The role of phase I clinical trials in advanced malignant melanoma: Retrospective analysis of CTEP-sponsored trials 1995-2011.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2606-2606
Author(s):  
Jason John Luke ◽  
Larry Rubinstein ◽  
Gary L Smith ◽  
S. Percy Ivy ◽  
Pamela Jo Harris
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Therapeutic Benefit ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Toxicity Data ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials

2606 Background: Standard chemotherapy for melanoma is DTIC (RR ~10%). Many physicians do not refer to phase I due to perceived limited clinical benefit (CB=CR+PR+SD) and increased toxicity. To understand the actual experience of melanoma patients (pts) in phase I trials, we analyzed the outcomes of melanoma pts treated on CTEP phase 1 trials (1995-2011) and compared them to DTIC. Methods: We queried the CTMS of CTEP for phase I trials in which advanced melanoma pts were treated. Trials were separated into targeted (T), chemo (C) and immunotherapy (I). Pt characteristics, response and toxicity data were collected. Chemotherapy included chemo with targeted or immunotherapy. Toxicity was drug related if attributed possibly, probably or definitely to drug. Fisher’s Exact Test (2-sided p) was used to compare groups. DTIC data was pooled from 6 modern phase III clinical trials (1999-2011). Results: 937 pts (M595:F342) participated in 148 trials (T: 68, C: 53, I: 27). Characteristics included (median) Age: 51.5 yrs; ECOG status: 0; Prior therapies: 2 (majority receiving prior DTIC); LDH: 206 and albumin: 4.1. Response and toxicity data are shown in the Table. Targeted therapy was associated with lower RR (p=.01), immuno with lower CB rate (p<.001) and chemo with higher incidence of G4 toxicity (p<.001) relative to the other groups. Comparing phase 1 to DTIC, RR and CB were not clinically different (phase I: 6.3% and 26.8% vs. DTIC: 8.8% and 27.9%) but G3-4 toxicity was significantly higher (54% vs. 28%) in phase I (p<.0001). Conclusions: Melanoma pts in prior CTEP phase I trials, a majority DTIC pre-treated, had similar therapeutic benefit but more toxicity compared to DTIC naïve pts in modern clinical trials. [Table: see text]

Integration of supportive care in immuno-oncology trials: Investigating the incidence and severity of immune-related toxicities among older adults versus mid-age patients on immunotherapy-based phase I clinical trials.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 152-152
Author(s):  
Ishwaria Mohan Subbiah ◽  
Kenneth R. Hess ◽  
Takeo Fujii ◽  
Anna Lui ◽  
Vivek Subbiah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials

152 Background: Older adults (65y+) with cancer are underrepresented in trials of novel drugs notably in phase I clinical trials with immunotherapies. The trepidation over immune-related toxicities in the context of older age and associated comorbidities may function as a barrier to participation. To that end, we investigated the enrollment and incidence of immune related adverse events of older adults enrolled in phase 1 immunotherapy trials. Methods: We identified 422 consecutive pts w advanced cancer treated on immunotherapy-based phase I trials bw 04/2009-09/2015, and collected pt/disease characteristics and immune-related adverse events (irAE) such as endocrinopathies, diarrhea/colitis, pneumonitis, constitutional (fatigue, fever, anorexia), myalgia, and dermatitis. Results: Older adults comprised 27% of trial participants (116 of 422 pts, median age 70y) while 256 pts were mid age (61%, median 56y). Most common cancers were GI (n = 108, 26%), thoracic/head/neck (n = 84, 20%), GU (n = 54, 13%), and GYN (n = 47, 11%). Median PFS was comparable among older pts (2.4m) and mid age (2.1m). Older adults had a higher incidence of irAE than mid age (low grade [G1/2] 49% vs 34%, p 0.02; high grade [G3/4] 19% vs 11%. p 0.14). The odds ratio of high grade events among older adults vs mid age pts was 1.81 (95% CI 1.01, 3.24; p 0.05) and low grade events was 1.85 (95% CI 1.20, 2.85; p 0.0055). Most common G1/2 irAE among all patients was fatigue (n = 76, 18%), dermatitis (n = 59, 14%), fever (n = 29, 7%) and anorexia (n = 28, 7%) with older adults having a greater incidence of low grade fatigue (25% vs 15%, OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.09, 3.10, p 0.025). Conclusions: Older adult participation remained under 30% for immunotherapy-based phase I trials. This early analysis suggests a higher incidence of toxicities among older adults, which calls for the urgent integration of comprehensive supportive care strategy to guide seniors through therapy. This work lays the foundation for future studies investigating the early involvement of supportive care through treatment on early phase clinical trials with immunotherapeutic agents.

Investigating the disparate enrollment of older adults on phase I clinical trials: Evolving participation patterns of patients 65 years and older w advanced cancer on phase I trials.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12044-12044
Author(s):  
Ishwaria Mohan Subbiah ◽  
Aman Buzdar ◽  
Ecaterina Elena Ileana Dumbrava ◽  
Siqing Fu ◽  
Filip Janku ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Oldest Old ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Dose Finding ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials

12044 Background: While safety and dose-finding remain the primary objective of Phase 1 trials, the potential for clinical benefit has taken a greater meaning in the last decade with the novel therapies. With data from phase I trials being submitted for regulatory approval, the finer details of these studies are under even more scrutiny: in particular, do the trial participants reflect the general patient population for whom the drug may be indicated? To that end, we investigated age-based enrollment on phase I clinical trials over time. Methods: We queried a prospectively maintained database at a major phase I trials center to identify eligible patients and demographic + clinical variables including phase I trial characteristics, age at date of enrollment into 3 age-based cohorts: AYA ages 15-39y, mid-age 40-64y, older adults aged 65y+. We calculated descriptive statistics, and explored correlations (Pearson/Spearman) and associations (linear regression) between age and independent variables. Results: Over a 3-year period (1/1/17 to 12/31/19), we identified 6267 pts enrolled on 338 phase I trials. Median overall age 58.4y (range 15.5-95.1y). 729 (12%, median age 34.8y) were AYA, 3652 (58%, median age 55.4y) mid-age and 1886 (30%, median 70y) older adults, of whom 870 pts were aged 70-79y and 76 pts aged 80y+ (18 being >85y). There was no association b/w senior participation and year of enrollment (2017 31%, 2018 29%, 2019 30%, b/w age and type of therapy (i.e. targeted vs immunotherapy, etc.) or b/w age and # of drugs given on trial (single agent vs combo) (all p > 0.05). Conclusions: Older adults remain underrepresented on phase I trials esp. when compared to incidence of cancer in that age group (30% enrollment vs 60% incidence), a discordance more staggering in the oldest old pts (85y+; only 18 pts enrolled over 3 yrs when compared to 140,690 pts 85y+ w a new cancer dx in just 2019). Once enrolled, older adults received similar types of phase I therapies with comparable number of drugs as compared to middle age patients, i.e. older adults were just as likely to get immunotherapy or targeted therapy as well mono- vs combo therapy as mid-age pts. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals A Markov Model of Phase I Clinical Trials before or after Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Relapsed Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 3170-3170
Author(s):  
Ehsan Malek ◽  
Yihong Deng ◽  
Mark Eckman ◽  
Jeffrey Weldge ◽  
James J. Driscoll
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Phase I Trial ◽  
Therapeutic Benefit ◽  
P Value ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Markov Decision Model

Abstract Background: High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), performed either at the time of initial diagnosis or at relapse, is considered the standard of care for younger patients (<70 years of age) with multiple myeloma (MM). Currently, the optimal timing of ASCT, i.e., early transplantation versus transplant upon relapse, is under investigation (clinical trial NCT01208662). In addition, there has been an unprecedented pace of anti-myeloma compound discovery tested through phase I trials (i.e., 500% increase) during the last decade, and its timing in relation to ASCT is not clear. Further, the current perception of low therapeutic benefit from participation in phase I trials is the main obstacle for patient recruitment and makes the phase I trial a "last resort" in the overall therapeutic plan (Meropol et al. 2003). Here, we present a landscape of therapeutic benefit and toxicity of all MM phase I trials over the past decade. Also, in order to determine the optimal timing of ASCT and phase I trial we constructed a Markov model to examine two different approaches: early ASCT and subsequent phase I trial recruitment (early ASCT) vs. phase I trial recruitment before ASCT (late ASCT). Methods: The primary decision examined in this study is the timing of ASCT in relation to a phase I trial. We systematically reviewed the outcome of all MM phase I trials between 2004-2014 to build a comparable cohort for decision analysis. Response rate, adverse effects and mortality from single agents, as well as the combination of the experimental agents with immunomodulators (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors (PIs) are reported. Two strategies were tested through Markov modeling: early ASCT vs. late ASCT (Figure-1). The model was built using the commercially available DecisionMaker software. An annual discount rate of 3% was used for all clinical outcomes. Quality of life (QOL) information for post-ASCT and phase I trials were extracted from similar research papers. Results: Phase I systematic review: A total of 43 phase I clinical trials with 946 patients (530 males and 416 females) were included. The precipitants' median age was 60 years old. 21 trials tested single agents and the remainder were done using combination therapies (i.e., with an IMiD or PI). Median overall response rate (ORR) was 34% for all trials, 16% with single agents and 42% with combination therapy (Figure-2). 89% of trials were completed in less than a year. The therapeutic benefit of single vs. combination therapy phase I clinical trials does not show an increasing trend during the last decade (Figure-3). Patients who participated in combination therapy phase I trials had more grade III-IV toxicity than single agents (HR: 1.35, p-value: 0.04). There were only 4 patients (less than 1% of all participants) who experienced therapy-related death. Although, time from diagnosis was a predictor of response in univariate analysis, but it was not statistically correlated with response by multivariate analysis. Also, ORR was not affected by the number of prior therapies. Markov model: The discounted life expectancies for two strategies were calculated; fixed-time intervals of 6, 12, 18 and 24 months were chosen for analysis. The gains in life expectancy were the same in patients undergoing combination therapy phase I trials in early or late ASCT strategies (6.76 and 6.64, respectively; p-value: 0.21). Importantly, for patients undergoing single agent phase I therapy, early ASCT was associated with a higher life expectancy than was the strategy of delayed ASCT (7.96 vs. 6.86, respectively; p-value: 0.036). Conclusions: Taken together, our study indicates that phase I trials demonstrate a higher ORR than reported response rates from traditional chemotherapy phase I trials, i.e. 5%, Horstmann et al. 2005, even with single agents. We conclude that phase I participation should not be viewed as the "last resort". Our decision-making analysis shows that combination therapy phase I trials can be offered irrespective of ASCT. However, single agent phase I trials should be offered after ASCT for transplant-eligible patients. Figure 1. Markov decision model. A relapsed MM base case transitions after each one-month cycle to other health states. Patients could have remained in an alive state for any number of cycles without transitioning to another health state. The ASCT and Phase I states are transitory states. Figure 1. Markov decision model. A relapsed MM base case transitions after each one-month cycle to other health states. Patients could have remained in an alive state for any number of cycles without transitioning to another health state. The ASCT and Phase I states are transitory states. Figure 2. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 3. Disclosures Off Label Use: Panobinostat and Ixazomib combined in myeloma.

scholarly journals Self-Replicating RNA Viruses for RNA Therapeutics

Molecules ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (12) ◽  
pp. 3310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Lundstrom
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Tumor Cells ◽  
Neutralizing Antibodies ◽  
Ebola Virus ◽  
Vaccine Development ◽  
Rna Viruses ◽  
Antibody Responses ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials

Self-replicating single-stranded RNA viruses such as alphaviruses, flaviviruses, measles viruses, and rhabdoviruses provide efficient delivery and high-level expression of therapeutic genes due to their high capacity of RNA replication. This has contributed to novel approaches for therapeutic applications including vaccine development and gene therapy-based immunotherapy. Numerous studies in animal tumor models have demonstrated that self-replicating RNA viral vectors can generate antibody responses against infectious agents and tumor cells. Moreover, protection against challenges with pathogenic Ebola virus was obtained in primates immunized with alphaviruses and flaviviruses. Similarly, vaccinated animals have been demonstrated to withstand challenges with lethal doses of tumor cells. Furthermore, clinical trials have been conducted for several indications with self-amplifying RNA viruses. In this context, alphaviruses have been subjected to phase I clinical trials for a cytomegalovirus vaccine generating neutralizing antibodies in healthy volunteers, and for antigen delivery to dendritic cells providing clinically relevant antibody responses in cancer patients, respectively. Likewise, rhabdovirus particles have been subjected to phase I/II clinical trials showing good safety and immunogenicity against Ebola virus. Rhabdoviruses have generated promising results in phase III trials against Ebola virus. The purpose of this review is to summarize the achievements of using self-replicating RNA viruses for RNA therapy based on preclinical animal studies and clinical trials in humans.

scholarly journals Healthy Volunteers’ Perceptions of the Benefits of Their Participation in Phase I Clinical Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 494-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill A. Fisher ◽  
Lisa McManus ◽  
Megan M. Wood ◽  
Marci D. Cottingham ◽  
Julianne M. Kalbaugh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
Employment Status ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Financial Compensation ◽  
Trial History

Other than the financial motivations for enrolling in Phase I trials, research on how healthy volunteers perceive the benefits of their trial participation is scant. Using qualitative interviews conducted with 178 U.S. healthy volunteers enrolled in Phase I trials, we investigated how participants described the benefits of their study involvement, including, but not limited to, the financial compensation, and we analyzed how these perceptions varied based on participants’ sociodemographic characteristics and clinical trial history. We found that participants detailed economic, societal, and noneconomic personal benefits. We also found differences in participants’ perceived benefits based on gender, age, ethnicity, educational attainment, employment status, and number of clinical trials completed. Our study indicates that many healthy volunteers believe they gain more than just the financial compensation when they accept the risks of Phase I participation.

scholarly journals Race and ethnicity representation in clinical trials: findings from a literature review of Phase I oncology trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Ross Camidge ◽  
Haeseong Park ◽  
Karen E Smoyer ◽  
Ira Jacobs ◽  
Lauren J Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Predominantly White ◽  
Race And Ethnicity ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Minimal Representation ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Demographic Representation ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Race Ethnicity

Aim: To provide an assessment of published literature on the demographic representation in Phase I trials of biopharmaceutical oncology agents. Materials & methods: We conducted a rapid evidence assessment to identify demographic representation reported in Phase I clinical trials for biopharmaceutical oncology agents published in 2019. Results: Globally, the population was predominantly White/Caucasian (62.2%). In the USA, the distribution was heavily skewed toward White/Caucasian (84.2%), with minimal representation of Blacks/African–Americans (7.3%), Asians (3.4%), Hispanics/Latinos (2.8%) or other race/ethnicity groups. Conclusion: Our data highlight that Phase I oncology trials do not reflect the population at large, which may perpetuate health disparities. Further research is needed to understand and address barriers to participation, particularly among under-represented groups

scholarly journals Investigator Disclosure and Advanced Cancer Patient Understanding of Informed Consent and Prognosis in Phase I Clinical Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. e357-e367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fay J. Hlubocky ◽  
Nancy E. Kass ◽  
Debra Roter ◽  
Susan Larson ◽  
Kristen E. Wroblewski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Interaction Analysis ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Medical Benefits

Purpose: Advanced cancer patients (ACPs) who participate in phase I clinical trials often report a less-than-ideal understanding of the required elements of informed consent (IC) and unrealistic expectations for anticancer benefit and prognosis. We examined phase I clinical trial enrollment discussions and their associations with subsequent ACP understanding. Methods: Clinical encounters about enrollment in phase I trials between 101 ACPs and 29 oncologists (principal investigators [PIs] and fellows) at three US academic medical institutions were recorded. The Roter Interaction Analysis System was used for analysis. ACPs completed follow-up questionnaires to assess IC recall. Results: PIs disclosed the following phase I IC elements to ACPs in encounters: trial purpose in 40%; specific physical risks in 60%; potential specific medical benefits gained by trial participation (eg, disease stabilization) in 48.2%; and alternatives to phase I trial participation in 47.1%, with 1.1% of encounters containing palliative and 2.3% hospice information. PIs provided ACP-specific prognoses in 29.0% of encounters but used precise terms of death in only 4.7% and terminal in 1.2%. A significant association existed between PI disclosure of the trial purpose as dosage/toxicity, and ACPs subsequently correctly recalled trial purpose versus PIs who did not disclose it (85% v 13%; P < .05). Conclusion: Many oncologists provide incomplete disclosures about phase I trials to ACPs. When disclosure of certain elements of IC occurs, it seems to be associated with better recall, especially with regard to the research purpose of phase I trials.

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.

New requirements for phase I trials: a challenge for Italian clinical research

2018 ◽  
Vol 104 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuela Marchesi ◽  
Manuela Monti ◽  
Oriana Nanni ◽  
Lisette Bassi ◽  
Martina Piccinni-Leopardi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Highly Qualified ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Standard Operating ◽  
Near Future

Background: In 2015, the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco; AIFA) issued the Determination 809/2015 with new requirements for phase I clinical trials. Before it came into force, we explored the extent to which several Italian oncology centers were working to implement it. Methods: A survey was conducted among 80 Italian centers involved in clinical trials. Investigators and research coordinators were surveyed. Results: Answers from 42 institutions were collected: among them 88.1% were involved in oncology research. In the last 5 years, 55% had conducted from 1 to 5 phase I trials, and only 16.7% more than 5. A third were involved in not-first-in-human research and none with healthy volunteers. The majority (57.1%) of the centers did not run any projects and trials are non-commercial, and about 35%, no more than 2. While 9.5% already met the standards for self-certification, 71.4% were working to achieve them. Standard operating procedures dedicated to research and the required good clinical practice training had been established by 57.1% and 76.2%, respectively. Fifty percent of laboratories were almost compliant with the Determination. After 10 months from its coming into force, 98 sites had applied for certification, of which 34 were oncology units. Conclusions: The new AIFA Determination imposes a certified organizational model on units and laboratories involved in phase I trials. Our results showed that great efforts were made to qualify for phase I research suggesting that other oncology units will apply for certification in the near future. Predictably, Italy will set the pace as a highly qualified country in which to conduct early-phase research.

A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of an educational DVD on cancer patients considering participation in a phase I clinical trial

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6011-6011
Author(s):  
E. L. Strevel ◽  
C. Newman ◽  
G. R. Pond ◽  
M. Maclean ◽  
L. L. Siu
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Clinic Appointment ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Self Administered Questionnaire

6011 Background: Informed consent for phase I trials is controversial; gaps in patient (pt) knowledge regarding the purpose of these studies are central to this debate. This study assessed the impact of viewing an educational DVD on pt knowledge and satisfaction in cancer pts newly referred to a phase I trials clinic. Methods: Prior to physician (MD) appointment, 49 pts were randomly assigned to view either an educational DVD (n = 22) which provided information about phase I trials, or a placebo DVD (n = 27) which described research achievements by local scientists. Upon completion of DVD viewing, pts completed a self-administered questionnaire addressing their understanding of phase I trials (knowledge) and their satisfaction with the DVD (perception). The interviewing MD (n = 8), who was blinded to the intervention, also rated the pt’s understanding of phase I trials upon completion of the clinic appointment. Results: The mean pt age was 56 and 61% were male. Prior to attending the phase I clinic, most pts (86%) had previously heard of clinical trials, but only 49% were aware of phase I trials. Pts who viewed the educational DVD were less likely to believe that the goal of phase I trials is to determine the efficacy of a new drug (p = 0.019), more likely to correctly assess that drugs undergoing phase I evaluations have not been thoroughly studied in humans (p = 0.003), and less likely to believe that phase I drugs have proven activity against human cancers (p = 0.008). More pts who viewed the educational DVD than the placebo DVD agreed/strongly agreed that the DVD provided useful information (p < 0.001), believed that they had a good knowledge of phase I trials (p = 0.031), felt that the DVD helped them decide whether to enter a phase I trial (p = 0.011), and perceived that they would have more questions for their physicians as a result of watching the DVD (p = 0.017). No statistically significant differences in MD satisfaction was observed. Conclusions: Exposure to an educational DVD increased both objective measures of pt knowledge as well as pt satisfaction regarding participation in phase I clinical trials. The educational DVD did not significantly impact MD perception of pt understanding. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document