scholarly journals Enrollment of Patients With Lung and Colorectal Cancers Onto Clinical Trials

2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e40-e47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mona N. Fouad ◽  
Jeannette Y. Lee ◽  
Paul J. Catalano ◽  
Thomas M. Vogt ◽  
Syed Yousuf Zafar ◽  
...  

Both practice environment and patient clinical and demographic characteristics are associated with cancer clinical trial enrollment; simultaneous intervention may be required when trying to increase enrollment rates.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 170-170
Author(s):  
Grace Hillyer ◽  
Melissa Beauchemin ◽  
Dawn L. Hershman ◽  
Moshe A. Kelsen ◽  
Frances L Brogan ◽  
...  

170 Background: Essential to bringing innovative cancer treatments to patients is voluntary participation in clinical trials but fewer than 10% of cancer patients are enrolled onto a trial. We used a domain-oriented framework to assess barriers to cancer clinical trial enrollment (CTE). Methods: Physicians and research staff completed an online survey in 2017; adult cancer patients not currently enrolled in a trial were interviewed in 2018. Perceived structural, provider- and patient-level barriers to CTE were assessed. Differences in perceptions, attitudes and beliefs toward CTE between physicians and staff, patients by ethnicity, and physicians/staff and patients were examined. Results: In total, 120 physician/staff (64.4% response rate) and 150 cancer patient completed surveys. Interacting with the patients’ family was seen as a CTE barrier by nearly one-third of physicians/staff overall, however, staff much more often stated this barrier than did physicians (44.0% vs. 18.2%, p= 0.007). Hispanic patients more often stated they would join a trial, even if standard therapy was an option compared to non-Hispanic patients ( p= 0.004). Overall, patients, more often than physicians/staff, believed that clinical trials are only offered to people whose disease is hopeless (27.3% vs. 8.7%, p < 0.001) and that CTE does not help patients personally (32.9% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001). More often physicians/staff believed that patients decline CTE due to language or cultural barriers (57.5% vs. 27.3%, p < 0.001), lack of understanding about clinical trials (63.3% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.001), and mistrust of the medical system (69.2% vs. 36.4%, p= 0.043) than was reported by patients. Patients less often reported declining CTE because of concerns about invasive procedures (9.1% vs. 41.7%, p = 0.02), toxicity (18.2% vs. 60.0%, p= 0.006) or reluctance to be randomized/receive a placebo (27.3% vs. 70.8%, p= 0.005). Conclusions: Our findings indicate a wide gap between provider and patient attitudes and beliefs about CTE. Reconciling these differences will require tailored education to dispel misperceptions and strategies to improve the quality of patient-provider communication.


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace C Hillyer ◽  
Melissa Beauchemin ◽  
Dawn L Hershman ◽  
Moshe Kelsen ◽  
Frances L Brogan ◽  
...  

Background/Aims Essential to bringing innovative cancer treatments to patients is voluntary participation in clinical trials but approximately 8% of American cancer patients are enrolled onto a trial. We used a domain-oriented framework to assess barriers to cancer clinical trial enrollment. Methods Physicians (MD, DO, fellows, residents) and research staff (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, staff and research nurses, clinical assistants, and program coordinators) involved in clinical research at a comprehensive cancer center completed an online survey in 2017; adult cancer patients not currently enrolled in a trial were interviewed in 2018. To inform the construct of our physician/staff and patient surveys and to assess barriers to clinical trial enrollment, we first conducted in-depth interviews among 14 key informants representing medical, hematologic, gynecologic, neurologic, radiation oncology, as well as members of the clinical research team (one clinical research coordinator, one research nurse practitioner). Perceived structural, provider- and patient-level barriers to clinical trial enrollment were assessed. Differences in perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs toward clinical trial enrollment between (1) physicians and staff, (2) patients by ethnicity, and (3) physicians/staff and patients were examined. Results In total, 120 physicians/staff involved in clinical research (39.2% physicians, 60.8% staff; 48.0% overall response rate) and 150 cancer patients completed surveys. Nearly three-quarters of physician/staff respondents reported difficulty in keeping track of the eligibility criteria for open studies but was more often cited by physicians than staff (84.4% vs 64.3%, p = 0.02). Physicians more often reported lack of time to present clinical trial information than did staff( p < 0.001); 44.0% of staff versus 18.2% of physicians reported patient family interaction as a clinical trial enrollment barrier ( p = 0.007). Hispanic patients more often stated they would join a trial, even if standard therapy was an option compared to non-Hispanic patients (47.7% vs 20.8%, p = 0.002). Comparing the beliefs and perceptions of physicians/staff to those of patients, patients more often reported negative beliefs about clinical trial enrollment (e.g. being in a trial does not help patients personally, 32.9% vs 1.8%, p < 0.001) but less often felt they had no other options when agreeing to join (38.1% vs 85.6%, p < 0.001), and less often refused clinical trial enrollment due to lack of understanding (9.1% vs 63.3%, p = 0.001) than reported by physicians/staff. Conclusion Our findings indicate a wide gap between physician/staff and patient attitudes and beliefs about clinical trial enrollment and highlight the importance of focusing future initiatives to raise awareness of this incongruency. Reconciling these differences will require tailored education to reduce implicit biases and dispel misperceptions. Strategies to improve the quality of patient–provider communication and address infrastructure and resource issues are also needed to improve patient enrollment onto cancer clinical trials.


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 845-845
Author(s):  
Nupur Mittal ◽  
Mario Martinez ◽  
Johnathan Davidson ◽  
Paul Kent ◽  
Lisa Giordano ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: It is accepted that the dramatic historical decrease in mortality from ALL and AML in children and more recently AYAs is directly related to improved participation in NCI sponsored COG clinical trials. It is also known that African-American (AA) and Hispanic children, Hispanic females, and particularly AYAs 15 to 39 years are under-represented in COG clinical trials and may benefit from targeted attention. AA and Hispanic children with ALL and AML have worse survival than white and Asian children even with modern therapy where cure rates have improved drastically. Access to standard accepted chemotherapy for leukemia, socio-economic status and insurance status, differences in disease phenotype and pharmacogenetic variations play a role in these racial and ethnic disparities. AYAs with leukemia have experienced variable improvement in survival over the past two decades due partly to insufficient cancer clinical trial enrollment. Uninsured, older patients and those treated by non-pediatric oncologists were less likely to enroll onto clinical trials. Multiple studies of ALL in North America and Europe have shown AYA patients treated with pediatric "inspired" protocols have better outcomes than AYA patients treated with protocols designed for adults. Enhancing access to quality cancer care in a timely manner in these underrepresented populations (AYA, non white, or under-insured) has emerged as a priority area in oncology. In 2008, to improve access to this largely underserved population, two COG institutions (University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) and Rush University) and a non-member hospital (John H Stroger Hospital of Cook County) created a unified COG program utilizing one lead IRB and one research team. This study assesses the impact that the collaborative UIC/Rush/Stroger COG program had on clinical trial enrollment for minority underserved and AYA patients with leukemia (ALL and AML). Methods: A retrospective comparative analyses of COG enrollment data from 2002-2008 and 2008-2014 (pre vs. post-merger) for all patients with ALL and AML by race/ethnicity, age at diagnosis, gender, insurance status, clinical trial type (biology, registry, therapeutic) , and leukemia type was completed. Information regarding the number of COG clinical trials available to enrolment and primary oncologists of enrollees' pre and post merger was collected. Results: The comparison of the number of patients enrolled pre-merger and post-merger by various variables is shown in table 1. A total of 40 enrolments with 9 being for therapeutic trials occurred at Stroger Hospital, a site with no access to COG trials prior to the merger. A total of 13 ALL patients and 5 AML patients were enrolled at Stroger Hospital, 7 of whom were uninsured (39%). Nine Pediatric Oncologists, 6 Medical Oncologists and 3 Pediatric nurse practitioners (18 total providers) were engaged in post-merger COG enrollments compared to 6 Pediatric and only 1 Medical Oncologist (7 total providers) engaged pre-merger across the three institutions. Conclusions: Significant increase in COG leukemia trial availability and enrollment especially for under-represented (non-white, underinsured) minorities and AYAs was a direct result of the creation of the novel UIC/Rush/Stroger COG Clinical Trials program. Cancer clinical trial participation has directly led to improved disease free survival and lower cancer death rates. Collaboration between institutions and Medical and Pediatric Oncologists is critical to participation of AYA's with leukemia in NCI sponsored clinical trials. Improving access to these clinical trials is essential to addressing current disparities in leukemia survival. The UIC/Rush/Stroger COG Program serves as a model for improved collaboration between competing institutions and specialists within institutions to increase access to current clinical trials for minority and AYA patients with leukemia. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Hematology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 (1) ◽  
pp. 154-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa H. M. Keegan ◽  
Helen M. Parsons

Abstract Survival among adolescents and young adults (AYAs) ages 15 to 39 with cancer has not improved to the same extent as that of pediatric and older adult cancer patients, which is thought to relate, in part, to the lower participation of AYAs in clinical trials. Because significant efforts have been made to improve clinical trial enrollment for AYAs, we (1) present contemporary clinical trial enrollment rates by cancer type, sociodemographic characteristics, and treatment setting and (2) discuss provider-, patient-, and system-level barriers to clinical trial participation. Contemporary studies examining clinical trial enrollment among AYAs have continued to find low overall participation relative to pediatric populations, with most studies observing no significant improvements in enrollment over time. In addition to age and cancer type, enrollment varies by treatment setting, health insurance, and race/ethnicity. Access to available clinical trials may be increased by appropriate referral of AYAs to pediatric and adult specialty cancer centers with studies relevant to the AYA population because most AYAs are treated in the community setting. Even with similar access to trials, however, AYAs may be less likely to participate, and therefore, future efforts should focus on better understanding and addressing barriers to enrollment as well as improving education and outreach regarding clinical trials.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 107327481990112
Author(s):  
Grace Clarke Hillyer ◽  
Melissa Beauchemin ◽  
Philip Garcia ◽  
Moshe Kelsen ◽  
Frances L. Brogan ◽  
...  

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 128-128
Author(s):  
Ahmed Megahed ◽  
Gary L Buchschacher ◽  
Ngoc J. Ho ◽  
Reina Haque ◽  
Robert Michael Cooper

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]


2021 ◽  
pp. 826-832
Author(s):  
Jay G. Ronquillo ◽  
William T. Lester

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.


Hematology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
pp. 226-233
Author(s):  
Lindsey A. George

Abstract After 3 decades of clinical trials, repeated proof-of-concept success has now been demonstrated in hemophilia A and B gene therapy. Current clinical hemophilia gene therapy efforts are largely focused on the use of systemically administered recombinant adeno-associated viral (rAAV) vectors for F8 or F9 gene addition. With multiple ongoing trials, including licensing studies in hemophilia A and B, many are cautiously optimistic that the first AAV vectors will obtain regulatory approval within approximately 1 year. While supported optimism suggests that the goal of gene therapy to alter the paradigm of hemophilia care may soon be realized, a number of outstanding questions have emerged from clinical trial that are in need of answers to harness the full potential of gene therapy for hemophilia patients. This article reviews the use of AAV vector gene addition approaches for hemophilia A and B, focusing specifically on information to review in the process of obtaining informed consent for hemophilia patients prior to clinical trial enrollment or administering a licensed AAV vector.


Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liana C Brooks ◽  
Rohan R Bhat ◽  
Robyn F Farrell ◽  
Mark W Schoenike ◽  
John A Sbarbaro ◽  
...  

Introduction: The COVID-19 Pandemic has mandated limiting routine visit frequency for patients with chronic cardiovascular (CV) diseases. In patients with heart failure (HF) followed longitudinally, the period of clinical trial participation provides an opportunity to evaluate the influence of high-frequency per-protocol in-person visits compared to less frequent routine visits during longitudinal clinical care. Hypothesis: Patients enrolled in clinical trials will have a lower CV and HF event rates during periods of trial enrollment than during non-trial periods. Methods: We examined clinical characteristics, CV and HF hospitalization rates, and outcomes in patients with HF receiving longitudinal HF care at a single center. We evaluated hospitalization rates during the 1-year preceding trial enrollment and hospitalization and death rates during enrollment in clinical trials and for up to 1 year following trial completion. Results: Among the 121 patients enrolled in HF clinical trials, 72% were HFrEF (age 62±11, 19% females, BMI 30.4±6.0, LVEF 25±7, NYHA 2.7±0.6, NT-proBNP 2336±2671) and 28% were HFpEF (age 69±9, BMI 32.1±5.5, 29% females, LVEF 60±10, NYHA 2.4±0.5, NT-proBNP 957±997). Average clinical trial exposure was 8±6.6 months. Per-protocol visit frequency was 16±7 per year during clinical trial enrollment. In the one-year pre-trial period, compared to the within-trial period, CV hospitalizations were 0.88/patient-year vs. 0.32/patient-year (p<0.001) and HF hospitalizations were 0.63/patient-year and 0.24/patient-year (p<0.001), with a mortality rate of 0.04/patient-year during trial participation. In the period of up-to 1 year following the end of trial enrollment CV and HF hospitalizations were intermediate at 0.51/patient-year and 0.27/patient-year with an annualized incremental mortality rate of 0.03/patient-year. Conclusion: In HF patients followed longitudinally at a single center, periods of clinical trial enrollment were associated with high visit frequency and lower CV and HF hospitalization rates. These findings highlight the potential benefits of trial enrollment and high-frequency visits for HF patients at a time when routine visit frequency is being carefully considered during the COVID-19 Pandemic.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18574-e18574
Author(s):  
Rosa Nouvini ◽  
Patricia A. Parker ◽  
Charlotte Malling ◽  
Kendra Godwin ◽  
Rosario Costas-Muñiz

e18574 Background: Minorities continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials despite the National Institute of Health’s Revitalization Act, passed in 1993, mandating the representation of women and underrepresented minority groups in clinical trials. Studies have shown that although Blacks represent 15% and Hispanics 13% of the cancer population, their clinical trial enrollment rates in are disproportionately low at 4-6% and 3-6% respectively. We conducted a systematic review exploring interventions aimed at improving clinical trial enrollment for racial and ethnic minorities. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Ovid PsycINFO was conducted for English-language studies of humans since 1993. Inclusion criteria included peer-reviewed, U.S.-based studies with interventions aimed to recruit underrepresented minority adult cancer patients into cancer clinical trials. We defined underrepresented minority groups as Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander. Results: A total of 2471 titles and abstracts were identified and 2324 were excluded based on the eligibility criteria. A full text review was conducted of the remaining 147 articles, of which only 9 met criteria for our review. The interventions included patient navigation/coaching (n = 4), a clinical trial educational video (n = 2), institutional research infrastructure changes (n = 1), a relationship building and social marketing recruitment model (n = 1) and cultural competency training for providers (n = 1). Studies were conducted in a variety of practice settings including national cancer institutes and community practices. The quality of evidence was limited by the heterogeneity of study methods, patient representation and bias. Several studies had a homogeneous population of Black patients. Most studies (n = 7) were single arm trials that compared results to either historical controls or those cited in the existing literature; two studies were randomized controlled trials. A statistically significant improvement in accrual was shown in three of the patient navigation interventions, one of the clinical trial educational videos, the institutional research infrastructure change and the relationship building and social marketing recruitment model. The common threads to many of these successful interventions were support through the cancer care continuum, cultural congruency of research staff and culturally catered clinical trial educational materials. Conclusions: This systematic review illustrates several mechanisms by which to increase cancer clinical trial recruitment for cancer patients of underrepresented minority backgrounds in a variety of clinical settings. Randomized controlled trials with representation of multiple races/ethnicities are needed to further explore the benefits of these interventions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document