Factors affecting the offering and enrollment of patients on clinical trials in radiation oncology.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17571-e17571
Author(s):  
Shayna Eliana Rich ◽  
Nancy Price Mendenhall

e17571 Background: Improvements in cancer treatment require significant patient involvement in research, which may be particularly limited for new technologies such as proton radiation therapy. Studies with biased referrals or enrollment may not be generalizable to a general population. This study examines the reasons why patients were not offered or refused enrollment in clinical trials at the University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute (UFPTI). Methods: All patients seen at UFPTI between April-October 2012 for proton therapy for tumor sites with a clinical trial available (N=463) had information collected prospectively regarding whether they were offered enrollment and consented for clinical trials, and the reasons for each decision. The majority of patients had already secured funding for proton therapy. Results: Seven percent (34/463) of patients were ineligible for an available clinical trial, due to study exclusion criteria, concerns for patient safety based on comorbidity, or concerns for data integrity (e.g., other non-skin cancer within five years). Only 3% (9/275) of eligible patients were not offered a clinical trial. Forty-four percent (99/226) of patients offered a clinical trial refused. The most common reasons for refusal included: discomfort with lack of mature data, dislike of protocol, fear that protocol is not best option for disease control, and fear of side effects. Although UFPTI treats a variety of malignancies, the overwhelming majority of those who refused consent were prostate adenocarcinoma patients, who often self-referred for proton therapy. Conclusions: Despite near universal availability of clinical trials at UFPTI, less than half of patients enroll in clinical trials. The greatest factor for non-enrollment appears to be patient acceptance. Despite the availability of non-randomized trials with fairly standard treatment approaches, 44% refused to enroll on clinical trials, suggesting discomfort for less well documented treatment approaches. Further studies should examine whether findings are similar among all US cancer patients, as patients seeking proton therapy may not resemble the general population.

2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 256-263
Author(s):  
Maria Y. Egorova ◽  
Irina A. Shuvalova ◽  
Olga I. Zvonareva ◽  
Igor D. Pimenov ◽  
Olga S. Kobyakova ◽  
...  

Background. The organization of clinical trials (CTs) requires the participation and coordination of healthcare providers, patients, public and private parties. Obstacles to the participation of any of these groups pose a risk of lowering the potential for the implementation of CTs. Researchers are a key human resource in conducting of CT. Their motivation for participation can have a significant impact on the recruitment and retention of patients, on the quality of the data collected, which determines the overall outcome of the study. Aims to assess the factors affecting the inclusion of Russian physicians-researchers in CT, and to determine their role in relations with patients-participants. Materials and methods. The study was organized as a part of the Russian multicenter face-to-face study. A survey was conducted of researchers from 10 cities of Russia (20172018). The participation in the survey for doctors was anonymous and voluntary. Results. The study involved 78 respondents. Most research doctors highly value the importance of research for science (4,84 0,39), society (4,67 0,46) and slightly lower for participating patients (4,44 0,61). The expectations of medical researchers are related to improving their financial situation and attaining new experience (n = 14; 18,18%). However, the opportunity to work with new technologies of treatment and diagnosis (n = 41; 52,56%) acted as a motivating factor. According to the questionnaire, the vast majority of research doctors (n = 29; 37,18%) believe that the main reason for patients to participate in CT is to receive quality and free medical care. The most significant obstacle to the inclusion of participants in CT was the side effects of the study drug (n = 38; 48,71%). Conclusions. The potential of clinical researchers in Russia is very high. The patient-participant acts for the research doctor as the subject of the study, and not the object, so the well-being of the patient is not indifferent to the doctor. However, the features of the functioning of our health care system form the motivation of doctors-researchers (additional earnings, professional self-development) and the way they perceive the motivation of patients (CT as an opportunity to receive quality medical care).


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Ann Sosa

A clinical trial is a planned experiment designed to prospectively measure the efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention by comparing outcomes in a group of subjects treated with the test intervention with those observed in one or more comparable group(s) of subjects receiving another intervention.  Historically, the gold standard for a clinical trial has been a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, but it is sometimes impractical or unethical to conduct such in clinical medicine and surgery. Conventional outcomes have traditionally been clinical end points; with the rise of new technologies, however, they are increasingly being supplemented and/or replaced by surrogate end points, such as serum biomarkers. Because patients are involved, safety considerations and ethical principles must be incorporated into all phases of clinical trial design, conduct, data analysis, and presentation. This review covers the history of clinical trials, clinical trial phases, ethical issues, implementing the study, basic biostatistics for data analysis, and other resources. Figures show drug development and clinical trial process, and type I and II error. Tables list Food and Drug Administration new drug application types, and types of missing data in clinical trials. This review contains 2 highly rendered figures, 2 tables, and 38 references


2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 17026-17026
Author(s):  
D. C. Vamos ◽  
M. P. Kane ◽  
J. Nishioka ◽  
S. Lisi ◽  
J. R. Neceskas ◽  
...  

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.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Ann Sosa ◽  
Samantha M. Thomas ◽  
April K.S. Salama

A clinical trial is a planned experiment designed to prospectively measure the efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention by comparing outcomes in a group of subjects treated with the test intervention with those observed in one or more comparable group(s) of subjects receiving another intervention.  Historically, the gold standard for a clinical trial has been a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, but it is sometimes impractical or unethical to conduct such in clinical medicine and surgery. Conventional outcomes have traditionally been clinical end points; with the rise of new technologies, however, they are increasingly being supplemented and/or replaced by surrogate end points, such as serum biomarkers. Because patients are involved, safety considerations and ethical principles must be incorporated into all phases of clinical trial design, conduct, data analysis, and presentation. This review covers the history of clinical trials, clinical trial phases, ethical issues, implementing the study, basic biostatistics for data analysis, and other resources. Figures show drug development and clinical trial process, and type I and II error. Tables list Food and Drug Administration new drug application types, and types of missing data in clinical trials. This review contains 2 highly rendered figures, 2 tables, and 38 references


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Ann Sosa ◽  
Samantha M. Thomas ◽  
April K.S. Salama

A clinical trial is a planned experiment designed to prospectively measure the efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention by comparing outcomes in a group of subjects treated with the test intervention with those observed in one or more comparable group(s) of subjects receiving another intervention.  Historically, the gold standard for a clinical trial has been a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, but it is sometimes impractical or unethical to conduct such in clinical medicine and surgery. Conventional outcomes have traditionally been clinical end points; with the rise of new technologies, however, they are increasingly being supplemented and/or replaced by surrogate end points, such as serum biomarkers. Because patients are involved, safety considerations and ethical principles must be incorporated into all phases of clinical trial design, conduct, data analysis, and presentation. This review covers the history of clinical trials, clinical trial phases, ethical issues, implementing the study, basic biostatistics for data analysis, and other resources. Figures show drug development and clinical trial process, and type I and II error. Tables list Food and Drug Administration new drug application types, and types of missing data in clinical trials. This review contains 2 highly rendered figures, 2 tables, and 38 references


ESMO Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. e000398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Rolfo ◽  
Paolo Manca ◽  
Roberto Salgado ◽  
Peter Van Dam ◽  
Amelie Dendooven ◽  
...  

BackgroundThe complexity of delivering precision medicine to oncology patients has led to the creation of molecular tumourboards (MTBs) for patient selection and assessment of treatment options. New technologies like the liquid biopsy are augmenting available therapeutic opportunities. This report aims to analyse the experience of our MTB in the implementation of personalised medicine in a cancer network.Materials and methodsPatients diagnosed with solid tumours progressing to standard treatments were referred to our Phase I unit. They underwent comprehensive next generation sequencing (NGS) of either tumour tissue or cell-free circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) or both. The MTB expressed either a positive or negative opinion for the treatment of the patients with discovered druggable alterations inside a clinical trial, in an expanded access programme, with a compassionate use. Afterwards, discovered alterations were matched with OncoKB levels of evidence for the choice of alteration-specific treatments in order to compare MTB outcomes with a standardised set of recommendations.ResultsNGS was performed either on ctDNA or tumour tissue or in both of them in 204 patients. The MTB evaluated 173 of these cases. Overall, the MTB proposed alteration-specific targeted therapy to 72 patients (41.6%). 49 patients (28.3% of the total evaluated) were indicated to enter a clinical trial. In 29 patients with matched liquid biopsy NGS (lbNGS), tumour tissue NGS (ttNGS) and MTB evaluation, the MTB changed the treatment strategy coming from standardised recommendations based on lbNGS and ttNGS alone in 10 patients (34.5%), thanks to the evaluation of other clinical parameters. In our cohort, lbNGS was more likely, compared with ttNGS, to detect point mutations (OR 11, 95% CI 2.9 to 24.1, p<0.001) and all-type alterations (OR 13.6, 95% CI 5.5 to 43.2, p<0.001) from the same genes of matched patients.ConclusionsOur MTB allows patients with refractory cancer to be included in clinical trials and improves the precision of clinical decisions compared with a standardised set of mutation-driven recommendations.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 119 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Mahmud ◽  
O. Zalay ◽  
A. Springer ◽  
K. Arts ◽  
E. Eisenhauer

Background Clinical trials are vital for evidence-based cancer care. Oncologist engagement in clinical trials has an effect on patient recruitment, which in turn can affect trial success. Identifying barriers to clinical trial participation might enable interventions that could help to increase physician participation.Methods To assess factors affecting physician engagement in oncology trials, a national survey was conducted using the online SurveyMonkey tool (SurveyMonkey, San Mateo, CA, U.S.A.; http://www.surveymonkey.com). Physicians associated with the Canadian Cancer Clinical Trials Network and the Canadian Cancer Trials Group were asked about their specialty, years of experience, barriers to participation, and motivating interventions, which included an open-ended question inviting survey takers to suggest interventions.Results The survey collected 207 anonymous responses. Respondents were predominantly medical oncologists (46.4%), followed by radiation oncologists (24.6%). Almost 70% of the respondents had more than 10 years of experience. Significant time constraints included extra paperwork (77%), patient education (54%), and extended follow-up or clinic visits (53%). Timing of events within trials was also a barrier to participation (55%). Most respondents favoured clinical work credits (72%), academic credits (67%), a clinical trial alert system (75%), a regular meeting to review trial protocols (65%), and a screening log to aid in patient accrual (67%) as motivational strategies. Suggested interventions included increased support staff, streamlined regulatory burden, and provision of greater funding for trials and easier access to ancillary services.Conclusions The present study confirms that Canadian oncologists are willing to participate in clinical research, but face multiple barriers to trial participation. Those barriers could be mitigated by the implementation of several interventions identified in the study.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Ann Sosa ◽  
Samantha M. Thomas ◽  
April K.S. Salama

A clinical trial is a planned experiment designed to prospectively measure the efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention by comparing outcomes in a group of subjects treated with the test intervention with those observed in one or more comparable group(s) of subjects receiving another intervention.  Historically, the gold standard for a clinical trial has been a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, but it is sometimes impractical or unethical to conduct such in clinical medicine and surgery. Conventional outcomes have traditionally been clinical end points; with the rise of new technologies, however, they are increasingly being supplemented and/or replaced by surrogate end points, such as serum biomarkers. Because patients are involved, safety considerations and ethical principles must be incorporated into all phases of clinical trial design, conduct, data analysis, and presentation. This review covers the history of clinical trials, clinical trial phases, ethical issues, implementing the study, basic biostatistics for data analysis, and other resources. Figures show drug development and clinical trial process, and type I and II error. Tables list Food and Drug Administration new drug application types, and types of missing data in clinical trials. This review contains 2 highly rendered figures, 2 tables, and 38 references


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Ann Sosa ◽  
Samantha M. Thomas ◽  
April K.S. Salama

A clinical trial is a planned experiment designed to prospectively measure the efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention by comparing outcomes in a group of subjects treated with the test intervention with those observed in one or more comparable group(s) of subjects receiving another intervention.  Historically, the gold standard for a clinical trial has been a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, but it is sometimes impractical or unethical to conduct such in clinical medicine and surgery. Conventional outcomes have traditionally been clinical end points; with the rise of new technologies, however, they are increasingly being supplemented and/or replaced by surrogate end points, such as serum biomarkers. Because patients are involved, safety considerations and ethical principles must be incorporated into all phases of clinical trial design, conduct, data analysis, and presentation. This review covers the history of clinical trials, clinical trial phases, ethical issues, implementing the study, basic biostatistics for data analysis, and other resources. Figures show drug development and clinical trial process, and type I and II error. Tables list Food and Drug Administration new drug application types, and types of missing data in clinical trials. This review contains 2 highly rendered figures, 2 tables, and 38 references


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Ann Sosa

A clinical trial is a planned experiment designed to prospectively measure the efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention by comparing outcomes in a group of subjects treated with the test intervention with those observed in one or more comparable group(s) of subjects receiving another intervention.  Historically, the gold standard for a clinical trial has been a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, but it is sometimes impractical or unethical to conduct such in clinical medicine and surgery. Conventional outcomes have traditionally been clinical end points; with the rise of new technologies, however, they are increasingly being supplemented and/or replaced by surrogate end points, such as serum biomarkers. Because patients are involved, safety considerations and ethical principles must be incorporated into all phases of clinical trial design, conduct, data analysis, and presentation. This review covers the history of clinical trials, clinical trial phases, ethical issues, implementing the study, basic biostatistics for data analysis, and other resources. Figures show drug development and clinical trial process, and type I and II error. Tables list Food and Drug Administration new drug application types, and types of missing data in clinical trials. This review contains 2 highly rendered figures, 2 tables, and 38 references


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document