Improving hematology/oncology clinical research recruitment via universal prescreening: The VA Connecticut (VACT) Cancer Center experience.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 79-79
Author(s):  
Jenny Jing Xiang ◽  
Alicia Roy ◽  
Christine Summers ◽  
Monica Delvy ◽  
Jessica Lee O'Donovan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Research Recruitment ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Study Enrollment

79 Background: Patient-trial matching is a critical step in clinical research recruitment that requires extensive review of clinical data and trial requirements. Prescreening, defined as identifying potentially eligible patients using select eligibility criteria, may streamline the process and increase study enrollment. We describe the real-world experience of implementing a standardized, universal clinical research prescreening protocol within a VA cancer center and its impact on research enrollment. Methods: An IRB approved prescreening protocol was implemented at the VACT Cancer Center in March 2017. All patients with a suspected or confirmed diagnosis of cancer are identified through tumor boards, oncology consults, and clinic lists. Research coordinators perform chart review and manually enter patient demographics, cancer type and stage, and treatment history into a REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) database. All clinical trials and their eligibility criteria are also entered into REDCap and updated regularly. REDCap generates real time lists of potential research studies for each patient based on his/her recorded data. The primary oncologist is alerted to a patient’s potential eligibility prior to upcoming clinic visits and thus can plan to discuss clinical research enrollment as appropriate. Results: From March 2017 to December 2020, a total of 2548 unique patients were prescreened into REDCAP. The mean age was 71.5 years, 97.5% were male, and 15.5% were African American. 32.57 % patients had genitourinary cancer, 17.15% had lung cancer, and 46.15% were undergoing malignancy workup. 1412 patients were potentially eligible after prescreening and 556 patients were ultimately enrolled in studies. The number of patients enrolled on therapeutic clinical trials increased after the implementation of the prescreening protocol (35 in 2017, 64 in 2018, 78 in 2019, and 55 in 2020 despite the COVID19 pandemic). Biorepository study enrollment increased from 8 in 2019 to 15 in 2020. The prescreening protocol also enabled 200 patients to be enrolled onto a lung nodule liquid biopsy study from 2017 to 2019. Our prescreening process captured 98.57% of lung cancer patients entered into the cancer registry during the same time period. Conclusions: Universal prescreening streamlined research recruitment operations and was associated with yearly increases in clinical research enrollment at a VA cancer center. Our protocol identified most new lung cancer patients, suggesting that, at least for this malignancy, potential study patients were not missed. The protocol was integral in our program becoming the top accruing VA site for NCI’s National Clinical Trial Network (NCTN) studies since 2019.

Radiation pneumonitis (RP) in lung cancer patients treated with chemotherapy (CT) and thoracic radiation (TR): Retrospective analyses of patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 19642-19642
Author(s):  
P. Vishnu ◽  
S. Srinivasan ◽  
L. Heilbrun ◽  
R. Venkataramanamoorthy ◽  
A. Wozniak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Hospitalization Rate ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Pulmonary Disorder ◽  
Demographic Features

19642 Background: Combined CT and TR is the current standard for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and SCLC. Severe RP, an important adverse effect of TR, is reported in clinical trials to occur in 10% of patients receiving CT and TR. The rate in routine care may be higher as patients are not selected based on lung function. We conducted a retrospective study to assess the incidence of RP in lung cancer patients treated with CT and TR. Methods: Retrospective identification of patients who underwent combined modality therapy (concurrent or sequential CT and TR) for lung cancer (NSCLC & SCLC) at our cancer center between January 2001 and December 2004. Demographic features, RP incidence and grade (RTOG criteria), hospitalization rate and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Results: 51 patients who met the selection criteria were analyzed. The demographic features were - males 61%; Caucasians - 53%; African Americans - 39%; history of pulmonary disorder - 45%; NSCLC - 82%; CT - 62% received Cisplatin/Etoposide, while 24% received Carboplatin/Paclitaxel; 92% received concurrent CT and TR. The median dose of TR was 5940 cGy. 20 patients (39%) developed RP; 13 (25%) had grade = 3 RP. Median time to development of RP was 4.4 months. Rate of RP in females and males was 50% vs. 32% (p=0.25). Rate of RP in patients with pulmonary disorder at baseline was 52% vs. 29% in others (p=0.15). 1 year hospitalization rate was 75% and 42% in RP and non-RP patients (p=0.025). For all 51 patients, the median overall survival (OS) was 16.4 months (95% CI 11.8 - 23.3). Length of OS did not differ significantly (p = 0.36) between the 20 patients who had RP vs. the 31 who had no RP (median OS: 22.2 vs. 14.5 months, respectively). Conclusions: The RP rate in these 51 lung cancer patients treated off- protocol with CT and TR is higher than that reported in clinical trials. Despite higher morbidity in patients with RP (i.e., increased hospitalization), survival duration did not differ significantly based on RP status. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals PET/CT and the Response to Immunotherapy in Lung Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 177-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Evangelista ◽  
Matteo Sepulcri ◽  
Giulia Pasello
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Fdg Pet ◽  
Response To Therapy ◽  
Prediction Of Response ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Pet Ct ◽  
Fdg Pet Ct

Objective: In recent years, the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors has significantly changed the outcome of patients affected by lung cancer and cutaneous melanoma. Although the clinical advantages, the selection of patients and the evaluation of response to immunotherapy remain unclear, the immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (irRECIST) was proposed as an update of the RECIST criteria for the assessment of response to immunotherapy. However, morphological images cannot predict early response to therapy that represents a challenge in clinical practice. 18F-FDG PET/CT before and after immunotherapy has an indeterminate role, demonstrating ambiguous results due to inflammatory effects secondary to activation of the immune system. The aim of the present review was to analyze the role of PET/CT as a guide for immunotherapy, by analyzing the current status and future perspectives. Methods: A literature search was conducted in order to select all papers that discussed the role of PET/CT with FDG or other tracers in the evaluation or prediction of response to immunotherapy in lung cancer patients. Results: Many papers are now available. Many clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of immunotherapy in lung cancer patients. FDG PET/CT can be used for the prediction of response to immunotherapy, while its utility for the evaluation of response is not still clearly reported. Moreover, the standardization of FDG PET/CT interpretation is missing and different criteria, such as information, have been investigated until now. Conclusions: The utility of FDG PET/CT for patients with lung cancer undergoing immunotherapies is still preliminary and not well addressed. New agents for PET are promising, but large clinical trials are mandatory.

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

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

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document