patients and 4 trials. Sensitivity and specificity of system-generated eligibility determinations were measured, and the time required for manual review and system-assisted eligibility determinations were compared. RESULTS Agreement between system and manual attribute extraction ranged from 64.3% to 94.0%. Agreement between system and manual eligibility determinations was 81%-96%. System eligibility determinations demonstrated specificities between 76% and 99%, with sensitivities between 91% and 95% for 3 trials and 46.7% for the 4th. Manual eligibility screening of 90 patients for 3 trials took 110 minutes; system-assisted eligibility determinations of the same patients for the same trials required 24 minutes. CONCLUSION In this study, the clinical trial matching system displayed a promising performance in screening patients with breast cancer for trial eligibility. System-assisted trial eligibility determinations were substantially faster than manual review, and the system reliably excluded ineligible patients for all trials and identified eligible patients for most trials.

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 Key Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrolment: A Survey of Clinical Trial Staff at an NCI Designated Cancer Center

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5864-5864
Author(s):  
Amany R. Keruakous ◽  
Adam S. Asch
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cultural Bias ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Strict Inclusion ◽  
Trial Protocols ◽  
Trial Staff ◽  
Disease Site ◽  
Patient Enrolment

Background: Clinical trials, key elements of the processes that account for many of the recent advances in cancer care, are becoming more complex and challenging to conduct. The Stephenson Cancer Center (SCC) has been the lead accruer to NCI-LAP trials over the past three years, and in addition, fields investigator initiated and industry sponsored trials. To identify opportunities for continued improvement in clinical trial enrolment, we sought to identify the obstacles encountered by our clinical trial staff in these activities. Method: We conducted a survey of our research staff including all research nurses and disease site coordinators who participate in recruitment, screening, consenting, data collection and compliance. The survey, sent by email to the clinical trial list-serve at SCC (90 staff member), invited respondents to enumerate obstacles to patient participation in clinical trials. We then performed a follow up meeting with our research coordinators to clarify responses. A total of 26 responses from 90 respondents were received and tabulated by disease site. Results: The most commonly reported obstacles to enrolment were, in descending order: communication/language barriers, cultural bias, time/procedure commitment, and complexity of the trial protocol, financial logistics, comorbidities, and stringent trial criteria. Respondents identified 83 obstacles as frequently encountered obstacles to enrolment. The 83 reported obstacles were classified into 9 categories and organized by disease site as presented in tabular format (below). The most commonly identified obstacles to patient enrolment were communication and language barriers. In patients for whom Spanish is the primary language this was a universal obstacle, as there is a lack of consistent Spanish consents across the clinical trial portfolio. Cultural bias, as an obstacle was manifested as a general mistrust by prospective trial participants of experimental therapies and clinical trials. After communication and cultural bias as barriers, travel requirements and the associated expenses playing a role in patients from rural areas were identified as the most commonly encountered barrier. The complexity of trial protocols and the associated large number of clinic visits, frequent laboratory and imaging tests were also identified as common obstacles. Clinical trial complexity with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and trial-specified biopsies were frequently cited. Implications: In this descriptive study, common barriers to patient enrolment in clinical trials were identified by clinical trial staff. Assessing barriers encountered by clinical trial staff is infrequently used as a metric for improving clinical trial enrolment, but provides important perspective. In our study, some obstacles are inherent in our patient populations, others appear to be actionable. Development of Spanish language consents and specific programs to overcome negative bias regarding clinical trials are potential areas for improvement. The complexity of clinical trial protocols and the increasingly strict inclusion/exclusion criteria, are issues that will require consideration and action at the level of the cooperative groups and industry. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Evaluating the Financial Impact of Clinical Trials in Oncology: Results From a Pilot Study From the Association of American Cancer Institutes/Northwestern University Clinical Trials Costs and Charges Project

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (15) ◽  
pp. 2805-2810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles L. Bennett ◽  
Tammy J. Stinson ◽  
Victor Vogel ◽  
Lyn Robertson ◽  
Donald Leedy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Disease Stage ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Policy Debate ◽  
Economic Analyses

PURPOSE: Medical care for clinical trials is often not reimbursed by insurers, primarily because of concern that medical care as part of clinical trials is expensive and not part of standard medical practice. In June 2000, President Clinton ordered Medicare to reimburse for medical care expenses incurred as part of cancer clinical trials, although many private insurers are concerned about the expense of this effort. To inform this policy debate, the costs and charges of care for patients on clinical trials are being evaluated. In this Association of American Cancer Institutes (AACI) Clinical Trials Costs and Charges pilot study, we describe the results and operational considerations of one of the first completed multisite economic analyses of clinical trials. METHODS: Our pilot effort included assessment of total direct medical charges for 6 months of care for 35 case patients who received care on phase II clinical trials and for 35 matched controls (based on age, sex, disease, stage, and treatment period) at five AACI member cancer centers. Charge data were obtained for hospital and ancillary services from automated claims files at individual study institutions. The analyses were based on the perspective of a third-party payer. RESULTS: The mean age of the phase II clinical trial patients was 58.3 years versus 57.3 years for control patients. The study population included persons with cancer of the breast (n = 24), lung (n = 18), colon (n = 16), prostate (n = 4), and lymphoma (n = 8). The ratio of male-to-female patients was 3:4, with greater than 75% of patients having stage III to IV disease. Total mean charges for treatment from the time of study enrollment through 6 months were similar: $57,542 for clinical trial patients and $63,721 for control patients (1998 US$; P = .4) CONCLUSION: Multisite economic analyses of oncology clinical trials are in progress. Strategies that are not likely to overburden data managers and clinicians are possible to devise. However, these studies require careful planning and coordination among cancer center directors, finance department personnel, economists, and health services researchers.

Safety and efficacy outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and low Karnofsky performance status: Results from the CheckMate 920 trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 315-315
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Hutson ◽  
Bradley Curtis Carthon ◽  
Jeffrey Yorio ◽  
Sunil Babu ◽  
Heidi Ann McKean ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Grade 3

315 Background: Combination therapy with nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated long-term efficacy and tolerability for patients (pts) with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Most pivotal clinical trials in pts with aRCC have excluded pts with low Karnofsky performance status (KPS; < 70%). CheckMate 920 is a multi-arm, phase IIIb/IV, open-label clinical trial of NIVO+IPI treatment in pts enrolled in a community practice setting with aRCC and a high unmet medical need. We present safety and efficacy results for the cohort of pts with aRCC of any histology and KPS 50%–60% from CheckMate 920 (NCT02982954). Methods: Pts with previously untreated advanced/metastatic RCC and KPS 50%–60% received NIVO 3 mg/kg + IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W × 4 doses followed by 480 mg NIVO Q4W for ≤ 2 years or until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade ≥ 3 immune-mediated adverse events (imAEs) within 100 days of last dose of study drug. Key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1 (both per investigator). Exploratory endpoints included overall survival (OS). Results: Of 25 treated pts with KPS 50%–60%, 76% were men; median age was 67 years (range, 34–81). IMDC risk was favorable in 0%, intermediate in 32%, and poor in 68% of pts; 84% had clear cell and 16% had non-clear cell RCC histology. With a minimum follow-up of 25 months, median duration of therapy (95% CI) was 2.3 months (2.1–7.7) for NIVO and 2.1 months (2.1–2.1) for IPI. The median number of doses (range) received was 4 (1–27) for NIVO and 4 (1–4) for IPI; 76% of pts received ≥ 4 NIVO doses and 68% received all 4 IPI doses. The only grade 3–4 imAEs by category were hepatitis (4.0%) and adrenal insufficiency (4.0%). No grade 5 imAEs occurred. Overall, 4 (16%) pts discontinued due to any-grade adverse events (n = 1 each for elevated AST, malignant neoplasm progression, back pain, and acetabulum fracture). Of 18 evaluable pts, ORR was 33.3% (95% CI, 13.3–59.0); no pts had a complete response and 6 had partial response. Median time to objective response was 4.5 months (range, 2.5–24.7). Median duration of objective response was 20.6 months (range, 0.03+–24.2+). Median PFS was 4.6 months (95% CI, 2.5–14.8). Median OS was 15.6 months (95% CI, 5.3–25.1). Conclusions: NIVO+IPI demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and promising antitumor activity in pts with previously untreated aRCC and KPS 50%–60%. The combination was tolerated at a dose intensity similar to that observed in clinical trials conducted in pts with higher KPS (≥ 70%). These data support the value of NIVO+IPI in pts who may not be considered ideal candidates for this therapy and consequently may have limited treatment options. Clinical trial information: NCT02982954 .

scholarly journals Provider Recommendations for Phase I Clinical Trials Within a Shared Decision-Making Model in Phase I Cancer Clinical Trial Discussions

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e859-e867
Author(s):  
Rachel S. Hianik ◽  
Gavin P. Campbell ◽  
Eli Abernethy ◽  
Colleen Lewis ◽  
Christina S. Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Phase I Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Decision Making Model

PURPOSE: Debate continues over whether explicit recommendations for a clinical trial should be included as an element of shared decision making within oncology. We aimed to determine if and how providers make explicit recommendations in the setting of phase I cancer clinical trials. METHODS: Twenty-three patient/provider conversations about phase I trials were analyzed to determine how recommendations are made and how the conversations align with a shared decision-making framework. In addition, 19 providers (9 of whose patient encounters were observed) were interviewed about the factors they consider when deciding whether to recommend a phase I trial. RESULTS: We found that providers are comprehensive in the factors they consider when recommending clinical trials. The two most frequently stated factors were performance status (89%) and patient preferences (84%). Providers made explicit recommendations in 19 conversations (83%), with 12 of those being for a phase I trial (12 [63%] of 19). They made these recommendations in a manner consistent with a shared decision-making model; 18 (95%) of the 19 conversations during which a recommendation was made included all steps, or all but 1 step, of shared decision making, as did 11 of the 12 conversations during which a phase I trial was recommended. In 7 (58%) of these later conversations, providers also emphasized the importance of the patient’s opinion. CONCLUSION: We suggest that providers not hesitate to make explicit recommendations for phase I clinical trials, because they are able to do so in a manner consistent with shared decision making. With further research, these results can be applied to other clinical trial settings.

scholarly journals Patients with cancer in the COVID-19 era: the clinical trial issue

2020 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
pp. 271-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcello Scarcia ◽  
Giuseppe Mario Ludovico ◽  
Angela Fortunato ◽  
Alba Fiorentino
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Physical Examination ◽  
Regulatory Agencies ◽  
Study Medication ◽  
Therapeutic Modalities ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Safety Guidelines ◽  
Trial Discontinuation

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospital reorganization may result in reduced ability for the hospital to fully use its armamentarium for battling cancer. Thus different therapeutic modalities have been recommended. During the pandemic, despite regulatory agencies’ recommendations, several considerations and doubts remain for oncologic clinical trials. Considering patients who had been enrolled before the pandemic, and who plan to take the study medication, the situation becomes complicated. These patients should undergo monitoring visits, blood sampling, questionnaire, physical examination, and drug and radiation administration. To avoid deviations from the protocol and trial discontinuation, follow-up should be performed regularly, in concordance with safety guidelines. Here we report several considerations.

Cancer clinical trials available in the community setting: A 5-year analysis from 1999–2004

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6056-6056
Author(s):  
J. K. Keller ◽  
J. Bowman ◽  
J. A. Lee ◽  
M. A. Mathiason ◽  
K. A. Frisby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Disease Stage ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Major Barrier

6056 Background: Less than 5% of newly diagnosed cancer patients are accrued into clinical trials. In the community setting, the lack of appropriate clinical trials is a major barrier. Our prospective study in 2004 determined that 58% of newly diagnosed adult cancer patients at our community-based cancer center didn’t have a clinical trial available appropriate for their disease stage. Among those with clinical trials, 23% were subsequently found to be ineligible (Go RS, et al. Cancer 2006, in press). However, the availability of clinical trials may vary from year to year. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted to determine what clinical trials were available for newly diagnosed adult cancer patients at our institution from June 1999-July 2004. The study also investigated the proportions of newly diagnosed patients who had a clinical trial available appropriate for type and stage of disease and patients accrued. Results: Over the 5-year period, 207 (82, 87, 99, 102, 117, years 1–5, respectively) trials were available. Most (50.7%) trials were for the following cancers: breast (15.5%), lung (13.5%), head and neck (7.7%), colorectal (7.2%) and lymphoma (6.8%). ECOG (53%), RTOG (26%), and CTSU (9%) provided the majority of the trials. A total of 5,776 new adult cancer patients were seen during this period. Overall, 60% of the patients had a trial available appropriate for type and stage of their cancer, but only 103 (3%) were enrolled. There was a significant upward trend in the proportions of patients with available trials over the years (60.2%, 55.9%, 59.2%, 60.7%, 63.9%, years 1–5, respectively; Mantel-Haenszel P=.008). The proportion of patients with a trial available was highest for prostate (97.3%), lung (90.9%), and breast (73.9%), and lowest for melanoma (17.1%), renal (11.6%), and bladder (7.2%). The majority of patients accrued to trials had the following cancers: breast (32%), lung (17%), lymphoma (9%), colon (7%), and prostate (5%). Conclusions: Nearly half of the newly diagnosed adult patients at our center had no trials available appropriate for type and stage of their cancers. It is likely that if strict clinical trial eligibility criteria were applied, approximately 2/3 of our patients would not be eligible for a clinical trial. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document