Qualifying sites for oncology clinical trials.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6619-6619
Author(s):  
Dax Kurbegov ◽  
Edward S. Kim ◽  
Patricia A. Hurley ◽  
David Michael Waterhouse
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
No Value ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Research Organizations ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Multi Stakeholder ◽  
First Contact ◽  
The Impact

6619 Background: Current methods to assess trial sites for clinical trial participation are onerous, with unnecessary redundancies and “no-value” steps that impact clinical trial participation. This project assessed the impact of current sponsor and contract research organizations (CRO) methods to evaluate sites for trials. Methods: A survey was conducted with community- and academic-based trial sites. Samples of feasibility questionnaires (FQs) used by sponsors and CROs were also compiled. An ASCO sponsored multi-stakeholder meeting was held to identify strategies to more effectively assess trial sites. Results: 113 oncology practices (63 community, 50 academic) reported completing 11 FQs and 4 pre-study site visits (PSV) on average per month. On average, each FQ took 4 hours (528 hours/site and 59,664 hours for all respondents, annually) and each PSV took 10 hours (480 hours/site and 54,240 hours for all respondents, annually) to complete. Thus, the total staff hours required to complete site feasibility assessments was 113,904 annually. Respondents reported that content in both FQs (82%) and PSVs (91%) was redundant to information previously provided and FQs were redundant between different sponsors (86%). The 42 sample FQs had a median 45 questions (range 13 to 96). Respondents noted that sponsors/CROs provided insufficient study documentation to accurately complete FQs. It took 7 months on average from first contact to first patient enrolled. Respondents also provided feedback about standardizing and streamlining site qualification processes. Conclusions: The current methods of assessing site feasibility for clinical trials poses tremendous burden on site resources and is not sustainable. New methods are needed that standardize, harmonize, and streamline criteria and site assessments. Such changes will reduce burden and costs for all stakeholders, and will expedite and increase patient enrollment onto clinical trials.

scholarly journals Patient Income Level and Cancer Clinical Trial Participation

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 536-542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph M. Unger ◽  
Dawn L. Hershman ◽  
Kathy S. Albain ◽  
Carol M. Moinpour ◽  
Judith A. Petersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Universal Access ◽  
Participation Rate ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Lower Income ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Results ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Studies have shown an association between socioeconomic status (SES) and quality of oncology care, but less is known about the impact of patient SES on clinical trial participation. Patients and Methods We assessed clinical trial participation patterns according to important SES (income, education) and demographic factors in a large sample of patients surveyed via an Internet-based treatment decision tool. Logistic regression, conditioning on type of cancer, was used. Attitudes toward clinical trials were assessed using prespecified items about treatment, treatment tolerability, convenience, and cost. Results From 2007 to 2011, 5,499 patients were successfully surveyed. Forty percent discussed clinical trials with their physician, 45% of discussions led to physician offers of clinical trial participation, and 51% of offers led to clinical trial participation. The overall clinical trial participation rate was 9%. In univariate models, older patients (P = .002) and patients with lower income (P = .001) and education (P = .02) were less likely to participate in clinical trials. In a multivariable model, income remained a statistically significant predictor of clinical trial participation (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94; P = .01). Even in patients age ≥ 65 years, who have universal access to Medicare, lower income predicted lower trial participation. Cost concerns were much more evident among lower-income patients (P < .001). Conclusion Lower-income patients were less likely to participate in clinical trials, even when considering age group. A better understanding of why income is a barrier may help identify ways to make clinical trials better available to all patients and would increase the generalizability of clinical trial results across all income levels.

Impact of clinical trial enrollment on episode costs in the Oncology Care Model (OCM).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6513-6513
Author(s):  
Garrett Young ◽  
Larry Edward Bilbrey ◽  
Edward Arrowsmith ◽  
L. Johnetta Blakely ◽  
Davey B. Daniel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Routine Care ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Total Cost ◽  
Comparator Group ◽  
Hospice Use ◽  
The Impact

6513 Background: Clinical trials are critical for improving outcomes for patients with cancer. However, there is some concern from health insurers that clinical trial participation can increase total cost of care for cancer patients. We investigated the impact of clinical trial participation on total costs paid by Medicare during the OCM program in a large community-based practice. Methods: Tennessee Oncology (TO) is a community oncology practice comprising over 90 oncologists across 30 sites of care. We linked TO trial data and electronic medical record data with OCM data for episodes of care from 2016-2018. To assess the impact of trial participation on total cost relative to routine care, we created matched comparator groups for each OCM episode based on cancer type, metastatic status, number of comorbidities, performance status, and age. Patients with breast cancer receiving hormone therapy only were excluded. Absolute and percent cost differences between groups were calculated for episodes that had a comparator group size of five or greater. Differences in total cost for trial episodes were compared to non-trial episodes, and significance was assessed using the Mann–Whitney U test. We also studied the impact of trial participation on receipt of active treatment in the last 14 days of life (TxEOL), hospice use, and hospitalizations. Results: During the study period, 8,026 completed OCM episodes met study criteria. Patients were enrolled in a clinical trial for 459 of these episodes. On average, episodes during which patients were on trial cost $5,973 less than matched non-trial episodes (Table), independent of early versus late-phase trial. Most savings resulted from decreased drug costs. There were no differences in rates of TxEOL (15% vs. 14% p=1.0), rates of hospitalizations (31% vs. 30% p=0.54), or hospice use (52% vs. 62% p=0.08) between trial and non-trial episodes. Median difference from comparator group average cost was significantly lower for clinical trial episodes (-18% vs. -6%, p<0.01). Conclusions: In the community setting, total costs paid by Medicare for patients participating in clinical trials during OCM episodes were lower than costs for similar patients receiving routine care. Clinical trial participation did not adversely impact end-of-life care or likelihood of hospitalization. These findings suggest that patient participation in clinical trials does not increase total cost of care nor enhance financial risk to payers.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Who Needs What? Perceptions of Patients and Caregivers in Oncology Phase 1 Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Rezash ◽  
Janice Reed ◽  
Barbara Gedeon ◽  
Eric Parsons ◽  
Sandra Siedlecki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trial ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
Vulnerable Patient ◽  
Additional Support

Background: The study design and nature of oncology phase 1 clinical trials create a uniquely vulnerable patient population yet little research has been conducted to identify the added burden these trials create for both cancer patients and their caregiver(s). Objective: Examining the perceptions and needs of patients and their caregivers participating in phase 1 oncology clinical trials, the investigators tested the hypothesis that the caregiver will exhibit a higher level of burden and/or distress than the patient. Method: A mixed-methods exploratory process utilizing patient and caregiver interviews and quality-of-life questionnaires was used to assess the psychosocial burdens associated with oncology clinical trial participation. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the responses were 8 performed. Result: Both patients and caregivers reported similar themes identifying the burdens and benefits related to phase 1 clinical trial participation. However, the caregivers’ expressed burden exceeded that of the patients’ validating the study’s hypothesis. Conclusion: The need for ongoing additional support services for not only the patient but also the caregiver was identified.

Exploring cancer clinical trial participation in the new normal of COVID-19: The patient perspective.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 461-461
Author(s):  
Martha Ann Raymond ◽  
Margaret-Ann Simonetta
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Perspective ◽  
Ethnically Diverse ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trial ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Diverse Communities ◽  
The Impact

461 Background: The impact of coronavirus (COVID-19) has significantly affected cancer patients seeking to enroll in a clinical trial. The pandemic has led to an unprecedented disruption across the cancer research community pausing trial operations. Data from the National Institute of Health and the National Library of Medicine indicates 988 cancer clinical trials were suspended from March – September 1, 2020, with 60% of institutions enrolling patients at a lower rate. Our research underscores the patient perspective of clinical trial participation amid COVID-19. Methods: July – September 2020 Nationwide eight-week online survey and interviews. Research goals: gain a better understanding of barriers and cultural attitudes of ethnically diverse communities regarding trial participation; learn the enhanced safety measures needed for patients to feel comfortable returning to the clinic; better understand the importance of effective patient-clinician communication. Results: 511 patient participants reported the following insights: 86% reported their healthcare team had not discussed trial participation; 99% reported being comfortable with telehealth visits for pre-screening and monitoring; 82% receive care at community-based hospitals. Barriers to enrollment and additional safety considerations include gaps in outreach and education services for ethnically diverse communities; absence of cultural sensitivity and disregard of historical perspective; financial insecurity and travel; and the need for increased COVID-19 testing, enhanced safety protocols and a proven vaccine. Participants identified their ethnicity as 38% Caucasian; 24% Black/African American; 19% Hispanic/Latino; 16% Asian; 2% Native American/Pacific Islander. Conclusions: Clinical trials provide patients access to the newest treatments, and yet only 2%-3% of adult cancer patients enroll in a trial. Common barriers to trial participation have been widely researched, but now amongst the coronavirus pandemic, additional barriers are evident. Based on our research, our call to action is clear: work with key opinion leaders in ethnically diverse populations to help build trust and mutual respect when discussing research studies; and engage patients and clinicians to openly discuss clinical trial enrollment working toward patient-centered communication. The coronavirus pandemic is a devastating public health threat, and it will take a collective effort from the entire cancer community to minimize the effect of COVID-19 on cancer clinical trial participation.

Representativeness of oncology clinical trials in Alberta.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 27-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Safiya Karim ◽  
Yuan Xu ◽  
Shiying Kong ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Real World ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Tumor Type ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Treatment Type ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials

27 Background: The Institute of Medicine encourages broad participation by patients in clinical trials to “efficiently provide practice-changing evidence”. Enrolment of a representative sample of the general oncology population in clinical trials is essential to ensure that outcomes are generalizable and to ensure equity and social justice. Our aims were to 1) determine the characteristics of all cancer patients compared to those enrolled on a clinical trial and 2) to determine factors and outcomes associated with clinical trial participation. Methods: We assembled a large cohort of patients diagnosed with all solid malignancies between 2004 and 2016 in a large Canadian province. We collected information on age, sex, tumor type, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), year of diagnosis, treatment type (surgery, chemo, radiation, and immunotherapy). Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with clinical trial participation. Cox regression models were constructed to determine overall survival (OS). Results: We identified 146,294 patients with a cancer diagnosis, of which 43% were men and the mean age at diagnosis was 61 years (SD 15.6). Approximately 3% (4,364/146,294) of all patients were enrolled in a clinical trial. Baseline characteristics showed that clinical trial patients were younger (mean age 58 years vs 61 years), had fewer comorbidities (CCI 0 = 83% vs. 73%) and more often male (45% vs 43%). Compared to all patients, clinical trial patients were more likely to be younger (OR 0.98, p < 0.001), male (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.10-1.32 p < 0.001), and to have a diagnosis of brain (OR 3.8, 95% CI 2.86-5.05, p < 0.001), kidney (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.93-3.52) or breast cancer (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.84-3.08). Compared to all patients and those not treated on clinical trial, patients on clinical trial had improved OS (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.77-0.85, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Only a small proportion of real world patients are treated within a clinical trial. Characteristics of clinical trials patients are significantly different from all patients with cancer. More representative clinical trials are needed in order to reflect the real world cancer population.

Disparities in clinical trials participation in a vertically integrated care delivery system.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 128-128
Author(s):  
Ahmed Megahed ◽  
Gary L Buchschacher ◽  
Ngoc J. Ho ◽  
Reina Haque ◽  
Robert Michael Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Integrated Healthcare ◽  
Clinical Trial Enrollment ◽  
Asian Pacific

128 Background: Sparse data exists on the diversity clinical trial enrollment in community settings. This information is important to ensure equity of care and generalizability of results. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of members of an integrated healthcare system diagnosed with invasive malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers) between 2013-2017 to examine demographics of the oncology population compared to those who enrolled in a clinical trial. Logistic regression was used to assess correlates of clinical trial participation, comparing general and screened samples to enrolled sample. Odds ratios were adjusted for gender, geocoded median household income, cancer type, and stage. Results: Of the 84,977 patients with a cancer diagnosis, N = 2606 were screened for clinical trial participation and consented, and of those N = 1372 enrolled. The percent of Latinx (25.8% vs 24.0%; OR 0.9? CI 0.72-1.05) and African American/Black (10.9% vs 11.1%; OR 0.92 CI 0.75-1.11) clinical trial participation mirrored that of the general oncology population, respectively using Non-Hispanic Whites as reference. Asian/Pacific Islander had equal odds of clinical trial enrollment (OR 1.08 CI 0.92-1.27). The enrolled population was younger than the general oncology population. Conclusions: This study suggests that in an integrated healthcare system with equal access to care, the clinical trials population is well representative of its general oncology population.[Table: see text]

Dedicated clinical trial tissue tracking database to improve turn-around time at high-volume center.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1543-1543
Author(s):  
Peter Blankenship ◽  
David DeLaRosa ◽  
Marc Burris ◽  
Steven Cusson ◽  
Kayla Hendricks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Tissue Sample ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Fresh Tissue ◽  
Oncology Clinical Trials ◽  
The Status ◽  
Unique Source

1543 Background: Tissue requirements in oncology clinical trials are increasingly complex due to prescreening protocols for patient selection and serial biopsies to understand molecular-level treatment effects. Novel solutions for tissue processing are necessary for timely tissue procurement. Based on these needs, we developed a Tissue Tracker (TT), a comprehensive database for study-related tissue tasks at our high-volume clinical trial center. Methods: In this Microsoft Access database, patients are assigned an ID within the TT that is associated with their name, medical record number, and study that follows their request to external users: pathology departments, clinical trial coordinators and data team members. To complete tasks in the TT, relevant information is required to update the status. Due to the high number of archival tissue requests from unique pathology labs, the TT has a “Follow-Up Dashboard” that organizes information needed to conduct follow-up on all archival samples with the status “Requested”. This results in an autogenerated email and pdf report sent to necessary teams. The TT also includes a kit inventory system and a real-time read only version formatted for interdepartmental communication, metric reporting, and other data-driven efforts. The primary outcome in this study was to evaluate our average turnaround time (ATAT: average time from request to shipment) for archival and fresh tissue samples before and after TT development. Results: Before implementing the TT, between March 2016 and March 2018, we processed 2676 archival requests from 235 unique source labs resulting in 2040 shipments with an ATAT of 19.29 days. We also processed 1099 fresh biopsies resulting in 944 shipments with an ATAT of 7.72 days. After TT implementation, between April 2018 and April 2020, we processed 2664 archival requests from 204 unique source labs resulting in 2506 shipments (+28.0%) with an ATAT of 14.78 days (-23.4%). During that same period, we processed 1795 fresh biopsies (+63.3%) resulting in 2006 shipments (+112.5%) with an ATAT of 6.85 days (-11.3%). Conclusions: Oncology clinical trials continue to evolve toward more extensive tissue requirements for prescreening and scientific exploration of on-treatment molecular profiling. Timely results are required to optimize patient trial participation. During the intervention period, our tissue sample volume and shipments increased, but the development and implementation of an automated tracking system allowed improvement in ATAT of both archival and fresh tissue. This automation not only improves end-user expectations and experiences for patients and trial sponsors but this allows our team to adapt to the increasing interest in tissue exploration.

scholarly journals Parental perspectives long term after neonatal clinical trial participation: a survey

Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Salaets ◽  
Emilie Lavrysen ◽  
Anne Smits ◽  
Sophie Vanhaesebrouck ◽  
Maissa Rayyan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Drug Trials ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Parental Perspectives ◽  
Positive Experiences ◽  
Almost All

Abstract Background Although recruiting newborns is ethically challenging, clinical trials remain essential to improve neonatal care. There is a lack of empirical data on the parental perspectives following participation of their neonate in a clinical trial, especially at long term. The objective of this study is to assess experiences and emotions of parents, long term after trial participation in an interventional drug trial. Methods Parents of former participants of five neonatal interventional drug trials were surveyed at long term (3–13 years ago) after participation. The survey assessed parental contentment with trial participation, perceived influence of the trial on care and health, emotional consequences of participation, and awareness of typical clinical trial characteristics on 6-point Likert scales. Results Complete responses were received from 123 parents (52% of involved families). Twenty percent of parents did not remember participation. Those who remembered participation reported high contentment with overall trial participation (median 5.00), but not with follow-up (median 3.00). Most parents did not perceive any influence of the trial on care (median 2.00) and health (median 2.43). Almost all parents reported satisfaction and pride (median 4.40), while a minority of parents reported anxiety and stress (median 1.44) or guilt (median 1.33) related to trial participation. A relevant minority was unaware of typical trial characteristics (median 4.20; 27% being unaware). Conclusions Overall, parents reported positive experiences and little emotional distress long term after participation. Future efforts to improve the practice of neonatal clinical trials should focus on ensuring effective communication about the concept and characteristics of a clinical trial during consent discussions and on the follow-up after the trial.

Barriers to clinical trial accrual: Clinical trialists' perspectives.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18156-e18156
Author(s):  
Edward S. Kim ◽  
Dax Kurbegov ◽  
Patricia A. Hurley ◽  
David Michael Waterhouse
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Contract Research Organization ◽  
The Public ◽  
Community Forum ◽  
Clinical Trial Accrual

e18156 Background: Oncology clinical trial participation rates remain at historic lows. There are many barriers that impede participation. Understanding those barriers, from the perspective of cancer clinical trialists, will help develop solutions to increase physician and site engagement, with the goal of improving accrual rates and advancing cancer treatment. Methods: Physician investigators and research staff from community-based and academic-based research sites were surveyed during ASCO’s Research Community Forum (RCF) Annual Meeting (N = 159) and through a pre-meeting survey (N = 124) in 2018. Findings and potential solutions were discussed during the meeting. Results: 84% of respondents (n = 84) reported that it took 6-8 months to open a trial and 86% (n = 81) reported that trials had unnecessary delays 70% of the time. The top 10 barriers to accrual identified were: insufficient staffing resources, restrictive eligibility criteria, physician buy-in, site access to trials, burdensome regulatory requirements, difficulty identifying patients, lack of suitable trials, sponsor and contract research organization requirements, patient barriers, and site cost-benefit. Respondents shared strategies to address these barriers. Conclusions: The current state of conducting clinical trials is not sustainable and hinders clinical trial participation. New strategies are needed to ensure patients and practices have access to trials, standardize and streamline processes, reduce inefficiencies, simplify trial activation, reduce regulatory burden, provide sufficient compensation to sites, engage the community and patients, educate the public, and increase collaborations. The ASCO RCF offers resources, available to the public, that offer practical strategies to overcome barriers to clinical trial accrual and has ongoing efforts to facilitate oncology practice participation in clinical trials.

Transforming the site feasibility assessment process for oncology clinical trials.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14092-e14092
Author(s):  
Dax Kurbegov ◽  
Patricia A. Hurley ◽  
David Michael Waterhouse ◽  
Grzegorz S. Nowakowski ◽  
Edward S. Kim
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Contract Research Organization ◽  
Feasibility Assessment ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Start Up

e14092 Background: Current methods to assess trial sites for clinical trial participation are onerous, with unnecessary redundancies and no-value steps that impact research site resources and clinical trial participation. This project sought stakeholder feedback on recommendations to transform industry sponsor and contract research organization (CRO) processes for evaluating sites for trials. Methods: An ASCO task force developed recommendations to improve the feasibility assessment process and standardize and centralize questions and forms. A survey was conducted with sites, industry trial sponsors, and CROs to obtain feedback and assess buy-in for the recommendations. Results: Respondents were from 28 oncology research sites (19 academic, 9 community-based), 8 sponsors, and 4 CROs. All stakeholders agreed that the current process is burdensome (93% sites, 90% sponsors, 100% CROs), standardization will improve the process (86% sites, 87% sponsors, 75% CROs). All agreed a centralized portal will reduce burdens (93% sites, 100% sponsors, 75% CROs) and expedite trial start-up (89% sites, 100% sponsors, 75% CROs). Site certification was a viable option for sites (86%) and CROs (75%), but less so for sponsors (57%). Most respondents preferred a two-tier model: 1) a short site questionnaire followed by a pre-study visit for new interactions, and 2) only a pre-study site visit or a teleconference if there is an existing relationship. The greatest benefits were time savings, expedited start-up, reduction in personnel resources, and cost savings. The greatest barriers to adoption were buy-in and alignment from sponsors/CROs and insufficient information about site or protocol. Top predictors of a site’s success on a trial were physician engagement, available patients, and site experience. Conclusions: Site feasibility assessments are important for all stakeholders to establish trial suitability. However, current methods impose tremendous burdens on site resources (reported by authors elsewhere). While this sample is limited, the proposed process and standardization changes show promise to reduce burdens and costs for all stakeholders and expedite patient enrollment onto clinical trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document