Clinical trial accrual among new cancer patients at a community-based cancer center

Strategies for increasing accrual in cancer clinical trials: What is the evidence?

INTRODUCTION

Despite the importance of clinical trial participation among cancer patients, few participate-and even fewer patients from ethnic and racial minoritized groups. It is unclear whether suggested approaches to increase accrual are successful. We conducted a scoping review to identify evidence-based approaches to increase participation in cancer treatment clinical trials that demonstrated clear increases in accrual. Notably, more stringent than other published reviews, only those studies with comparison data to measure a difference in accrual rates were included.

METHODS

We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science for English-language articles published from January 1, 2012, to August 8, 2022. Studies were included if they were conducted in the United States, described single or multicomponent interventions, and provided data to measure accrual relative to baseline levels or that compared accrual rates with other interventions.

RESULTS

Sixteen articles were included: six with interventions addressing patient barriers, two addressing provider barriers, seven describing institutional change, and one describing policy change. Key themes emerged, such as a focus on patient education, cultural competency, and building the capacity of clinics. Few studies provide comparative accrual data, making it difficult to identify with certainty any effective, evidence-based approaches for increasing accrual. Some patient- and system-level interventions studies showed modest increases in accrual primarily through pre-post measurement.

CONCLUSION

Despite an extensive body of literature about the barriers that impede cancer treatment trial accrual, along with numerous recommendations for how to overcome these barriers, results reveal surprisingly little evidence published in the last 10 years on interventions that increase accrual relative to baseline levels or compared with other interventions. As clinical trials are a primary vehicle through which we improve cancer care, it is critical that evidence-based approaches are used to inform all efforts to increase accrual. Strategies for increasing participation in cancer clinical trials must be developed and rigorously evaluated so that these strategies can be disseminated, participation in trials can increase and become more equitable, and trial results can become more generalizable.

Knowledge and awareness of clinical trials among trial participants in India: A multicentric questionnaire-based cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

The knowledge and attitude of participants toward clinical trials (CTs) are a key determinant in successful recruitment and retention. This study aimed to evaluate knowledge and awareness-attitude among the recruited CT participants about CTs.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional face-to-face survey comprising CT participants involved in the past or currently a part of a CT during this study within the Indian Ophthalmology Clinical Trial Network (IOCTN). A previously validated questionnaire was used, and data regarding demographics, knowledge, and awareness-attitude about CTs were collected. The total awareness-attitude score was used to determine the knowledge and awareness of the participants.

RESULTS

A total of 121 subjects had participated in the study who were part of ongoing trials, of which only five participants had prior experience of CTs. The majority (90%) had knowledge about CTs, whereas only 7% had confirmed signing consent forms. The total awareness-attitude score significantly varied across locations (27% for the southern zone, 53% for the central zone, and 52% for the western zone), and this was negatively associated with education. The most negative attitude (38.6%) was observed regarding adequate information sharing among participants, whereas non-disruption of their routine family life (60.7%) and financial stability (67.6%) were the top most positive attitudes revealed during their participation. The participants' pre- and post-participation attitude toward CTs revealed a positive attitude.

CONCLUSION

The factors influencing a participant's knowledge and attitudes toward CTs were revealed in the study. Furthermore, the need for awareness regarding benefits of CTs to the public, participant's rights, and their voluntary power were the major highlights.

Community Engagement Strategies for Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Populations

The representation of racial and ethnic minority populations in clinical trials continues to be a challenge despite mandates, good intentions, and concerted efforts by funding agencies, regulatory bodies, and researchers to close the clinical trials gap. A lack of diversity in research results in both continued disparities and poorer health outcomes. It is thus imperative that investigators understand and effectively address the challenges of clinical trials participation by underrepresented populations. In this paper, we expound on best practices for participatory research by clearly defining the community, highlighting the importance of proper identification and engagement of strong community partners, and exploring patient- and provider-level barriers and facilitators that require consideration. A clearer understanding of the balance of power between researchers and community partners is needed for any approach that addresses clinical trials representation. Unintended biases in study design and methods may continue to prevent racial and ethnic minority participants from taking part, and significant organizational changes are necessary for efficient and transparent relationships. Comprehensive community engagement in research includes dissemination of clinical trial results within and in partnership with community partners. Through careful deliberation and honest reflection, investigators, institutions, and community partners can develop the tailored blueprints of research collaborations essential for true equity in clinical trials.

Diagnostic and Treatment Obstacles in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Social, Operational, and Financial

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) can affect individuals of all ages, but is more common in older adults. It has been estimated that AML accounted for 1% of all newly diagnosed cancers in the USA in 2022. The diagnostic process varies depending on the presenting symptoms and the healthcare facility that patients attend at diagnosis. The treatment process is long and prone to complications, requiring experienced medical professionals and appropriate infrastructure. Treatment of the disease did not change greatly over the years until 2017 when targeted therapies were licensed. The treatment of AML is associated with significant direct economic costs. A number of obstacles originating both from individual patients and the healthcare system may be encountered during the diagnosis and treatment of the disease, which may negatively impact the optimal management of the disease process. In this article, we focus primarily on the social, operational, and financial obstacles including the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic experienced during the diagnosis and treatment of AML.

Characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal cancer treated in and out of randomized clinical trials of first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Although several randomized trials (RCTs) showed survival benefits of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) plus first-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric or gastroesophageal cancer (AGC), these trials could enroll patients who fulfilled the strict eligibility criteria or waited for certain screening period for central assessment of PD-L1 status.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared characteristics and clinical outcomes of the patients with AGC who received first-line chemotherapy in control arm of RCTs with ICIs (control group) or clinical practice (practice group) at our institution from February 2016 to April 2019.

RESULTS

The control group had a better baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS0, 81.2% vs. 51.4%, p < 0.001) and a longer interval from first visit to first-line chemotherapy initiation (19 days vs. 9 days, p < 0.001) than the practice group. Median overall survival (OS) was 20.3 months in control group and 15.7 months in practice group, with a trend of longer OS in control group than that in practice group (hazard ratio, 0.71; p = 0.062). More patients in control group were treated with subsequent chemotherapy including ICIs.

CONCLUSION

Patients with AGC in RCTs of ICIs had a better PS or a higher chance to receive subsequent chemotherapy, resulting in a better prognosis than those treated in clinical practice. This information should be considered when interpreting RCT results and applying new treatments into clinical practice.

Implementation Strategies to Increase Clinical Trial Enrollment in a Community-Academic Partnership and Impact on Hispanic Representation: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis

PURPOSE

Community-academic partnerships have the potential to improve access to clinical trials for under-represented minority patients who more often receive cancer treatment in community settings. In 2017, the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center began opening investigator-initiated clinical trials in radiation oncology in targeted community-based partner sites with a high potential to improve diverse population accrual. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a set of implementation strategies for increasing overall community-based enrollment and the resulting proportional enrollment of Hispanic patients on trials on the basis of availability in community-based partner sites.

METHODS

An interrupted time series analysis evaluating implementation strategies was conducted from April 2018 to September 2021. Descriptive analysis ofHispanic enrollment on investigator-initiated randomized therapeutic radiation trials open at community-based sites was compared with those open only at themain academic center.

RESULTS

Overall, 84 patients were enrolled in clinical trials in the MSK Alliance, of which 48 (56%) identified as Hispanic. The quarterly patient enrollment pre- vs postimplementation increased from 1.39 (95% CI, -3.67 to 6.46) to 9.42 (95% CI, 2.05 to 16.78; P5 .017). In the investigator-initiated randomized therapeutic radiation trials open in the MSK Alliance, Hispanic representation was 11.5% and 35.9% in twometastatic trials and 14.2% in a proton versus photon trial. Inmatched trials open only at the main academic center, Hispanic representation was 5.6%, 6.0%, and 4.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A combination of practice-level and physician-level strategies implemented at community-based partner sites was associated with increased clinical trial enrollment, which translated to improved Hispanic representation. This supports the role Q:2 of strategic community-academic partnerships in addressing disparities in clinical trial enrollment.

Strategies to Advance Equity in Cancer Clinical Trials

Cancer clinical trials are critical for testing new treatments, yet less than 5% of patients with cancer enroll in these trials. Minority groups, elderly individuals, and rural populations are particularly underrepresented in cancer treatment trials. Strategies for advancing equity in cancer clinical trials for these populations include (1) optimizing clinical trial matching by broadening eligibility criteria, screening all patients for trial eligibility, expanding the number of trials against which patients are screened, and following up on all patient matches with an enrollment invitation; (2) conducting site self-assessments to identify clinical-, patient-, provider-, and system-level barriers that contribute to low rates of clinical trial screening and enrollment; (3) creating a quality improvement plan that addresses the barriers to enrollment and incorporates the use of tools and strategies such as clinical trial checklists; workforce development and trainings to improve cultural competence and reduce unconscious bias; guides to promote community education, outreach and engagement with cancer clinical trials; screening and accrual logs designed to measure participation by demographics; models of informed consent that improve understanding; clinical trial designs that reduce accessibility barriers; use of cancer clinical trial patient navigators; and programs to eliminate barriers to participation and out-of-pocket expenses; and (4) working with stakeholders to develop both protocols that are inclusive of diverse populations' geographic locations, and strategies to access those trials. These actions will support greater access for populations that have remained underrepresented in cancer clinical trials and thereby increase the generalizability and efficiency of cancer research.

Oncologic patients' misconceptions may impede enrollment into clinical trials: a cross-sectional study

Background

Clinical trials are an essential source for advances in oncologic care, yet the enrollment rate is only 2-4%. Patients' reluctance to participate is an important barrier. This study evaluates patients' level of understanding and attitudes towards clinical trials.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted in the oncology department and day care unit at the oncology division Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Israel. From January 2015 to September 2016. Two-hundred patients’ currently receiving active anti-cancer therapy at a large tertiary hospital completed an anonymous questionnaire comprised of demographic information, past experience in clinical research and basic knowledge on clinical trials.

Results

The majority of respondents did not meet the minimum knowledge level criteria. In those who replied they would decline to participate in a clinical trial, concern were related to potential assignment to the placebo arm, provision of informed consent and trust issues with their oncologist. Those with sufficient knowledge were significantly more interested in participating. Patients with past experience in clinical trials had a higher level of academic education, were less religious, had a better understanding of medical research and were inclined to participate in future research.

Conclusions

Misperceptions of clinical trials may contribute substantially to the unwillingness to participate in them.

Addressing the Barriers to Clinical Trials Accrual in Community Cancer Centres Using a National Clinical Trials Navigator:A Cross-Sectional Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trials, although academically accepted as the most effective treatment available for cancer patients, poor accrual to clinical trials remains a significant problem. A clinical trials navigator (CTN) program was piloted where patients and/or their healthcare professionals could request a search and provide a list of potential cancer clinical trials in which a patient may be eligible based on their current status and disease.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the outcomes of a pilot program to try to improve clinical trials accrual with a focus on patients at medium to small sized cancer programs. Outcomes examined included patient disposition (referral to and accrual to interventional trials), patient survival, sites of referral to the CTN program.

METHODS

One 0.5 FTE navigator was retained. Stakeholders referred to the CTN through the Canadian Cancer Clinical Trials Network. Demographic and outcomes data were recorded.

RESULTS

Between March 2019 and February 2020, 118 patients from across Canada used the program. Seven per cent of patients referred were enrolled onto treatment clinical trials. No available trial excluded 39% patients, and 28% had a decline in their health and died before they could be referred or enrolled onto a clinical trial. The median time from referral to death was 109 days in those that passed.

CONCLUSION

This novel navigator pilot has the potential to increase patient accrual to clinical trials. The CTN program services the gap in the clinical trials system, helping patients in medium and small sized cancer centres identify potential clinical trials at larger centres.

Therapy for Diffuse Astrocytic and Oligodendroglial Tumors in Adults: ASCO-SNO Guideline

Purpose

To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for diffuse astrocytic and oligodendroglial tumors in adults.

Methods

ASCO and the Society for Neuro-Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature.

Results

Fifty-nine randomized trials focusing on therapeutic management were identified.

Recommendations

Adults with newly diagnosed oligodendroglioma, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)–mutant, 1p19q codeleted CNS WHO grade 2 and 3 should be offered radiation therapy (RT) and procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV). Temozolomide (TMZ) is a reasonable alternative for patients who may not tolerate PCV, but no high-level evidence supports upfront TMZ in this setting. People with newly diagnosed astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, 1p19q non-codeleted CNS WHO grade 2 should be offered RT with adjuvant chemotherapy (TMZ or PCV). People with astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, 1p19q non-codeleted CNS WHO grade 3 should be offered RT and adjuvant TMZ. People with astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, CNS WHO grade 4 may follow recommendations for either astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, 1p19q non-codeleted CNS WHO grade 3 or glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype, CNS WHO grade 4. Concurrent TMZ and RT should be offered to patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype, CNS WHO grade 4 followed by 6 months of adjuvant TMZ. Alternating electric field therapy, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, should be considered for these patients. Bevacizumab is not recommended. In situations in which the benefits of 6-week RT plus TMZ may not outweigh the harms, hypofractionated RT plus TMZ is reasonable. In patients age ≥ 60 to ≥ 70 years, with poor performance status or for whom toxicity or prognosis are concerns, best supportive care alone, RT alone (for MGMTpromoter unmethylated tumors), or TMZ alone (for MGMT promoter methylated tumors) are reasonable treatment options. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines.

Treatment for Brain Metastases: ASCO-SNO-ASTRO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for patients with brain metastases from solid tumors.

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

Thirty-two randomized trials published in 2008 or later met eligibility criteria and form the primary evidentiary base.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Surgery is a reasonable option for patients with brain metastases. Patients with large tumors with mass effect are more likely to benefit than those with multiple brain metastases and/or uncontrolled systemic disease. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases should receive local therapy regardless of the systemic therapy used. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, local therapy should not be deferred unless deferral is specifically recommended in this guideline. The decision to defer local therapy should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion of the potential benefits and harms that the patient may experience. Several regimens were recommended for non-small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases and no systemic therapy options, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone should be offered to patients with one to four unresected brain metastases, excluding small-cell lung carcinoma. SRS alone to the surgical cavity should be offered to patients with one to two resected brain metastases. SRS, whole brain radiation therapy, or their combination are reasonable options for other patients. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be offered to patients who receive whole brain radiation therapy and have no hippocampal lesions and 4 months or more expected survival. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases with either Karnofsky Performance Status ≤ 50 or Karnofsky Performance Status < 70 with no systemic therapy options do not derive benefit from radiation therapy.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines.

Therapy for Diffuse Astrocytic and Oligodendroglial Tumors in Adults: ASCO-SNO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for diffuse astrocytic and oligodendroglial tumors in adults.

METHODS

ASCO and the Society for Neuro-Oncology convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine randomized trials focusing on therapeutic management were identified.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Adults with newly diagnosed oligodendroglioma, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutant, 1p19q codeleted CNS WHO grade 2 and 3 should be offered radiation therapy (RT) and procarbazine, lomustine, and vincristine (PCV). Temozolomide (TMZ) is a reasonable alternative for patients who may not tolerate PCV, but no high-level evidence supports upfront TMZ in this setting. People with newly diagnosed astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, 1p19q non-codeleted CNS WHO grade 2 should be offered RT with adjuvant chemotherapy (TMZ or PCV). People with astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, 1p19q non-codeleted CNS WHO grade 3 should be offered RT and adjuvant TMZ. People with astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, CNS WHO grade 4 may follow recommendations for either astrocytoma, IDH-mutant, 1p19q non-codeleted CNS WHO grade 3 or glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype, CNS WHO grade 4. Concurrent TMZ and RT should be offered to patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, IDH-wildtype, CNS WHO grade 4 followed by 6 months of adjuvant TMZ. Alternating electric field therapy, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, should be considered for these patients. Bevacizumab is not recommended. In situations in which the benefits of 6-week RT plus TMZ may not outweigh the harms, hypofractionated RT plus TMZ is reasonable. In patients age ≥ 60 to ≥ 70 years, with poor performance status or for whom toxicity or prognosis are concerns, best supportive care alone, RT alone (for MGMT promoter unmethylated tumors), or TMZ alone (for MGMT promoter methylated tumors) are reasonable treatment options. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines.

Research Staff Perspectives on Cancer Clinical Trials and Barriers to Recruitment: A Qualitative Research

Background

Clinical trials are key elements of the processes that account for many of the recent advances in cancer care. Unfortunately, they are becoming more challenging to conduct. Furthermore, a large number of clinical trials in oncology close early due to poor accrual. To identify opportunities for continued improvement in clinical trial enrollment, we sought to identify the obstacles encountered by our clinical trial research staff in these activities.

Methods

This is a prospective qualitative study, using Grounded Theory Methodology that was concluded at Stephenson Cancer Center (SCC). SCC has been the lead accruer to National Cancer Institute-Lead Academic Participating Sites (NCI-LAPS) trials over the past three years, and in addition, fields investigator-initiated and industry-sponsored trials.

We conducted a survey of our research staff including all research nurses and disease site coordinators who participate in recruitment, screening, consenting, data collection, and compliance for interventional clinical trials. We then performed a follow-up meeting with our research coordinators to clarify responses. The study objectives were to highlight common barriers to recruiting adult cancer patients, encountered by research coordinators from all disease sites and to propose effective solutions to identified barriers.

Results

We are reporting our results of investigating barriers to clinical trials enrollment from a new perspective. The most commonly reported obstacles for clinical trials enrollment from our research staff's perspective were categorized into five themes: clinical trials protocol, communication barriers and cultural beliefs, financial barriers, patients' comorbidities and performance status, and physicians’ commitment.

Conclusions

Although assessing barriers encountered by clinical research staff is an infrequently used metric for improving clinical trial enrollment, it provides an important perspective in the field. Implementing interventions to improve clinical trial feasibility and accrual is critical to improving cancer care.

Characterizing the relationships between tertiary and community cancer providers: Results from a survey of medical oncologists in Southern California

BACKGROUND

Tertiary cancer centers offer clinical expertise and multi-modal approaches to treatment alongside the integration of research protocols. Nevertheless, most patients receive their cancer care at community practices. A better understanding of the relationships between tertiary and community practice environments may enhance collaborations and advance patient care.

METHODS

A 31-item survey was distributed to community and tertiary oncologists in Southern California using REDCap. Survey questions assessed the following attributes: demographics and features of clinical practice, referral patterns, availability and knowledge of clinical trials and precision medicine, strategies for knowledge acquisition, and integration of community and tertiary practices.

RESULTS

The survey was distributed to 98 oncologists, 85 (87%) of whom completed it. In total, 52 (61%) respondents were community practitioners and 33 (38%) were tertiary oncologists. A majority (56%) of community oncologists defined themselves as general oncologists, whereas almost all (97%) tertiary oncologists reported a subspecialty. Clinical trial availability was the most common reason for patient referrals to tertiary centers (73%). The most frequent barrier to tertiary referral was financial considerations (59%). Clinical trials were offered by 97% of tertiary practitioners compared to 67% of community oncologists (p = 0.001). Most oncologists (82%) reported only a minimal-to-moderate understanding of clinical trials available at regional tertiary centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Community oncologists refer patients to tertiary centers primarily with the intent of clinical trial enrollment; however, significant gaps exist in their knowledge of trial availability. Our results identify the need for enhanced communication and collaboration between community and tertiary providers to expand patients' access to clinical trials.

Randomized trial of a web-based nurse education intervention to increase discussion of clinical trials

Background

Clinical trials are a critical source of evidence for oncology care, yet very few patients participate. Among healthcare providers, nurses spend the most time with cancer patients and are the most highly trusted professionals. We developed and evaluated an educational program for oncology nurses targeting knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and perceived norms to facilitate discussion about clinical trials and support patient decision making.

Methods

A nationwide sample of oncology nurses were randomly assigned to receive general clinical trials education delivered as text (attention control) vs. tailored video vignettes (intervention) in a web-based continuing education program. Participants completed a baseline assessment and follow up assessments immediately after the educational program and three months later. The primary outcome was intention to discuss clinical trials with patients. Secondary outcomes were knowledge and attitudes about clinical trials, self-efficacy, and perceived norms.

Results

1393 nurses enrolled and completed the educational program and post-intervention assessment (720 control, 673 video). Both text education and tailored video education increased intention to discuss clinical trials with patients, with a greater effect in the video group (p < .0001). Likewise, knowledge, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and perceived norms were all improved with education in both groups, and the magnitude of benefit was greater (p < .001) for the video group in all outcomes except knowledge.

Conclusion

A one-time online educational program for oncology nurses improves knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and intention to engage patients in discussions about clinical trials. A tailored video format was associated with a greater effect than standard text only material.

Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Trial Participation: Outcomes of a National Clinical Trial Matching and Navigation Service for Patients With a Blood Cancer

PURPOSE

There are numerous barriers to cancer clinical trial participation in the United States. This paper describes the approach and outcomes of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's Clinical Trial Support Center (CTSC), whose nurse navigators assist patients with a blood cancer and their oncologists by identifying all appropriate trials based on clinical data and patient preference, facilitating informed and shared decision making, and minimizing enrollment barriers.

METHODS

Data on patients served from October 2017 to October 2019 were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate analyses to determine demographic and clinical characteristics associated with enrollment. Reasons for nonenrollment were examined.

RESULTS

The CTSC opened 906 patient cases during this time frame. Among all US patients with a closed case (n = 750), the clinical trial enrollment rate was 16.1%. Among those with a known enrollment outcome after a trial search (n = 537), the enrollment rate was 22.5%. Multivariate analysis controlling for variables significant in bivariate analyses (insurance, treatment status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and urban or rural residence) revealed that patients with Medicaid were less likely to enroll than those with private or commercial insurance (adjusted odds ratio, 0.054; CI, 0.003 to 0.899), and patients in treatment or maintenance were less likely to enroll than those relapsed or refractory to most recent therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.312; CI, 0.139 to 0.702). Primary reasons for nonenrollment were preference for standard of care (66.3%) and patient passed away (16.1%).

CONCLUSION

The CTSC is an effective, replicable model for addressing multilevel barriers to clinical trial participation. The findings highlight the need to increase opportunities for trial participation sooner after diagnosis and among patients with Medicaid.

"When Offered to Participate": A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Agreement to Participate in Cancer Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Patient participation in clinical trials is vital for knowledge advancement and outcomes improvement. Few adult cancer patients participate in trials. Although patient.

decision-making about trial participation has been frequently examined, the participation rate for patients actually offered a trial is unknown.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis using 3 major search engines was undertaken. We identified studies from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2020, that examined clinical trial participation in the United States. Studies must have specified the numbers of patients offered a trial and the number enrolled. A random effects model of proportions was used. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

We identified 35 studies (30 about treatment trials and 5 about cancer control trials) among which 9759 patients were offered trial participation. Overall, 55.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 49.4% to 60.5%) of patients agreed to enroll. Participation rates did not differ between treatment (55.0%, 95% CI = 48.9% to 60.9%) and cancer control trials (55.3%, 95% CI = 38.9% to 71.1%; P = .98). Black patients participated at similar rates (58.4%, 95% CI = 46.8% to 69.7%) compared with White patients (55.1%, 95% CI = 44.3% to 65.6%; P = .88). The main reasons for nonparticipation were treatment choice or lack of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of all cancer patients offered a clinical trial do participate. These findings upend several conventional beliefs about cancer clinical trial participation, including that Black patients are less likely to agree to participate and that patient decision-making is the primary barrier to participation. Policies and interventions to improve clinical trial participation should focus more on modifiable systemic structural and clinical barriers, such as improving access to available trials and broadening eligibility criteria.

Optimizing management of acute leukemia in community centers and when to refer

Treatment of acute leukemia has been delivered predominantly in academic and larger leukemia treatment centers with the infrastructure and staff needed to manage patients receiving complex therapeutic regimens and supportive care. However, in recent years, several oral agents and less-myelosuppressive regimens were approved, making it possible for these patients to receive therapy in smaller community hospitals and oncology office practices. In this review, we discuss the optimum community setting, type of patient who can be treated, agents that can be applied, and an appropriate clinical circumstance in which a referral to a tertiary center should be made.

Factors affecting enrollment in randomized controlled trials conducted for patients with metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

It is critical to obtain informed consent from eligible patients to complete clinical trials. We investigated the factors that affect the participation rates of eligible patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with metastatic breast cancer who were eligible for SELECT BC or SELECT BC-CONFIRM trials, randomized controlled trials conducted for patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic breast cancer were recruited to prospective studies, SELECT BC-FEEL and SELECT BC-FEEL II, respectively. SELECT BC FEEL and SELECT BC-FEEL II were conducted to identify the factors affecting the rates at which informed consent was obtained, using a self-administered questionnaire we developed.

RESULTS

In total, 232 patients participated in the studies. The patients who agreed to take part in the randomized trials were more likely than the refusers to answer that they decided to participate because: 'My doctor wanted me to participate in this trial' (P = 0.00000), ' My family or friends wanted me to participate in this trial' (P = 0.00000), 'Both treatment regimens used in the trial are suitable to me' (P = 0.00383), 'I know that the trial is conducted to determine which is a better treatment' (P = 0.01196), and ' I think that my participation in the trial will contribute to the benefit to future patients with the same disease' (P = 0.00756).

CONCLUSIONS

To enhance the consent rate in randomized trials of metastatic breast cancer patients, concepts of the trials must be considered important and acceptable not only by patients but also by doctors and their families.

Barriers to Participation in Therapeutic Clinical Trials as Perceived by Community Oncologists

PURPOSE

Despite considerable research on the barriers to enrollment in cancer therapeutic trials, few studies have elicited barriers from the perspective of community physicians, who provide the majority of cancer care. The purpose of this study was to characterize barriers to and facilitators of cancer therapeutic trials as perceived by oncologists in community practices.

METHODS

Twenty semistructured interviews were conducted with oncologists at six community sites affiliated with City of Hope National Medical Center from March to June 2018. Responses were recorded digitally and transcribed. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 20 participants, 4 (20%) were women, 13 (65%) had > 10 years of practice experience, and 16 (80%) reported that < 5% of their patients were enrolled in a therapeutic trial. Participants identified four system-level barriers: lack of appropriate trials for community-based settings, insufficient infrastructure support, restrictive eligibility criteria, and financial limitations; three physician-level barriers: lack of awareness of available trials, lack of knowledge of trial details, and lack of time; and two patient-level barriers: patient burden and negative beliefs/attitudes toward research. Efforts aimed to increase trial availability, clinical trial support personnel, and physician knowledge were identified as major facilitators.

CONCLUSION

Community oncologists face numerous complex, multifaceted barriers to cancer therapeutic trial enrollment. Although expanding clinical research beyond the academic setting allows access to a larger and more diverse patient population, increasing generalizability and relevance of trial findings, there remains a substantial need for new strategies to improve cancer research delivery in the community.

Improving the Time to Activation of New Clinical Trials at a National Cancer Institute–Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center

PURPOSE:

The time it takes a performing site to activate a clinical trial can directly affect the ability to provide innovative and state-of-the-art care to patients. We sought to understand the process of activating an oncology clinical trial at a matrix National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center.

METHODS:

A multidisciplinary team of stakeholders within the cancer center, university, and affiliate hospitals held a retreat to map out the process of activating a clinical trial. We applied classical quality improvement and Six Sigma methodology to determine bottlenecks and non–value-added time in activating a clinical trial. During this process, attention was paid to time to pass through each step, and perceived barriers and bottlenecks were identified through group discussions.

RESULTS:

The process map identified 66 steps with 12 decision points to activate a new clinical trial. The following two steps were instituted first: allow parallel scientific committee and institutional review board (IRB) review and allow the clinical research coordination committee, a group that determines university interest and feasibility, to review protocols independent of the IRB and scientific committee approval. The clinical research coordination committee continues to track the activation time, and this framework is used to identify additional improvement steps.

CONCLUSION:

By applying quality improvement methodologies and Six Sigma principles, we were able to identify redundancies in the process to activate a clinical trial. This allowed us to redesign the process of activating a clinical trial at a matrix comprehensive cancer center. More importantly, the process map provides a framework to maintain these gains and implement additional changes and serves as an example to deploy across the campus and at other similar institutions.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Magnitude of Structural, Clinical, and Physician and Patient Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation

BACKGROUND

Barriers to cancer clinical trial participation have been the subject of frequent study, but the rate of trial participation has not changed substantially over time. Studies often emphasize patient-related barriers, but other types of barriers may have greater impact on trial participation. Our goal was to examine the magnitude of different domains of trial barriers by synthesizing prior research.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that examined the trial decision-making pathway using a uniform framework to characterize and quantify structural (trial availability), clinical (eligibility), and patient/physician barrier domains. The systematic review utilized the PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Ovid Medline search engines. We used random effects to estimate rates of different domains across studies, adjusting for academic vs community care settings.

RESULTS

We identified 13 studies (nine in academic and four in community settings) with 8883 patients. A trial was unavailable for patients at their institution 55.6% of the time (95% confidence interval [CI] = 43.7% to 67.3%). Further, 21.5% (95% CI = 10.9% to 34.6%) of patients were ineligible for an available trial, 14.8% (95% CI = 9.0% to 21.7%) did not enroll, and 8.1% (95% CI = 6.3% to 10.0%) enrolled. Rates of trial enrollment in academic (15.9% [95% CI = 13.8% to 18.2%]) vs community (7.0% [95% CI = 5.1% to 9.1%]) settings differed, but not rates of trial unavailability, ineligibility, or non-enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings emphasize the enormous need to address structural and clinical barriers to trial participation, which combined make trial participation unachievable for more than three of four cancer patients.

The trials within cohorts design facilitated efficient patient enrollment and generalizability in oncology setting

OBJECTIVES

The trials within cohorts (TwiCs) design aims to improve recruitment efficiency. We conducted the first TwiCs in radiation oncology and described efficiency of the design and generalizability of the results.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In two radiotherapy centers, patients with rectal cancer were asked to participate in a prospective cohort study and to provide broad consent for randomization and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Consenting patients who met the trial criteria were randomized directly after cohort enrollment. The intervention arm was offered a radiotherapy boost. We evaluated acceptance rate, its impact on sample size, and compared clinical characteristics between trial participants and patients of the Dutch national cancer registry.

RESULTS

128 of the 200 eligible patients (64%) were randomized. Sixty-two patients did not consent (in time) to cohort participation, to broad randomization, or to PROs. Of the 64 patients in the intervention arm, 52 (81%) accepted the intervention. During the trial, the acceptance rate dropped temporarily, after which sample size was adapted. Trial patients were comparable in age, comorbidity, and disease stage to the national rectal cancer population.

CONCLUSIONS

The TwiCs design is feasible, allows enrollment of a high proportion of randomizable patients, with positive impact on trial efficiency and generalizability of results in a clinical oncology setting.

Developing a model to predict accrual to cancer clinical trials: Data from an NCI designated cancer center

INTRODUCTION

As cancer center funds are allocated toward several resources, clinical trial offices and the clinical trial infrastructure is constantly scrutinized. It has been shown that 20% of clinical trials fail to achieve their accrual goal and in an institutional level several trials are open with poor accrual. We sought to identify factors that are associated with clinical trial accrual and develop a model to predict clinical trial accrual.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

We identified all clinical trials from 1999 to 2015 at UT Health Cancer Center San Antonio. We included observational as well as interventional clinical trials. We collected several variables such as type of study, type of malignancy, trial phase, PI of study.

RESULTS

In total we included 297 clinical trials. We identified several factors to be associated with clinical trial accrual (Sponsor type, trial phase, disease category, type of trial, disease state and whether the trial involved a new investigational agent). We developed a predictive model with an AUC of 0.65 that showed that observational, interventional, industry-sponsored trials and trials authored by the local PI were more likely to achieve their accrual goal.

CONCLUSION

We were able to identify several factors that were significantly associated with clinical trial accrual. Based on these factors we developed a prediction model for clinical trial accrual. We believe that use of this model can help improve our cancer centers clinical trial portfolio and help in fund allocation.

Impact of clinical trial participation on survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer: a multi-center analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial (CT) participation may confer access to new, potentially active agents before their general availability. This study aimed to investigate the potential survival benefit of participation in investigational CTs of novel hormonal, chemotherapeutic, and radiopharmaceutical agents in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

METHODS

This multi-center, retrospective analysis included 299 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed, non-metastatic or metastatic CRPC between September 2009 and March 2017. Of these, 65 (21.7%) patients participated in CTs pertaining to systemic treatment targeting CRPC and 234 (78.3%) patients received pre-established, standard systemic treatment outside of a CT setting. The survival advantage of CT participation regarding cancer-specific survival (CSS) was investigated.

RESULTS

An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≥2 at CRPC diagnosis was found in a lower proportion CT participants than in non-participants (4.6% vs. 14.9%; p = 0.033). During the median follow-up period of 16.0 months, CT participants exhibited significantly higher 2-year CSS survival rates (61.3% vs. 42.4%; p = 0.003) than did non-participants. Multivariate analysis identified prostate-specific antigen and alkaline phosphatase levels at CRPC onset, Gleason score ≥ 8, ECOG PS ≥2, less number of docetaxel cycles administered, and non-participation in CTs as independent predictors for a lower risk of CSS.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients diagnosed with CRPC who participated in CTs exhibited longer CSS durations than non-participants who received pre-established, standard systemic therapy outside of a CT setting. Our findings imply that CT participation is associated with CSS, and that CT participation should be offered to patients with CRPC whenever indicated.

Characteristics and outcomes of breast cancer patients enrolled in the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program sponsored phase I clinical trials

PURPOSE

Breast cancer (BC) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death among women. Given the availability of approved therapies and abundance of phase II and III clinical trials, historically few BC patients have been referred for consideration of participation on a phase I trial. We were interested in determining whether clinical benefit rates differed in patients with BC from other patients enrolled in phase I trials.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of all Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) sponsored phase I trials from 1993 to 2012. We report an analysis of demographic variables, rates of response to treatment, grade 4 toxicities, and treatment-related deaths.

RESULTS

De-identified data from 8087 patients were analyzed, with 1,376 having a diagnosis of BC. The median time from initial cancer diagnosis to enrollment in a CTEP-sponsored phase I clinical trial was 614 days for all patients. Breast cancer patients were enrolled on average 790 days after initial diagnosis, while non-BC patients had a median enrollment time of 582 days (p < 0.001). Breast cancer patients had more clinical responses than non-BC patients (18.3% vs. 4.3%, respectively). Along with the higher rate of response, BC patients remained on phase I trials longer than non-BC patients with a median of 70 days while the latter were on trial for a median of 57 days. The overall rate of death related to the treatment drugs was 0.47%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data confirm our hypothesis that when compared to a general population of patients with cancer enrolled on phase I clinical trials, BC patients tend to derive clinical benefit from these therapies with similar toxicity profile. This evidence further supports enrollment of BC patients on phase I trials.

Measuring Cohesion and Self-Disclosure in Psychotherapy Groups for Patients with Advanced Cancer: An Analysis of the Psychometric Properties of the Group Therapy Experience Scale

Objectives

Understanding the group process informs group interventions. However, there is little systematic research on group process variables in psychotherapy groups for patients with cancer.

Methods

We analyzed the psychometric properties of the Group Therapy Experience Scale and evaluated its potential importance in advanced cancer therapy groups.

Results

The GTES demonstrated good internal consistency (coefficient alpha=.84). An exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation yielded four factors. Although all four models were explored, the 1- and 2-factor models appeared to provide the best fit for the data. The GTES total score was negatively correlated with group size and positively correlated with number of groups attended by participants. Furthermore, the GTES total score was correlated with post-intervention spiritual well-being, benefit finding, post-traumatic growth and quality of life.

Analysis of Common Eligibility Criteria of Randomized Controlled Trials in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients and Extrapolating Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The performance of multiple myeloma (MM) therapies in a general patient population and specific eligibility criteria that might limit enrollment into randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not been evaluated in depth. This study aimed to determine if improvements seen with MM therapies in RCTs are reflected in the general patient population and to identify eligibility criteria that can be modified to increase enrollment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Connect MM Registry is a prospective observational cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) in the United States. Using common RCT exclusion criteria collected from 16 published studies, patients in the registry were categorized according to their eligibility for inclusion in RCTs.

RESULTS

On the basis of common criteria, 563 of 1406 of registry patients (40.0%) are ineligible for RCTs. Criteria leading to exclusion included M-protein ≤ 1.0 g/dL (25.2%), creatinine > 2.5 mg/dL (13.9%), low absolute neutrophil count (10.0%), and low hemoglobin (9.6%). Significantly more RCT-ineligible versus RCT-eligible patients had hypercalcemia (11.0% vs. 5.5%), elevated creatinine levels (38.9% vs. 6.2%), low hemoglobin levels (59.5% vs. 39.5%), or International Staging System stage III disease (40.1% vs. 22.1%; P < .001 for all comparisons). RCT-ineligible patients had a lower 3-year survival rate than RCT-eligible patients (63% vs. 70%). The incidence of serious adverse events was similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Of patients with NDMM enrolled in the Connect MM Registry, 40% are ineligible for RCTs. This study provides insight into potential modifications of standard eligibility criteria that can lead to improved RCT design and accelerated enrollment.

Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation Among Saudi Nationals: A Cross-Sectional Study

This study aims to determine the factors that act as barriers to Saudi cancer patients in participating in a clinical trial (CT). A total of 244 patients from two different tertiary level hospitals (King Khalid University Hospital and King Fahad Medical City Hospital) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, participated in this cross-sectional study. The participants were interviewed by a trained researcher between September and November 2015. All respondents answered a three-part questionnaire which includes demographics, clinical information, and questions related to awareness of CTs, willingness to participate, and factors affecting participation in CTs. The mean age of the participants was 50.83, and 57 % of the participants were females. Most of the participants (63.5 %) were currently being treated for cancer, and 28 % were diagnosed with breast cancer followed by colorectal cancer. Health status or quality of life was self-reported as acceptable by 27.9 % of the participants, and 25 % of the participants at stage II of cancer. The factors that act as barriers to Saudi cancer patients in participating in a CT can be categorized into patient- and physician-related factors. Patient factors include lack of awareness, misconception and fear in participating in CTs; physician-related factors comprise of lack of encouragement from physician to patients in participating in a CT. The study identified few major barriers to participation in CTs. Increased patient awareness and recruitment strategies are required to increase accrual of patients including training for physicians and disseminating easy-to-read tools to the public.

Searching for cures: Inner-city and rural patients' awareness and perceptions of cancer clinical trials

Fewer than 5% of cancer patients participate in clinical trials, making it challenging to test new therapies or interventions for cancer. Even within that small number, patients living in inner-city and rural areas are underrepresented in clinical trials. This study explores cancer patients' awareness and perceptions of cancer clinical trials, as well as their perceptions of patient-provider interactions related to discussing cancer clinical trials in order to improve accrual in cancer clinical trials. Interviews with 66 former and current in inner-city and rural cancer patients revealed a lack of awareness and understanding about clinical trials, as well as misconceptions about what clinical trials entail. Findings also revealed that commercials and television shows play a prominent role in forming inner-city and rural patients' attitudes and/or misconceptions about clinical trials. However, rural patients were more likely to hold unfavorable views about clinical trials than inner-city patients. Patient-provider discussions emerged as being crucial for increasing awareness of clinical trials among patients and recruiting them to trials. Findings from this study will inform communication strategies to enhance recruitment to cancer clinical trials by increasing awareness and countering misconceptions about clinical trials.

Factors associated with non-participation and dropout among cancer patients in a cluster-randomised controlled trial

We investigated the impact of demographic and disease related factors on non-participation and dropout in a cluster-randomised behavioural trial in cancer patients with measurements taken between hospitalisation and 6 months thereafter. The percentages of non-participation and dropout were documented at each time point. Factors considered to be potentially related with non-participation and dropout were as follows: age, sex, marital status, education, income, employment status, tumour site and stage of disease. Of 1,338 eligible patients, 24% declined participation at baseline. Non-participation was higher in older patients (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.1, CI: 0.6-0.9) and those with advanced disease (OR 2.0, CI: 0.1-1.3). Dropout by 6 months was 25%. Dropout was more frequent with increased age (OR 2.8, CI: 0.8-1.2), advanced disease (OR 3.0, CI: 1.0-1.2), being married (OR 2.4, CI 0.7-1.1) and less frequent with university education (OR 0.4, CI -1.3 to -0.8) and middle income (OR 0.4, CI -0.9 to -0.7). When planning clinical trials, it is important to be aware of patient groups at high risk of non-participation or dropout, for example older patients or those with advanced disease. Trial designs should consider their special needs to increase their rate of participation.

Novel Methodology for Comparing Standard-of-Care Interventions in Patients With Cancer

Purpose:

The current clinical trials development and conduct process is cumbersome and expensive, with the majority of studies focusing on either the development of new agents or new indications for established agents. Unfortunately, research comparing standard-of-care interventions is rarely performed, leaving many important and practical patient-centered questions unanswered. Novel clinical trial methodologies and approaches are needed.

Methods:

We have identified simple key components that, when combined, enhance the ability to both perform and increase accrual for studies that compare standard-of-care interventions. These include selection of clinically relevant and practical questions, demonstration of clinical equipoise through surveys of knowledge users and completion of systematic reviews, appropriate study design and simply defined study end points, use of an integrated consent model incorporating oral consent, efficient research ethics board approval, Web-based randomization in the clinic, real-time electronic data capture and management, and regular formal team feedback.

Results:

We have demonstrated the feasibility of this model in a pragmatic trial comparing two standard-of-care interventions (growth factor support or ciprofloxacin) for the primary prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant docetaxel with cyclophosphamide chemotherapy. Research ethics board approval took 3 months, and 110 (72%) of 153 potentially eligible patients have agreed to participate in the study. When surveyed, 81 (85%) of 95 patients were completely satisfied with the integrated consent model process.

Conclusion:

Our proposed model contains elements that, when used alone or in combination, may allow efficient and cost-effective comparison of standard-of-care interventions.

Examining Differences in Opportunity and Eligibility for Cancer Clinical Trial Participation Based on Sociodemographic and Disease Characteristics

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To examine differences in opportunity and eligibility for cancer clinical trial (CCT) participation based on sociodemographic and disease characteristics.
.

DESIGN

A matched cross-sectional study including a prospective oral questionnaire and retrospective electronic medical record (EMR) review.
.

SETTING

A single hospital in a large academic National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
.

SAMPLE

44 Black or Hispanic and 44 Non-Hispanic White newly diagnosed individuals matched on cancer type and age (plus or minus five years).
.

METHODS

Participants answered a questionnaire to capture self-reported opportunity for CCT participation, sociodemographic information, and cancer type. With consent, the authors completed a retrospective review of the EMR to assess eligibility and collect cancer stage and performance status.
.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

Opportunity and eligibility for CCT participation.
.

FINDINGS

Most participants (78%) had no opportunity for participation and were ineligible for all available trials. No differences were noted in opportunity for participation or eligibility based on race or ethnicity. Participants with late-stage disease were more likely to have opportunity and be eligible for CCT participation (p = 0.001). Those with private insurance were less likely to have opportunity for participation (p = 0.05).
.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited trial availability and ineligibility negatively influenced opportunity for CCT participation for all populations. Levels of under-representation for CCT participation likely vary within and across sociodemographic and disease characteristics, as well as across healthcare settings.
.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

The unique roles of nurse navigators and advanced practice nurses can be leveraged to increase opportunities for CCT participation for all populations.

Clinician Perspectives on Current Issues in Lung Cancer Drug Development

Recent advances in molecularly targeted therapy and immunotherapy offer a glimmer of hope for potentially realizing the dream of personalized therapy for lung cancer. This article highlights current questions in clinical trial design, enrollment strategies and patient focused drug development, with particular emphasis on unique issues in trials of targeted therapy and immunotherapy.

Patient Navigation As a Model to Increase Participation of African Americans in Cancer Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

Less than 10% of patients enrolled in clinical trials are minorities. The patient navigation model has been used to improve access to medical care but has not been evaluated as a tool to increase the participation of minorities in clinical trials. The Increasing Minority Participation in Clinical Trials project used patient navigators (PNs) to enhance the recruitment of African Americans for and their retention in therapeutic cancer clinical trials in a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center.

METHODS

Lay individuals were hired and trained to serve as PNs for clinical trials. African American patients potentially eligible for clinical trials were identified through chart review or referrals by clinic nurses, physicians, and social workers. PNs provided two levels of services: education about clinical trials and tailored support for patients who enrolled in clinical trials.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2014, 424 African American patients with cancer were referred to the Increasing Minority Participation in Clinical Trials project. Of those eligible for a clinical trial (N = 378), 304 (80.4%) enrolled in a trial and 272 (72%) consented to receive patient navigation support. Of those receiving patient navigation support, 74.5% completed the trial, compared with 37.5% of those not receiving patient navigation support. The difference in retention rates between the two groups was statistically significant (P < .001). Participation of African Americans in therapeutic cancer clinical trials increased from 9% to 16%.

CONCLUSION

Patient navigation for clinical trials successfully retained African Americans in therapeutic trials compared with non-patient navigation trial participation. The model holds promise as a strategy to reduce disparities in cancer clinical trial participation. Future studies should evaluate it with racial/ethnic minorities across cancer centers.

Utility of a molecular prescreening program in advanced colorectal cancer for enrollment on biomarker-selected clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Incorporation of multiple enrichment biomarkers into prospective clinical trials is an active area of investigation, but the factors that determine clinical trial enrollment following a molecular prescreening program have not been assessed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with 5-fluorouracil-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer at the MD Anderson Cancer Center were offered screening in the Assessment of Targeted Therapies Against Colorectal Cancer (ATTACC) program to identify eligibility for companion phase I or II clinical trials with a therapy targeted to an aberration detected in the patient, based on testing by immunohistochemistry, targeted gene sequencing panels, and CpG island methylation phenotype assays.

RESULTS

Between August 2010 and December 2013, 484 patients were enrolled, 458 (95%) had a biomarker result, and 157 (32%) were enrolled on a clinical trial (92 on biomarker-selected and 65 on nonbiomarker selected). Of the 458 patients with a biomarker result, enrollment on biomarker-selected clinical trials was ninefold higher for predefined ATTACC-companion clinical trials as opposed to nonpredefined biomarker-selected clinical trials, 17.9% versus 2%, P < 0.001. Factors that correlated positively with trial enrollment in multivariate analysis were higher performance status, older age, lack of standard of care therapy, established patient at MD Anderson, and the presence of an eligible biomarker for an ATTACC-companion study. Early molecular screening did result in a higher rate of patients with remaining standard of care therapy enrolling on ATTACC-companion clinical trials, 45.1%, in contrast to nonpredefined clinical trials, 22.7%; odds ratio 3.1, P = 0.002.

CONCLUSIONS

Though early molecular prescreening for predefined clinical trials resulted in an increase rate of trial enrollment of nonrefractory patients, the majority of patients enrolled on clinical trials were refractory to standard of care therapy. Within molecular prescreening programs, tailoring screening for preidentified and open clinical trials, temporally linking screening to treatment and optimizing both patient and physician engagement are efforts likely to improve enrollment on biomarker-selected clinical trials.

CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER

The study NCT number is NCT01196130.

A Comprehensive Program for the Enhancement of Accrual to Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (OSUCCC) embarked on a single institution campaign over 2 years to enhance the enrollment of cancer patients into therapeutic clinical trials. The goal of this campaign was to achieve a 40 % increase in accrual over a 2-year period.

METHODS

The entire process of accruing patients to clinical trials at the OSUCCC was carefully evaluated and broken down into several interlocking components. The four key areas of emphasis were as follows: (i) tasking of OSUCCC leadership with increased oversight of the entire process; (ii) education of all stakeholders [patients, their families, nurses and staff, physicians (both internal and external), Disease-Specific Committees (DSCs), and the OSUCCC leadership] as to the purpose, advantages, and availability of clinical trials, with an emphasis on accrual to cancer clinical trials (CCTs) being a critical function of all OSUCCC employees; (iii) increased oversight of the portfolio of clinical trials by DSCs; and (iv) optimization of accrual operations and infrastructure center-wide.

RESULTS

The accrual goal was achieved a full 4 months ahead of schedule. In total, 2327 patients were accrued to therapeutic clinical trials over the course of this 2-year campaign. Prior to implementation of the accrual program, the accrual rate was consistently below 15 %. From 2009 onwards, the therapeutic accrual rate was always greater than 25 %.

CONCLUSIONS

A campaign to educate key stakeholders in the clinical trials accrual process was successful in its goal of increasing accrual to therapeutic trials.

Randomized Trial of a Web-Based Intervention to Address Barriers to Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

Lack of knowledge and negative attitudes have been identified as barriers to participation in clinical trials by patients with cancer. We developed Preparatory Education About Clinical Trials (PRE-ACT), a theory-guided, Web-based, interactive computer program, to deliver tailored video educational content to patients in an effort to overcome barriers to considering clinical trials as a treatment option.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective, randomized clinical trial compared PRE-ACT with a control condition that provided general clinical trials information produced by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in text format. One thousand two hundred fifty-five patients with cancer were randomly allocated before their initial visit with an oncologist to PRE-ACT (n = 623) or control (n = 632). PRE-ACT had three main components: assessment of clinical trials knowledge and attitudinal barriers, values assessment with clarification back to patients, and provision of a video library tailored to address each patient's barriers. Outcomes included knowledge and attitudes and preparation for decision making about clinical trials.

RESULTS

Both PRE-ACT and control interventions improved knowledge and attitudes (all P < .001) compared with baseline. Patients randomly allocated to PRE-ACT showed a significantly greater increase in knowledge (P < .001) and a significantly greater decrease in attitudinal barriers (P < .001) than did their control (text-only) counterparts. Participants in both arms significantly increased their preparedness to consider clinical trials (P < .001), and there was a trend favoring the PRE-ACT group (P < .09). PRE-ACT was also associated with greater patient satisfaction than was NCI text alone.

CONCLUSION

These data show that patient education before the first oncologist visit improves knowledge, attitudes, and preparation for decision making about clinical trials. Both text and tailored video were effective. The PRE-ACT interactive video program was more effective than NCI text in improving knowledge and reducing attitudinal barriers.

Making the Case to Study the Volume-Outcome Relationship in Hematologic Cancers

The positive relationship between the volume of health services (hospital and physician) and health-related outcomes is established in the complex surgical treatment of cancers and certain nononcologic medical conditions. However, this topic has not been systematically explored in the medical management of cancers. We summarize the limited current state of knowledge about the volume-outcome relationship in the management of hematologic cancers and provide reasons why further research on this subject is necessary. We highlight the relatively low annual volume of hematologic cancers in the United States, the increasing complexity of making a diagnosis due to constant change in classification and prognostication, the rapid availability of novel agents with unique mechanisms of action and toxicities, and the proliferation of treatment guidelines distinct to each disease subtype. We also discuss the potential implications pertaining to medical practice and trainee education, including effects on quality of care, access and referral patterns, and subspecialty training.

Perceptions of Cancer Clinical Research Among African American Men in North Carolina

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the men and women who participated in our Focus Groups and shared with us their very personal cancer experience. Their insight is valuable, and will inform and improve cancer care for future generations. The authors thank the Greensboro area Community Research Advocates - especially April Durr, Elvira Mebane, Marie McAdoo, Kathy Norcott, and Cindy Taylor - who assisted in the conduct of the study, including interpretation of results. They also thank Gratia Wright of First Research Group for her expertise in moderating and executing all of the focus groups, and Lindsey Haynes-Maslow for her assistance in responding to reviewer comments. The study was funded as a part of the Carolina Community Network program, funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (U01-CA114629). This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

OBJECTIVE

The problem of cancer health disparities is substantial. Clinical trials are widely advocated as a means of reducing disparities and bringing state-of-the-art care to the broader community, where most cancer care is delivered. This study sought to develop a better understanding of why disproportionately few African American men enroll in clinical trials given their substantial cancer burden.

DESIGN

This study applied community-based participatory research (CBPR) methods to design and conduct four focus groups of African American male cancer survivors and their caregivers in North Carolina.

RESULTS

Among major themes, participants expressed confusion about the relationship between clinical trials, treatment, and research: signifying patient confusion and misinterpretation of common clinical trial terminology. Social norms including gender barriers and generational differences remain problematic; participants often reported that men do not talk about health issues, are unwilling to go to the doctor, and exhibit misapprehension and distrust regarding trials. Participants perceived this misunderstanding as detrimental to community health and expressed the need for more clarity in clinical trials information and a more fundamental social openness and communication about cancer detection and treatment.

CONCLUSION

Findings indicate the importance of clinical trial education in both traditional provider referral to trials and also in general patient navigation. To dispel pervasive misapprehension regarding placebos, clinical trial information should emphasize the role of standard care in modern cancer treatment trials. Many participants described willingness to participate in a trial upon physician recommendation, suggesting merit in improving patient-physician communication through culturally competent terminology and trial referral systems.

Cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation: an integrative review with implications for patients' relational autonomy

PURPOSE

Oncology clinical trials are necessary for the improvement of patient care as they have the ability to confirm the efficacy and safety of novel cancer treatments and in so doing, contribute to a solid evidence base on which practitioners and patients can make informed treatment decisions. However, only 3-5 % of adult cancer patients enroll in clinical trials. Lack of participation compromises the success of clinical trials and squanders an opportunity for improving patient outcomes. This literature review summarizes the factors and contexts that influence cancer patient decision making related to clinical trial participation.

METHODS

An integrative review was undertaken within PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases for articles written between 1995 and 2012 and archived under relevant keywords. Articles selected were data-based, written in English, and limited to adult cancer patients.

RESULTS

In the 51 articles reviewed, three main types of factors were identified that influence cancer patients' decision making about participation in clinical trials: personal, social, and system factors. Subthemes included patients' trust in their physician and the research process, undue influence within the patient-physician relationship, and systemic social inequalities. How these factors interact and influence patients' decision-making process and relational autonomy, however, is insufficiently understood.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research is needed to further elucidate the sociopolitical barriers and facilitators of clinical trial participation and to enhance ethical practice within clinical trial enrolment. This research will inform targeted education and support interventions to foster patients' relational autonomy in the decision-making process and potentially improve clinical trial participation rates.

Improving clinical trial accrual by streamlining the referral process

OBJECTIVE

Poor accrual rates impede clinical trial efficiency and significantly contribute to development costs for new interventions. Many providers recognize investigational treatments are their patients' best opportunities for improvement, but operational clinical burdens impede providers' awareness of, and ability to leverage, such opportunities. We aimed to develop a new workflow for non-intrusively apprising providers of trial opportunities for their patients and enabling providers to efficiently refer potential trial candidates to study teams for preliminary eligibility review.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a small information system to monitor institutional systems, identify patients potentially eligible for ongoing clinical trials, and give providers a non-intrusive, one-click method to refer such patients to study teams for preliminary eligibility vetting.

RESULTS

In 18 months of pilot experience, providers invited study teams to vet 11% of 1844 patients found potentially eligible for 38 trials registered with the system. Seventy-nine patients were conservatively estimated to be accrued. Accrual rates were boosted for several trials. Results of a survey indicated most users were satisfied with the system.

DISCUSSION

Providers' time constraints impede their pursuit of investigational opportunities for their patients. In pilot experience, our novel approach to facilitating such pursuits yielded improved accrual, benefiting trials and presumably patients, too. Our approach may bear particular fruit for cross-disciplinary referrals for screening.

CONCLUSION

Systems for assisting providers in making investigational opportunities available to their patients may benefit from careful attention to provider workflow and time constraints. Our system might further benefit from improved patient/trial matching and shorter messages.

Discussions about clinical trials among patients with newly diagnosed lung and colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are essential to establish the effectiveness of new cancer therapies, but less than 5% of adults with cancer enroll in trials. In addition to ineligibility or lack of available trials, barriers to enrollment may include limited patient awareness about the option of participation.

METHODS

We surveyed a multiregional cohort of patients with lung or colorectal cancer (or their surrogates) three to six months after diagnosis. We assessed whether respondents reported learning that clinical trial participation might be an option, and, if so, with whom they discussed trials. We used logistic regression to assess the association of patient characteristics with discussing trial participation and enrolling in trials. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Of 7887 respondents, 1114 (14.1%) reported discussing the possibility of clinical trial participation; most learned about trials from their physicians, and 287 patients (3.6% of all patients, 25.8% of trial discussants) enrolled. Among 2173 patients who received chemotherapy for advanced (stage III/IV lung or stage IV colorectal) cancer, 25.7% discussed trials, and 7.6% (29.5% of trial discussants) enrolled. Discussions were less frequent among older patients, African American or Asian vs white patients, and those with lower incomes and more comorbidity. Enrollment was higher among patients reporting shared vs physician-driven decisions (all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based cohort, only 14% of patients discussed participation in clinical trials. Discussions were more frequent among advanced cancer patients but were still reported by a minority of patients. Strategies to expand access to trials and facilitate patient-provider communication about participation may accelerate development of better cancer therapeutics.

Barriers to medical research participation as perceived by clinical trial investigators: communicating with rural and african american communities

Clinical trials help advance public health and medical research on prevention, diagnosis, screening, treatment, and quality of life. Despite the need for access to quality care in medically underserved areas, clinical trial participation remains low among individuals in rural and African American communities. This study assessed clinical trial research in South Carolina's five main academic medical centers, focusing specifically on clinical trial investigators' perceived barriers to recruitment in the general population and in rural and African American communities. Online survey responses (N = 119) revealed that it was most difficult for investigators to recruit from rural areas and that rural residents were least likely to be represented in medical research, behind both the general public and African Americans. Barriers focusing on communication or awareness proved to be the biggest hurdles to finding potential participants in both the general public and rural communities. Psychological barriers to recruitment were perceived to be most prevalent in African American communities. Study findings provide important insights from the perspective of the clinical trial investigator that will aid in the development of effective communication and education strategies for reaching rural and African American residents with information about clinical trials.

Application of best practice approaches for designing decision support tools: the preparatory education about clinical trials (PRE-ACT) study

OBJECTIVE

This article describes the rigorous development process and initial feedback of the PRE-ACT (Preparatory Education About Clinical Trials) web-based- intervention designed to improve preparation for decision making in cancer clinical trials.

METHODS

The multi-step process included stakeholder input, formative research, user testing and feedback. Diverse teams (researchers, advocates and developers) participated including content refinement, identification of actors, and development of video scripts. Patient feedback was provided in the final production period and through a vanguard group (N=100) from the randomized trial.

RESULTS

Patients/advocates confirmed barriers to cancer clinical trial participation, including lack of awareness and knowledge, fear of side effects, logistical concerns, and mistrust. Patients indicated they liked the tool's user-friendly nature, the organized and comprehensive presentation of the subject matter, and the clarity of the videos.

CONCLUSION

The development process serves as an example of operationalizing best practice approaches and highlights the value of a multi-disciplinary team to develop a theory-based, sophisticated tool that patients found useful in their decision making process. Practice implications Best practice approaches can be addressed and are important to ensure evidence-based tools that are of value to patients and supports the usefulness of a process map in the development of e-health tools.

African American women's perceptions of cancer clinical trials

Cancer clinical trials are important for resolving cancer health disparities for several reasons; however, clinical trial participation among African Americans is significantly lower than Caucasians. This study engaged focus groups of 82 female African American cancer survivors or cancer caregivers, including those in better resourced, more urban areas and less resourced, more rural areas. Informed by an integrated conceptual model, the focus groups examined perceptions of cancer clinical trials and identified leverage points that future interventions may use to improve enrollment rates. Study findings highlight variation in community knowledge regarding cancer clinical trials, and the importance of community education regarding clinical trials and overcoming historical stigma associated with clinical research specifically and the health care system more generally. Study participants commented on the centrality of churches in their communities, and thus the promise of the church as loci of such education. Findings also suggested the value of informed community leaders as community information sources, including community members who have a previous diagnosis of cancer and clinical trial experience. The sample size and location of the focus groups may limit the generalizability of the results. Since the women in the focus groups were either cancer survivors or caregivers, they may have different experiences than nonparticipants who lack the close connection with cancer. Trust in the health system and in one's physician was seen as important factors associated with patient willingness to enroll in clinical trials, and participants suggested that physicians who were compassionate and who engaged and educated their patients would build important trust requisite for patient participation in clinical trials.