Advanced Cancer Patients’ Understanding and Perceptions of Phase I Clinical Trials

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (10) ◽  
pp. 490-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie Pawlowski ◽  
Laeeq Malik ◽  
Devalingam Mahalingam
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients

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.

Integration of specialty palliative care in a phase I ovarian cancer population.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 75-75
Author(s):  
Marisa R Moroney ◽  
Breana Hill ◽  
Jeanelle Sheeder ◽  
Jennifer Robinson Diamond ◽  
Melony Avella-Howell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Disease Stage ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Palliative Care Services

75 Background: ASCO guidelines recommend patients with advanced cancer receive early integrated specialty palliative care based on evidence of multiple clinical benefits. To our knowledge, there is no literature evaluating utilization of specialty palliative care in Phase I clinical trial patients, but there is limited data demonstrating underutilization of palliative care services in patients with life-threatening diseases including advanced cancer. Methods: A retrospective review of ovarian cancer patients enrolled in Phase I clinical trials at one institution from 2008 to 2018. Charts were reviewed for patient and disease characteristics including age, disease stage, number of chemotherapy regimens and date of death. Charts were also reviewed to determine if and when patients received specialty palliative care services. Results: A total of 121 patients with ovarian cancer were enrolled in Phase I clinical trials. Median age at time of Phase I enrollment was 59 years (range 33-88). 87% of patients had advanced stage disease: 60% Stage III and 27% Stage IV. Median number of chemotherapy regimens received prior to Phase I enrollment was 5 (range 1-13). Median survival was 311 days (95%CI 225.9-396.1). Of the 121 patients, 4 (3.3%) received specialty palliative care prior to Phase I enrollment, 7 (5.8%) within 30 days after enrollment, and 53 (43.8%) more than 30 days after enrollment. 57 patients (47.1%) never received specialty palliative care. Conclusions: Ovarian cancer patients enrolled in Phase I clinical trials have advanced cancer – defined by ASCO as disease that is late-stage and life limiting with a prognosis less than 24 months – and should therefore receive early integrated specialty palliative care. This study demonstrates that a significant portion of Phase I ovarian cancer patients are either receiving no or late integration of specialty palliative care. Further work needs to focus on increasing early integration of specialty palliative care in this population.

PHASE I STUDY OF SYSTEMIC LYMPHOKINE (LCL-LK) ADMINISTRATION IN ADVANCED CANCER PATIENTS

1982 ◽  
pp. 633-639 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joaquim Gouveia ◽  
Patricia Ribaud ◽  
Antoine Goutner ◽  
Georges Mathé
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients

Individual Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Advanced Cancer Patients

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Breitbart ◽  
Wendy G. Lichtenthal ◽  
Allison J. Applebaum ◽  
Melissa Masterson
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Therapeutic Intervention ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Existential Psychology ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Spiritual Well Being ◽  
Existential Concerns

Among the advanced cancer population, existential concerns are major issues that promote significant distress. For patients who are facing death, meaning and the preservation of meaning are not only clinically and existentially important but also central concepts to a therapeutic intervention. Based on Viktor Frankl’s logotherapy and the principles of existential psychology and philosophy, “meaning-centered psychotherapy” was developed to help patients with advanced cancer sustain or enhance a sense of meaning, peace, and purpose in their lives. This chapter provides an overview of work developing and testing individual meaning-centered psychotherapy (IMCP). It provides an overview of the session content in the IMCP intervention. It also presents findings from clinical trials, which support the efficacy of IMCP as an intervention to increase a sense of meaning, spiritual well-being, and hope while decreasing end-of-life despair. Furthermore, it presents difficult scenarios that may arise when delivering IMCP for clinicians interested in this work.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document