Health professions students' understanding and attitudes about cancer clinical trials: Implications for including cancer clinical trial competencies in curricula.

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16534-e16534
Author(s):  
S. J. Gainor ◽  
A. Bradlyn ◽  
C. V. Harris ◽  
S. C. Remick ◽  
J. Shumway
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials

Practical Aspects of Implementing and Applying Health Care Cloud Computing Services and Informatics to Cancer Clinical Trial Data

2021 ◽  
pp. 826-832
Author(s):  
Jay G. Ronquillo ◽  
William T. Lester
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Research ◽  
Cloud Computing ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Laboratory Tests ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Precision Oncology ◽  
Oncology Research

PURPOSE Cloud computing has led to dramatic growth in the volume, variety, and velocity of cancer data. However, cloud platforms and services present new challenges for cancer research, particularly in understanding the practical tradeoffs between cloud performance, cost, and complexity. The goal of this study was to describe the practical challenges when using a cloud-based service to improve the cancer clinical trial matching process. METHODS We collected information for all interventional cancer clinical trials from ClinicalTrials.gov and used the Google Cloud Healthcare Natural Language Application Programming Interface (API) to analyze clinical trial Title and Eligibility Criteria text. An informatics pipeline leveraging interoperability standards summarized the distribution of cancer clinical trials, genes, laboratory tests, and medications extracted from cloud-based entity analysis. RESULTS There were a total of 38,851 cancer-related clinical trials found in this study, with the distribution of cancer categories extracted from Title text significantly different than in ClinicalTrials.gov ( P < .001). Cloud-based entity analysis of clinical trial criteria identified a total of 949 genes, 1,782 laboratory tests, 2,086 medications, and 4,902 National Cancer Institute Thesaurus terms, with estimated detection accuracies ranging from 12.8% to 89.9%. A total of 77,702 API calls processed an estimated 167,179 text records, which took a total of 1,979 processing-minutes (33.0 processing-hours), or approximately 1.5 seconds per API call. CONCLUSION Current general-purpose cloud health care tools—like the Google service in this study—should not be used for automated clinical trial matching unless they can perform effective extraction and classification of the clinical, genetic, and medication concepts central to precision oncology research. A strong understanding of the practical aspects of cloud computing will help researchers effectively navigate the vast data ecosystems in cancer research.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncology clinical trial recruitment in an Irish cancer center.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18756-e18756
Author(s):  
Ronan Andrew McLaughlin ◽  
Valerie Madigan ◽  
Maureen O'Grady ◽  
Thamir Andrew Mahgoub ◽  
Roshni Andrew Kalachand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
The Impact

e18756 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented disruptions to cancer clinical trial research across the world due to a temporary global suspension of patients’ recruitment to cancer clinical trials. Access to clinical trials permits better treatment options and best clinical practice standards for patients with cancer. We present the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer clinical trial activity at the Cancer Clinical Trials Unit (CCTU) at the Mid-Western Cancer Centre, University Hospital Limerick (UHL). Over the last 4 years 28 clinical trials, both interventional and translational, have opened here, across a variety of primary disease sites, with 5 trials opened in 2017, 11 in 2018, 7 in 2019 but only 2 in the first 10 months of 2020 until 3 further trials were opened in December. Methods: CCTU records were reviewed to identify the number of patients screened and consented to participate in cancer clinical trials at UHL in 2020, which were compared directly with corresponding numbers for 2019. Results: In 2019, 17 clinical trials were open and recruiting at the CCTU, UHL. During 2020, 19 trials were recruiting although during the 1st surge of the COVID-19 pandemic recruitment was essentially suspended and CCTU staff were redeployed throughout the hospital. 1st Six months 2020 vs 2019 In the six months from January 2020 until the end of June 2020, 99 patients were screened and only 15 (15.2%) signed informed consent to participate in a cancer clinical trial. When these figures are directly compared with the first six months of 2019, there is a 33% reduction in patients screened for participation (147 vs 99) and a 60% reduction in patients consented (37 vs 15) to clinical trials. 12 Months 2020 vs 2019 In total during 2019, 376 patients were screened for inclusion to participate and 49 (13%) patients signed informed consent to participate in a clinical trial within CCTU at UHL. In 2020, 914 patients were screened for participation with 51 patients consented to participate (5.6%). The majority (45/51 (88%)) of patients consented to cancer clinical trials in 2020 at the CCTU, UHL were recruited to translational based studies and only 6 (12%) consented to interventional studies compared with 2019 when 30/49 (61%) consented to translational and 30/49 (39%) to interventional studies. Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the percentage of patients consented to participation in a clinical trial reduced significantly, as compared to the previous year (5.6% vs 13%). Fewer interventional studies have recruited patients during 2020. As we enter the third surge of COVID-19 infections in Ireland, we must continue to monitor and identify effective strategies to navigate the ever-changing situation for cancer clinical trials, in an attempt to maintain access to high quality cancer clinical trial opportunities for our patients.

Prospective Evaluation of Cancer Clinical Trial Accrual Patterns: Identifying Potential Barriers to Enrollment

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 1728-1733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Primo N. Lara ◽  
Roger Higdon ◽  
Nelson Lim ◽  
Karen Kwan ◽  
Michael Tanaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Clinical Trial Accrual ◽  
Patient Accrual

PURPOSE: Well-conducted cancer clinical trials are essential for improving patient outcomes. Unfortunately, only 3% of new cancer patients participate in clinical trials. Barriers to patient accrual in cancer clinical trials must be identified and overcome to increase patient participation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively tracked factors that potentially affected patient accrual into cancer clinical trials at the University of California Davis Cancer Center. Oncologists seeing new outpatients were asked to complete questionnaires regarding patient characteristics and the physician’s decision-making on patient eligibility, protocol availability, and patient opinions on participation. Statistical analysis was performed to correlate these parameters with subsequent protocol accrual. RESULTS: There were 276 assessable patients. At the initial visits, physicians did not consider clinical trials in 38% (105/276) of patients principally because of a perception of protocol unavailability and poor performance status. Physicians considered 62% (171/276) of patients for participation in clinical trials. Of these, only 53% (91/171) had an appropriate protocol available for site and stage of disease. Seventy-six of 90 patients (84%) with available protocols met eligibility criteria for a particular study. Only 39 of 76 patients (51%) agreed to participate in cancer clinical trials, for an overall accrual rate of 14% (39/276). The remainder (37/76, 49%) declined trial participation despite meeting eligibility criteria. The most common reasons were a desire for other treatment (34%), distance from the cancer center (13%), patient refusal to disclose reason (11%), and insurance denial (8%). Patients with private insurance were less likely to enroll in clinical trials compared to those with government-funded insurance (OR, 0.34; P = .03; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.9). CONCLUSION: Barriers to cancer clinical trial accrual can be prospectively identified and addressed in the development and conduct of future studies, which may potentially lead to more robust clinical trials enrollment. Investigation of patient perceptions regarding the clinical trials process and the role of third party–payers is warranted.

scholarly journals YouTube Videos as a Source of Information About Clinical Trials: Observational Study (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace Clarke Hillyer ◽  
Sarah A MacLean ◽  
Melissa Beauchemin ◽  
Corey H Basch ◽  
Karen M Schmitt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Video Information ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Youtube Videos

BACKGROUND Clinical trials are essential to the advancement of cancer treatment but fewer than 5% of adult cancer patients enroll in a trial. A commonly cited barrier to participation is the lack of understanding about clinical trials. OBJECTIVE Since the internet is a popular source of health-related information and YouTube is the second most visited website in the world, we examined the content of the top 115 YouTube videos about clinical trials to evaluate clinical trial information available through this medium. METHODS YouTube videos posted prior to March 2017 were searched using selected keywords. A snowballing technique was used to identify videos wherein sequential screening of the autofill search results for each set of keywords was conducted. Video characteristics (eg, number of views and video length) were recorded. The content was broadly grouped as related to purpose, phases, design, safety and ethics, and participant considerations. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess associations between video type (cancer vs noncancer) and video characteristics and content. RESULTS In total, 115 videos were reviewed. Of these, 46/115 (40.0%) were cancer clinical trials videos and 69/115 (60.0%) were noncancer/general clinical trial videos. Most videos were created by health care organizations/cancer centers (34/115, 29.6%), were oriented toward patients (67/115, 58.3%) and the general public (68/115, 59.1%), and were informational (79/115, 68.7%); altruism was a common theme (31/115, 27.0%). Compared with noncancer videos, cancer clinical trials videos more frequently used an affective communication style and mentioned the benefits of participation. Cancer clinical trial videos were also much more likely to raise the issue of costs associated with participation (odds ratio [OR] 5.93, 95% CI 1.15-29.46) and advise patients to communicate with their physician about cancer clinical trials (OR 4.94, 95% CI 1.39-17.56). CONCLUSIONS Collectively, YouTube clinical trial videos provided information on many aspects of trials; however, individual videos tended to focus on selected topics with varying levels of detail. Cancer clinical trial videos were more emotional in style and positive in tone and provided information on the important topics of cost and communication. Patients are encouraged to verify and supplement YouTube video information in consultations with their health care professionals to obtain a full and accurate picture of cancer clinical trials to make an adequately informed decision about participation.

Palliative care consultation for patients enrolled in cancer clinical trials.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 139-139
Author(s):  
Ryan David Nipp ◽  
Elizabeth Powell ◽  
Beverly Moy
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Somatic Mutation ◽  
Metastatic Disease ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Appropriate Use ◽  
Factors Associated

139 Background: Cancer clinical trials often enroll patients with advanced cancer, yet trial participation should not preclude the appropriate use of palliative care (PC) services for these patients. We sought to describe rates and correlates of PC consultation in clinical trial patients and identify factors associated with use of PC. Methods: We prospectively collected data on patient characteristics and rates of PC consultation among all patients enrolled in cancer clinical trials at Massachusetts General Hospital in 2014. We used multiple logistic regression with purposeful selection of covariates to identify factors associated with PC consultation. Results: Of 1,218 clinical trial patients (mean age = 58 years; 643 (53%) female), 781 (64%) were married and 851 (70%) had metastatic disease. All cancer types were represented, but hematologic cancers (21%) were most common. Of those who had tumor genotype testing, 340 (62%) had a somatic mutation. Overall, 177 (15%) received PC consultation. Of those with metastatic disease, 149 (18%) received a PC consult. Metastatic disease, being unmarried, and absence of a somatic tumor mutation correlated with receipt of a PC consult. Conclusions: We found that a minority of cancer clinical trial patients receive PC consultation. Having metastatic disease and being unmarried correlated with receipt of PC consultation, thus highlighting a population likely needing additional supportive care. Presence of a somatic mutation was inversely associated with receiving PC consultation, suggesting that disease biology may impact patients’ supportive care needs or presence of these mutations influences clinician decisions about the need for PC services. These data help identify the factors associated with appropriate use of PC, and add to our understanding about the use of these services in cancer clinical trial patients. [Table: see text]

Public Attitudes Toward Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 830-835 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L. Comis ◽  
Jon D. Miller ◽  
Carolyn R. Aldigé ◽  
Linda Krebs ◽  
Ellen Stoval
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
National Probability Sample

Purpose: The objective of this study is to understand the attitudes of American adults toward participation in cancer clinical trials. Methods: A national probability sample of 1,000 adults aged 18 and older living in noninstitutional settings was interviewed by telephone by Harris Interactive during March and April 2000. One participant was selected from each household selected for the study. The resulting data were weighted to reflect the full adult population of the United States as reported in Current Population Reports. An Index of Participation in a Cancer Clinical Trial was computed, using a confirmatory factor analysis and converting the factor scores into a 0-to-100 scale. Results: Approximately 32% of American adults (64 million individuals) indicate that they would be very willing to participate in a cancer clinical trial if asked to do so. An additional 38% of adults (76 million individuals) scored in a range that indicates that they are inclined to participate in a cancer clinical trial if asked, but hold some questions or reservations about participation. Projected rates of diagnosis, eligibility, and recruitment indicate that substantially more patients are willing to participate than are actually accrued. Conclusion: These results indicate that the primary problem with accrual is not the attitudes of patients, but rather that the loss of potential participants is the result of the unavailability of an appropriate clinical trial and the disqualification of large numbers of patients. The pool of willing patients is further reduced by the reluctance of some physicians to engage in accrual.

Proposal for Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points in Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trials: The STEEP System

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (15) ◽  
pp. 2127-2132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clifford A. Hudis ◽  
William E. Barlow ◽  
Joseph P. Costantino ◽  
Robert J. Gray ◽  
Kathleen I. Pritchard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Death ◽  
End Points ◽  
Breast Cancer Death ◽  
End Point ◽  
Adjuvant Breast Cancer

Purpose Standardized definitions of breast cancer clinical trial end points must be adopted to permit the consistent interpretation and analysis of breast cancer clinical trials and to facilitate cross-trial comparisons and meta-analyses. Standardizing terms will allow for uniformity in data collection across studies, which will optimize clinical trial utility and efficiency. A given end point term (eg, overall survival) used in a breast cancer trial should always encompass the same set of events (eg, death attributable to breast cancer, death attributable to cause other than breast cancer, death from unknown cause), and, in turn, each event within that end point should be commonly defined across end points and studies. Methods A panel of experts in breast cancer clinical trials representing medical oncology, biostatistics, and correlative science convened to formulate standard definitions and address the confusion that nonstandard definitions of widely used end point terms for a breast cancer clinical trial can generate. We propose standard definitions for efficacy end points and events in early-stage adjuvant breast cancer clinical trials. In some cases, it is expected that the standard end points may not address a specific trial question, so that modified or customized end points would need to be prospectively defined and consistently used. Conclusion The use of the proposed common end point definitions will facilitate interpretation of trial outcomes. This approach may be adopted to develop standard outcome definitions for use in trials involving other cancer sites.

scholarly journals Colon Cancer: The Exclusion of Native Americans and Hispanics from Clinical Trials in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Angel De Soto
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
African Americans ◽  
Native Americans ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Participants

Abstract:Introduction: Each year there are 150,000 new cases of colon cancer in the United States. The chance of death for Hispanics and Native Americans who get colon cancer is much higher than whites even though both groups are much less likely to get colon cancer than whites. In this study, we look at the inclusion or exclusion of Hispanics and Native Americans from colon cancer clinical trials. Methods: In this retrospective study, 48 colon cancer clinical trials in the United States with an aggregate of 421,530 participants performed within the last ten years were selected at random. These clinical trials were evaluated for the inclusion and exclusion of minorities. Results: Though whites make up only 60.1% of the population they make up 89% of the colon cancer clinical trial participants. African Americans, and Hispanics who make up 13.4% and 18.5% of the population only made up 5.6% and 0.6% of the colon cancer clinical trial participants. Only two native Americans out of 421,530 colon cancer clinical trial participants could be identified. Conclusion: Colon Cancer Clinical trials have systematically excluded Hispanics and Native Americans while minimizing the participation of African Americans. This may be directly related to the increased death rates seen in these groups and provides evidence for the non-generalizability of colon cancer clinical trials.

scholarly journals Readability of Cancer Clinical Trials Websites

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 107327481990112
Author(s):  
Grace Clarke Hillyer ◽  
Melissa Beauchemin ◽  
Philip Garcia ◽  
Moshe Kelsen ◽  
Frances L. Brogan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Literacy Skills ◽  
Reading Level ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment

Clinical trials are critically important for the development of new cancer treatments. According to recent estimates, however, clinical trial enrollment is only about 8%. Lack of patient understanding or awareness of clinical trials is one reason for the low rate of participation. The purpose of this observational study was to evaluate the readability of cancer clinical trial websites designed to educate the general public and patients about clinical trials. Nearly 90% of Americans use Google to search for health-related information. We conducted a Google Chrome Incognito search in 2018 using the keywords “cancer clinical trial” and “cancer clinical trials.” Content of the 100 cancer clinical trial websites was analyzed using an online readability panel consisting of Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning-Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook scales. Reading level difficulty was assessed and compared between commercial versus non-commercial URL extensions. Content readability was found to be “difficult” (10.7 grade level). No significant difference in readability, overall, and between commercial and non-commercial URL extensions was found using 4/5 measures of readability; 90.9% of commercial versus 49.4% of non-commercial websites were written at a >10th grade ( P = .013) using Gunning-Fog Index. Written cancer clinical trials content on the Internet is written at a reading level beyond the literacy capabilities of the average American reader. Improving readability to accommodate readers with basic literacy skills will provide an opportunity for greater comprehension that could potentially result in higher rates of clinical trial enrollment.

Trends in the geographic distribution of cancer clinical trials in the US: 2008-2015.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6515-6515
Author(s):  
Caroline Savage Bennette ◽  
Wei-Jhih Wang ◽  
Scott David Ramsey ◽  
Jean A. McDougall
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Geographic Distribution ◽  
Gini Coefficient ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Hospital Service ◽  
The Gini Coefficient ◽  
The Us

6515 Background: Access to and patient enrollment in cancer clinical trials is likely strongly impacted by where trial enrollment sites are located. Our objective was to evaluate temporal trends in the geographic location of cancer clinical trials launched in the US. Methods: We obtained the recruiting location(s) of all public- and privately-funded phase II/ III cancer clinical trials launched in the US between 2008 and 2015 from the ClinicalTrials.gov database. We linked the recruiting location(s) of each trial to the relevant hospital service area (HSA), which are defined by ZIP codes as local health care markets for hospital care (n = 3436). We estimated the number of cancer clinical trial sites in each HSA each year between 2008 and 2015. We also calculated a statistical measure of inequality, the Gini coefficient. The Gini coefficient would be 0 if all hospital service areas launched the same number of cancer clinical trials, and would be 1 if all cancer clinical trials were launched in only a single hospital service area. Results: 62% of HSAs (n = 2133) did not launch a single cancer clinical trial between 2008 and 2015. There was a small and non-statistically significant decline in the overall number of cancer clinical trial sites in the United States between 2008 and 2015 (-1.6% per year [95% CI: -4.0, 0.9]). During this same period of time, however, inequality in the geographic distribution of cancer clinical trial sites considerably deepened. For example, in 2008-09, no trials were launched in 68% of HSAs while 19% of trial sites were in only 1% of HSAs. Trials launched in 2014-15 were even more concentrated: no new trials were launched in 74% of HSAs while 25% of trial sites were in the top 1% of HSAs. The Gini coefficient increased significantly from 0.683 (95% CI: 0.666, 0.700) for trials launched in 2008-09 to 0.726 (95% CI: 0.706, 0.746) for those launched in 2014-15. Conclusions: Our findings indicate increased inequality in the geographic distribution of cancer clinical trials launched in the United States since 2008. The underlying causes and consequences of such increasing concentration warrant further analysis given the importance in ensuring equitable geographic access to cancer clinical trials in the US.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document