1
|
Odedina FT, Wieland ML, Barbel-Johnson K, Crook JM. Community Engagement Strategies for Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Populations. Mayo Clin Proc 2024; 99:159-171. [PMID: 38176825 PMCID: PMC11423934 DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2023.07.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2022] [Revised: 07/17/2023] [Accepted: 07/18/2023] [Indexed: 01/06/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Mark L Wieland
- Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Jennifer M Crook
- Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sayegh CS, Iverson E, MacDonell KK, West AE, Belzer M. Pediatric subspecialty health care providers' views of recruitment during a randomized controlled trial of a mobile health intervention. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2023; 33:101121. [PMID: 37091506 PMCID: PMC10119496 DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2023.101121] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2022] [Revised: 03/16/2023] [Accepted: 03/23/2023] [Indexed: 03/30/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling pediatric populations often struggle with recruitment. Engaging healthcare providers in the recruitment process may increase patients' and caregivers' willingness to participate in research. The purpose of this study was to understand the perspectives of pediatric subspecialty healthcare providers considering recruiting patients to participate in an mobile health (mHealth) RCT. Methods We conducted 9 semi-structured interviews and 1 focus group with a total of N = 11 providers from various disciplines before the initiation of an mHealth RCT addressing medication nonadherence. Then, we conducted 5 follow-up interviews and 1 follow-up focus group with a total of 8 of these providers several months later. We used thematic analysis to generate themes describing providers' views of the RCT and patient recruitment. Results Providers indicated that they were willing to recruit for this study because they believed that the intervention sought to address a significant problem. They also thought it made sense to intervene using technology for this age group. However, many providers thought that certain patients (e.g., those with mild, shorter-lasting adherence difficulties) were the most appropriate to recruit. They described how keeping the trial front of mind facilitated recruitment, and they advised researchers to use strategies to promote their ongoing awareness of the study if conducting similar research in the future. Conclusion Pediatric healthcare providers are important stakeholders in mHealth intervention research. Engaging them in participant recruitment is a complex endeavor that might promote patient enrollment, but their views of research and demanding clinical roles are important to understand when designing study procedures.
Collapse
|
3
|
Bylund CL, Michaels M, Weiss ES, Patel S, D'Agostino TA, Binz-Scharf MC, McKee D. The Impact of an Online Training Program About Cancer Clinical Trials on Primary Care Physicians' Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs, and Behavior. JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER EDUCATION 2021; 36:1039-1044. [PMID: 32157570 PMCID: PMC7483356 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-020-01731-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Abstract
Participation in cancer clinical trials (CCTs) is critical to improving cancer treatments and quality of care. However, rates of patient participation remain low. Research has shown that a trusted physician recommendation is an important influence on patients' decisions to enroll in a CCT. Improving primary care providers' (PCPs') knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about CCTs is a promising potential path for improving CCT participation. The aim of this pilot study was to test the effect of an online educational course for PCPs about clinical trials on primary care providers' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, and behavior. Forty-one PCPs in the New York City area participated in a 1-h online training session on cancer clinical trials. These PCPs had self-selected to complete the training in a previous survey. The objectives of the training module were to (1) educate the PCPs about clinical trials, with a focus on overcoming misconceptions; and (2) discuss roles of PCPs in partnering with oncologists to help patients gain access to clinical trials. The training module included didactics, audio excerpts, and case descriptions. Participants completed a pre-test immediately before taking the course, a post-test immediately after taking the course, and a 3-month post-course survey. All three assessments included a general T/F knowledge test, a 7-item attitude/belief scale, and a knowledge test focused specifically on local resources and access for clinical trials. Forty-one PCPs completed the module and the pre-post course surveys. Eighty percent (33/41) also completed the 3-month post-course survey. General knowledge and local knowledge increased significantly (p < .05) from pre- to post-course. At 3 months post-training, both general and local knowledge scores remained significantly increased from baseline. For those who completed the 3-month post-course survey, attitudes and beliefs increased significantly from pre- to post-course, but this change was not sustained at 3 months post-training. At 3 months post-training, 52% of the PCPs who had an interaction with a recently diagnosed cancer patient reported speaking with patients about CCTs as a result of the training. A brief online course showed significant and sustained improvement in PCPs' general and local knowledge about cancer clinical trials, which translated into self-reported behavior change. Future dissemination of the course and further research into its impact are important next steps.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carma L Bylund
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
- University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.
| | - Margo Michaels
- Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda, USA
- Health Access and Action Consulting Newton, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Elisa S Weiss
- Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, USA
- The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Rye Brook, NY, USA
| | - Shilpa Patel
- Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, USA
- The Center for Health Care Strategies, Hamilton, USA
| | - Thomas A D'Agostino
- Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
- Albany Stratton VA Medical Center, Albany, USA
| | | | - Diane McKee
- Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, USA
- Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Wang Z, Chen G, Liu X, Liu C, Song Q, Wang J. The motivations, barriers, and sociodemographic characteristics of healthy Chinese volunteers in phase I research. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2020; 77:557-568. [PMID: 33188452 DOI: 10.1007/s00228-020-03040-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2020] [Accepted: 11/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To describe the motivations, barriers, and sociodemographic characteristics of healthy Chinese volunteers in phase I research and to demonstrate the factors influencing their willingness to participate in subsequent trials. METHODS Healthy subjects who participated in seven phase I trials at two centres were invited to participate in the cross-sectional survey at discharge by anonymously and voluntarily completing the self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS From 442 subjects asked to complete the questionnaire, a response rate of 94.8% (419) was obtained, and 72.8% of the respondents had participated in a mean of 2.0 ± 1.3 previous studies. Over 90% of the subjects indicated that the main motivations to participate trials were to help more people, to contribute to scientific research, and to obtain money. The top 5 barriers were time inconvenience, advertisement sources, potential risks associated with the drug, privacy, and the route of drug administration. Nearly half (49.6%) of the subjects were willing to participate in the next trial. The factors impacting the willingness of the subjects to participate in subsequent trials were gender, screening frequency, enrolment frequency, level of understanding of the research, two motivating factors (to make money and receive a free check-up), and ten barriers (e.g. risk, distance, living conditions, and trust). CONCLUSIONS The majority of healthy Chinese subjects were young, were less well educated, had low income levels, and had poor medical insurance coverage. Given the multiple sources of motivation and complex barriers to trial participation, investigators and recruitment staff should consider ethics aspects to guarantee volunteer safety and well-being.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zejuan Wang
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Aerospace Center Hospital, 15 Yuquan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100049, People's Republic of China
| | - Gang Chen
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Aerospace Center Hospital, 15 Yuquan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100049, People's Republic of China
| | - Xiaona Liu
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Aerospace Center Hospital, 15 Yuquan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100049, People's Republic of China
| | - Chen Liu
- Phase I Clinical Trial Centre, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, 10 Tieyi Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100038, People's Republic of China
| | - Qingkun Song
- Department of Science and Technology, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, 10 Tieyi Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100038, People's Republic of China
| | - Jin Wang
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Aerospace Center Hospital, 15 Yuquan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100049, People's Republic of China.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Bell JAH, Kelly MT, Gelmon K, Chi K, Ho A, Rodney P, Balneaves LG. Gatekeeping in cancer clinical trials in Canada: The ethics of recruiting the "ideal" patient. Cancer Med 2020; 9:4107-4113. [PMID: 32314549 PMCID: PMC7300392 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2020] [Revised: 02/28/2020] [Accepted: 03/12/2020] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Perspectives of clinical trial (CT) personnel on accrual to oncology CTs are relatively absent from the literature. This study explores CT personnel's experience recruiting patients to oncology CTs. Methods A qualitative study design was utilized. In‐depth, individual interviews with 12 oncology CT personnel were conducted, including six CT nurses and six physician‐investigators. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were subjected to thematic and ethical analysis to identify key concepts and themes. Results CT personnel reported considering two ethical commitments in CT recruitment: maintaining trial integrity and ensuring patient autonomy through obtaining informed consent. The process of gatekeeping emerged as a way to navigate these ethical commitments during CT accrual. Gatekeeping was influenced by: (a) perceptions of patients’ personal suitability for a trial, and (b) healthcare resources and infrastructure. CT personnel's discernment of personal suitability was influenced by patients’ cognitive and mental health status, language and cultural background, geographic location, family support, and disease status. Three structural factors impacted gatekeeping: complexity of CTs, consent process, and time limitations in the healthcare system. CT personnel experienced most factors as constraints to accrual and gaining patients’ informed consent. Conclusion CT personnel discussed navigating ethical challenges in CT recruitment by offering enrollment to specific patient populations, exacerbating other ethical tensions. Systems‐level strategies are needed to address barriers to ethical CT recruitment. Future research should investigate the role of policies and/or tools (eg, decision aids) to support patients and CT personnel's discussions about CT participation, promote more ethical recruitment, and potentially increase accrual.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer A H Bell
- University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Karen Gelmon
- University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Kim Chi
- University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Anita Ho
- University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.,University of California, Oakland, CA, USA.,Centre for Health Evaluation & Outcomes Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Barakat LP, Stevens E, Li Y, Reilly A, Deatrick JA, Goldstein NE, Schwartz LA. Evaluation of the Pediatric Research Participation Questionnaire for Measuring Attitudes Toward Cancer Clinical Trials Among Adolescents and Young Adults. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol 2019; 8:423-433. [PMID: 31025898 PMCID: PMC8666797 DOI: 10.1089/jayao.2018.0144] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose: Reasons for the relatively low rates of adolescent and young adults (AYA) enrollment in cancer clinical trials in the United States require further empirical examination. In addition to structural factors such as lack of access and insurance barriers, attitudes toward clinical trials may be important to consider. This study aimed to evaluate and validate the Pediatric Research Participation Questionnaire (PRPQ)-a measure of attitudes to clinical trials adapted for AYA (15-29) with cancer and their caregivers. Methods: One hundred twenty-four AYA and 94 caregivers completed the PRPQ-AYA and measures of clinical trial knowledge and developmental/emotional maturity. Factor analysis evaluated the PRPQ-AYA structure, interitem reliability was computed, and Pearson correlations examined associations of validation measures with factor scores and computed scores reflecting perceived barriers, perceived benefits, and decision balance. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis did not confirm the prior PRPQ factor structure. Exploratory factor analysis suggested a new four-factor structure for: AYA (1) trust/mistrust, (2) barriers/costs, (3) support for participation, and (4) incentives; and caregivers (1) trust/access, (2) mistrust/costs, (3) support for participation, and (4) risks to AYA. Factor scores and barriers, benefits, and decision balance scores demonstrated acceptable interitem reliability and were significantly correlated with clinical trial knowledge and emotional maturity in the expected direction. Conclusion: PRPQ-AYA factor structure for AYA and caregivers varied and should be interpreted cautiously due to limited power. Simple solutions of perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and decision balance were reliable and valid and provide important information to address and engage AYA through the clinical trial informed consent process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lamia P. Barakat
- Division of Oncology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Evelyn Stevens
- Division of Oncology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Yimei Li
- Division of Oncology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Anne Reilly
- Division of Oncology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Janet A. Deatrick
- Department of Family and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | | | - Lisa A. Schwartz
- Division of Oncology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Dhopte P, French SD, Quon JA, Owens H, Bussières A. Guideline implementation in the Canadian chiropractic setting: a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial and parallel study. Chiropr Man Therap 2019; 27:31. [PMID: 31346409 PMCID: PMC6636122 DOI: 10.1186/s12998-019-0253-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2019] [Accepted: 04/26/2019] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Feasibility and pilot studies are recommended prior to embarking on large-scale costly confirmatory trials. The objectives were to determine the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial (C-RCT) to evaluate a complex knowledge translation (KT) intervention to improve the management of people with neck pain, and to identify challenges and potential solutions to conducting a fully powered C-RCT in the chiropractic setting. Methods Pilot C-RCT involving a nationally representative sample of chiropractors and patients. We invited 400 chiropractors and 150 patients to participate. Clinicians were randomized to receive either an online theory-based KT educational and brief action plan (BAP) intervention (intervention group) or a copy of a clinical practice guideline (control group). Study-related challenges were ascertained via mid-study phone interviews and end-of-study feedback questionnaires. Analyses focused on descriptive estimates of likely recruitment, retention, and adherence rates, and documentation of potential barriers. Results In total, 47 chiropractors (12%) agreed to participate and were randomized after resampling. Fifteen withdrew from the study, leaving a total of 32 (8%) participants. Eleven chiropractors in the intervention group completed the webinars and e-learning modules, two partially completed them and three did not register. Participating chiropractors recruited a total of 29 patients. Sixty-three percent (n = 7) of intervention and 56% (n = 10) of control group patients completed all outcome measures at both baseline and 3-months follow-up, attended follow-up visits and performed home exercises. Patients in the intervention group reported significant reductions in pain (mean 1.6, 95% CI 0.26–2.94, P = 0.027) and disability scores (9.8, 95% CI 3.68–15.91, P = 0.033) from baseline to 3-month follow-up. Key barriers to participation reported by chiropractors included lack of time, difficulties in recruiting patients, problems with the administration of study questionnaires, concern that the clinician-patient relationship might be jeopardized, and lack of assistance from office staff. Over half (55%) of the respondents in the intervention group encountered some difficulty registering or completing the educational modules. Conclusion Recruitment of clinicians and patients for a trial of a complex intervention can be challenging, and retention of participants after enrolment may be low. Future trials of this nature likely require multiple recruitment strategies to achieve desired sample sizes. Moreover, time-constraint issues are perceived particularly by clinicians as a major barrier to both study enrolment before, and protocol adherence during, their actual participation in a trial. Trial registration The study was registered at, NCT02483091, on 17th June 2015. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12998-019-0253-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Prakash Dhopte
- 1School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 3630 Promenade Sir-William-Osler, Hosmer House, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1Y5 Canada.,2Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire en réadaptation (CRIR), 6363 chemin Hudson, bureau 061,Pavillon Lindsay de l'IURDPM, Montréal, QC H3S 1M9 Canada
| | - Simon D French
- 3Department of Chiropractic, Macquarie University, 24/1 Lakeside Rd, Eastwood NSW, 2122 Australia
| | - Jeffrey A Quon
- 4School of Population and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3 Canada.,5International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries (ICORD), Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, 818 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC Canada.,6Spine Program, Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, 11th Floor - 2775 Laurel Street, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9 Canada.,The Cambie Chiropractic Centre, 2786 W 16th Ave suite 101, Vancouver, BC V6K 4M1 Canada
| | - Heather Owens
- 8CISSS Laval-Jewish Rehabilitation Hospital, CRIR-Feil Oberfeld Research Centre, 3205 Place Alton Goldbloom, Laval, Qc H7V 1R2 Canada
| | - André Bussières
- 1School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 3630 Promenade Sir-William-Osler, Hosmer House, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1Y5 Canada.,2Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire en réadaptation (CRIR), 6363 chemin Hudson, bureau 061,Pavillon Lindsay de l'IURDPM, Montréal, QC H3S 1M9 Canada.,9Département chiropratique, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, 3351 Boul. des Forges, Trois-Rivières, Qc G8Z 4M3 Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kamen CS, Quinn GP, Asare M, Heckler CE, Guido JJ, Giguere JK, Gilliland K, Liu JJ, Geer J, Delacroix SE, Morrow GR, Jacobsen PB. Multimedia psychoeducation for patients with cancer who are eligible for clinical trials: A randomized clinical trial. Cancer 2018; 124:4504-4511. [PMID: 30291797 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31771] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2018] [Revised: 08/10/2018] [Accepted: 08/22/2018] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Supporting patients' decision making about clinical trials may enhance trial participation. To date, few theory-based interventions have been tested to address this issue. The objective of the current study was aimed to evaluate the effect of a multimedia psychoeducation (MP) intervention, relative to a print education (PE) intervention, on patients' decision support needs and attitudes about clinical trials. METHODS Patients with cancer who were eligible for participation in a National Cancer Institute therapeutic cancer clinical trial were recruited through the nationwide University of Rochester Cancer Center National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program from 2014 to 2016 and were randomized to the MP or PE intervention. Assessments at baseline (before intervention), postintervention, and at a 2-month follow-up visit included patients' decision support needs, attitudes regarding clinical trials, and clinical trial participation. RESULTS In total, 418 patients with various types of cancer were recruited (ages 26-89 years). Relative to the PE intervention, the MP intervention did not significantly affect decision support needs. However, patients in the MP arm reported significantly more positive attitudes about clinical trials and were more likely to participate in a clinical trial than those in the PE arm (69% vs 62%; P = .01). Furthermore, an improvement in attitudes about clinical trials significantly mediated the effect of the intervention on participation in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS The MP intervention was able to improve patient attitudes toward clinical trials compared with the PE intervention, and this improvement led to increased rates of participation in trials. The MP intervention could be disseminated to improve attitudes about clinical trials among patients with cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles S Kamen
- Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | - Gwendolyn P Quinn
- Health Outcomes and Behavior Program, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Matthew Asare
- Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | - Charles E Heckler
- Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | - Joseph J Guido
- Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | | | - Kari Gilliland
- Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | - Jane Jijun Liu
- Heartland National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program, Decatur, Illinois
| | - Jodi Geer
- Metro-Minnesota National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
| | - Scott E Delacroix
- Gulf South Minority Underserved National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana
| | - Gary R Morrow
- Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
| | - Paul B Jacobsen
- Health Outcomes and Behavior Program, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Ulrich CM, Deshmukh S, Pugh SL, Hanlon A, Grady C, Watkins Bruner D, Curran W. Attrition in NRG Oncology's Radiation-Based Clinical Trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2018; 102:26-33. [PMID: 29908786 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.04.078] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2017] [Revised: 03/22/2018] [Accepted: 04/30/2018] [Indexed: 10/16/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To determine individual, organizational, and protocol-specific factors associated with attrition in NRG Oncology's radiation-based clinical trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS This retrospective analysis included 27,443 patients representing 134 NRG Oncology's radiation-based clinical trials .trials with primary efficacy results published from 1985-2011. Trials were separated on the basis of the primary endpoint (fixed time vs event driven). The cumulative incidence approach was used to estimate time to attrition, and cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess factors associated with attrition. RESULTS Most patients (69%) were enrolled in an event-driven trial (n = 18,809), while 31% were enrolled in a fixed-time trial (n = 8634). Median follow-up time for patients enrolled in fixed-time trials was 4.1 months and 37.2 months for patients enrolled in event-driven trials. Fixed time trials with a duration < 6 months had a 5 month attrition rate of 4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.4%, 5.5%) and those with a duration ≥ 6 months had a 1 year attrition rate of 1.6% (95% CI: 1.2, 2.1). Event-driven trials had 1- and 5-year attrition rates of 0.5% (95% CI: 0.4%, 0.6%) and 13.6% (95% CI: 13.1%, 14.1%), respectively. Younger age, female gender, and Zubrod performance status >0 were associated with greater attrition as were enrollment by institutions in the West and South regions and participation in fixed-time trials. CONCLUSIONS Attrition in clinical trials can have a negative effect on trial outcomes. Data on factors associated with attrition can help guide the development of strategies to enhance retention. These strategies should focus on patient characteristics associated with attrition in both fixed-time and event-driven trials as well as in differing geographic regions of the country.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Connie M Ulrich
- University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
| | - Snehal Deshmukh
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Stephanie L Pugh
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Alexandra Hanlon
- University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Koyfman SA, Yom SS. Clinical Research Ethics: Considerations for the Radiation Oncologist. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 99:259-264. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.06.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2017] [Accepted: 06/05/2017] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
|
11
|
Robinson BN, Newman AF, Tefera E, Herbolsheimer P, Nunes R, Gallagher C, Randolph-Jackson P, Omogbehin A, Dilawari A, Pohlmann PR, Mohebtash M, Lee Y, Ottaviano Y, Mohapatra A, Lynce F, Brown R, Mete M, Swain SM. Video intervention increases participation of black breast cancer patients in therapeutic trials. NPJ Breast Cancer 2017; 3:36. [PMID: 28944289 PMCID: PMC5603544 DOI: 10.1038/s41523-017-0039-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2016] [Revised: 07/24/2017] [Accepted: 08/03/2017] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
There is a striking racial and ethnic disparity in incidence and mortality of cancer yet minorities remain markedly underrepresented in clinical trials. This pilot study set out to determine the impact of a 15-min culturally tailored educational video on three outcomes relating to clinical trials: likely participation, attitudes (assessed based on six barriers), and actual enrollment. Breast cancer patients with Stage I-III, if diagnosed within previous 6 months, or metastatic disease who self-identified as black or African American were invited to participate. The primary outcome measure was the decision to participate in a therapeutic clinical trial after the intervention. Patients’ intention to enroll on a therapeutic clinical trial and the change in attitudes toward clinical trials were measured by the previously developed Attitudes and Intention to Enroll in Therapeutic Clinical Trials (AIET) questionnaire. Of the 200 patients that participated, 39 (19.5%) patients signed consent to participate in a therapeutic clinical trial; 27 (13.5%) patients enrolled, resulting in a 7.5% increase from our baseline comparison of 6% clinical trial enrollment rate in black cancer patients (p < .001). Pre-test versus post-test assessment demonstrated the proportion of patients expressing likelihood to enroll in a therapeutic trial following the intervention increased by 14% (p < .001). Among 31 AIET items, 25 (81%) showed statistically significant and positive change post-intervention. The findings suggest the promising utility of a culturally tailored video intervention for improving black patients’ attitudes regarding clinical trial participation and resultant enrollment. Future efforts should continue to target facilitators of population-specific recruitment, enrollment, and retention in therapeutic and non-therapeutic clinical trials. A culturally tailored educational video can boost participation among black patients in clinical trials of new breast cancer treatments. A US team led by Sandra Swain from Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC, created a 15-min video designed to address six of the concerns commonly cited by blacks about human subjects research. The researchers showed the video to 200 black patients, and saw a large bump in the number of women willing to sign up for a therapeutic trial. On average, only 6% of black cancer patients typically enroll in clinical trials. But in the video intervention study, 19.5% agreed to participate and then 13.5% went ahead with a trial. Video watchers also reported a positive change in their attitude toward clinical research. The study points to the need for population-specific recruitment efforts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brandi N Robinson
- MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, MD USA.,Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC USA
| | - Antoinette F Newman
- MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, MD USA.,Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC USA
| | - Eshetu Tefera
- MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, MD USA
| | - Pia Herbolsheimer
- Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC USA
| | - Raquel Nunes
- Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC USA
| | | | | | - Adedamola Omogbehin
- Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC USA
| | - Asma Dilawari
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC USA
| | - Paula R Pohlmann
- Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC USA
| | | | - Young Lee
- MedStar Harbor Hospital, Baltimore, MD USA
| | | | - Avani Mohapatra
- Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC USA
| | - Filipa Lynce
- Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC USA.,Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC USA
| | - Richard Brown
- Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA USA
| | - Mihriye Mete
- MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, MD USA
| | - Sandra M Swain
- Washington Cancer Institute, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC USA.,Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Gruen ME, Griffith EH, Caney SMA, Rishniw M, Lascelles BDX. Attitudes of small animal practitioners toward participation in veterinary clinical trials. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2017; 250:86-97. [PMID: 28001115 DOI: 10.2460/javma.250.1.86] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine attitudes of small animal practitioners toward veterinary clinical trials and variables influencing their likelihood of participating in such trials. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey. SAMPLE Small animal practitioners with membership in 1 of 2 online veterinary communities (n = 163 and 652). PROCEDURES An online survey was developed for each of 2 veterinary communities, and invitations to participate were sent via email. Each survey included questions designed to collect information on the respondents' willingness to enroll their patients in clinical trials and to recommend participation to clients for their pets. RESULTS More than 80% of respondents to each survey indicated that they spend no time in clinical research. A high proportion of respondents were likely or extremely likely to recommend clinical trial participation to clients for their pets when those trials involved treatments licensed in other countries, novel treatments, respected investigators, or sponsoring by academic institutions, among other reasons. Reasons for not recommending participation included distance, time restrictions, and lack of awareness of ongoing clinical trials; 28% of respondents indicated that they did not usually learn about such clinical trials. Most respondents (79% to 92%) rated their recommendation of a trial as important to their client's willingness to participate. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Participation in veterinary clinical trials by small animal practitioners and their clients and patients appeared low. Efforts should be increased to raise practitioner awareness of clinical trials for which patients might qualify. Specific elements of trial design were identified that could be modified to increase participation.
Collapse
|
13
|
Caixeiro NJ, Byun HL, Descallar J, Levesque JV, de Souza P, Soon Lee C. Health professionals' opinions on supporting a cancer biobank: identification of barriers to combat biobanking pitfalls. Eur J Hum Genet 2016; 24:626-32. [PMID: 26328505 PMCID: PMC4930095 DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.191] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2014] [Revised: 06/17/2015] [Accepted: 07/28/2015] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
Although rarely acknowledged, a successful biobank is highly dependent on the support of the health professionals who assist the biobank in all aspects of its activities. In many cases, the lack of health professional support can be a limiting factor in the biobanking process of collecting and processing high-quality biospecimens. The aim of this study was to determine the attitudes of health professionals towards cancer biobanking. Using a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire, important aspects of biobanking, including accrual, quality, knowledge, responsiveness, impact, access, trust, governance and accreditation, were investigated. In total, 95 of 124 health and medical practitioners who were approached participated in this study (77% response rate). Health professionals in general supported the aims of biobanking with 56% of participants showing willingness to create a biobank and recruit donors (accrual), 85% understanding the importance in the storage and distribution of biospecimens (quality), 88% having an appreciation for the role of a biobank in furthering cancer research (knowledge), 70% showing awareness of the use of biospecimens in future research initiatives (responsiveness) and 73% demonstrating support for a biobank with proper control, authority and credibility measures in place (governance and accreditation). Overall, provided that proper information about the activities of the biobank and researcher access was transparent, health professionals were very willing to support cancer biobanking. These findings may assist in developing strategies for the establishment and maintenance of biobanks and aid the implementation of more effective policies and procedures to embed biobanking into routine hospital practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole J Caixeiro
- Centre for Oncology Education and Research Translation (CONCERT), Liverpool, NSW, Australia
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW, Australia
- Discipline of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Liverpool, NSW, Australia
| | - Hei Lan Byun
- Department of Oncology, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, NSW, Australia
| | - Joseph Descallar
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW, Australia
- School of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Janelle V Levesque
- Centre for Oncology Education and Research Translation (CONCERT), Liverpool, NSW, Australia
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW, Australia
- School of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Psycho-Oncology Research Group, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Paul de Souza
- Centre for Oncology Education and Research Translation (CONCERT), Liverpool, NSW, Australia
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW, Australia
- Discipline of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Liverpool, NSW, Australia
- Department of Oncology, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, NSW, Australia
- School of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Cheok Soon Lee
- Centre for Oncology Education and Research Translation (CONCERT), Liverpool, NSW, Australia
- Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, NSW, Australia
- Discipline of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Liverpool, NSW, Australia
- Department of Oncology, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
M Russell A, Galvin KM, Harper MM, Clayman ML. A comparison of heterosexual and LGBTQ cancer survivors' outlooks on relationships, family building, possible infertility, and patient-doctor fertility risk communication. J Cancer Surviv 2016; 10:935-42. [PMID: 26887847 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-016-0524-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/16/2015] [Accepted: 02/04/2016] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Little research about cancer-related infertility has examined the experiences and needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) cancer survivors. This research seeks to understand how LGBTQ survivors are similar to or different from heterosexual survivors with respect to cancer treatments' effects on relationships, plans for parenthood, and fertility preservation decision making. METHODS Semi-structured telephone interviews conducted with adolescent or young adult (AYA) cancer survivors (n = 56) were coded for themes. Interviews consisted of questions about pre- and post-diagnosis thoughts about relationships, parenthood, possible infertility, and how information about fertility risks was received. RESULTS While LGBTQ (n = 22) and heterosexual (n = 34) survivors reported similar challenges when dating post-diagnosis, heterosexual survivors were more likely to report fertility concerns as affecting romantic relationships (p < .05). LGBTQ survivors seemed more open to raising non-biological children or not becoming a parent than heterosexual survivors. LGBTQ survivors generally reported being satisfied with or indifferent to the information that they were given regarding fertility loss, despite reporting receiving similar amounts of information as compared to heterosexual patients (p < .10). CONCLUSIONS LGBTQ patients' views on relationships, parenthood, and family building seemed to result in less distress when faced with infertility. However, interventions facilitating information exchange about dating, fertility risks, and family building options may be valuable to LGBTQ and heterosexual cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS LGBTQ cancer survivors may display more adaptive coping with respect to relationships and fertility loss. Oncology professionals may want to proactively introduce positive coping strategies to reduce distress among AYA cancer survivors at risk for infertility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea M Russell
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
| | - Kathleen M Galvin
- Department of Communication Studies, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
| | - Maya M Harper
- Biomedical and Health Information Sciences, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Brooks SE, Muller CY, Robinson W, Walker EM, Yeager K, Cook ED, Friedman S, Somkin CP, Brown CL, McCaskill-Stevens W. Increasing Minority Enrollment Onto Clinical Trials: Practical Strategies and Challenges Emerge From the NRG Oncology Accrual Workshop. J Oncol Pract 2015; 11:486-90. [PMID: 26464496 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2015.005934] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Racial and ethnic diversity has historically been difficult to achieve in National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials, even while as many as 80% of those trials have faced difficulty in meeting overall recruitment targets. In an attempt to address these issues, NRG Oncology recently convened a comprehensive workshop titled "Clinical Trials Enrollment: Challenges and Opportunities." Discussants at the workshop included representatives of the three legacy groups of the NRG (ie, Gynecologic Oncology Group, National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Program, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group), a minority-based community clinical oncology program, a large integrated health care system, the leadership of the National Cancer Institute, and a large patient advocacy group. This article summarizes the concepts discussed at the workshop, which included: needs assessments, infrastructural support, training of investigators and research staff, specific clinical trial recruitment strategies (both system and community based), and development and mentoring of young investigators. Many new, more specific tactics, including use of diverse cancer care settings, direct-to-consumer communication, and the need for centralized information technology such as the use of software to match trials to special populations, are presented. It was concluded that new, innovative trial designs and the realities of limited funding would require the adoption of effective and efficient recruiting strategies, specialized training, and stakeholder engagement. US clinical research programs must generate and embrace new ideas and pilot test novel recruitment strategies if they are to maintain their historic role as world leaders in cancer care innovation and delivery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sandra E Brooks
- CompleteCare Health Network, Bridgeton, NJ; University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Tulane University, New Orleans, LA; Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; Emory University, Atlanta, GA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Tampa, FL; Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | - Carolyn Y Muller
- CompleteCare Health Network, Bridgeton, NJ; University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Tulane University, New Orleans, LA; Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; Emory University, Atlanta, GA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Tampa, FL; Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | - William Robinson
- CompleteCare Health Network, Bridgeton, NJ; University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Tulane University, New Orleans, LA; Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; Emory University, Atlanta, GA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Tampa, FL; Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | - Eleanor M Walker
- CompleteCare Health Network, Bridgeton, NJ; University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Tulane University, New Orleans, LA; Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; Emory University, Atlanta, GA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Tampa, FL; Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | - Kate Yeager
- CompleteCare Health Network, Bridgeton, NJ; University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Tulane University, New Orleans, LA; Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; Emory University, Atlanta, GA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Tampa, FL; Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | - Elise D Cook
- CompleteCare Health Network, Bridgeton, NJ; University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Tulane University, New Orleans, LA; Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; Emory University, Atlanta, GA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Tampa, FL; Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | - Sue Friedman
- CompleteCare Health Network, Bridgeton, NJ; University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Tulane University, New Orleans, LA; Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; Emory University, Atlanta, GA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Tampa, FL; Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | - Carol P Somkin
- CompleteCare Health Network, Bridgeton, NJ; University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Tulane University, New Orleans, LA; Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; Emory University, Atlanta, GA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Tampa, FL; Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | - Carol Leslie Brown
- CompleteCare Health Network, Bridgeton, NJ; University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Tulane University, New Orleans, LA; Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; Emory University, Atlanta, GA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Tampa, FL; Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| | - Worta McCaskill-Stevens
- CompleteCare Health Network, Bridgeton, NJ; University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM; Tulane University, New Orleans, LA; Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; Emory University, Atlanta, GA; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered, Tampa, FL; Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Brooks SE, Carter RL, Plaxe SC, Basen-Engquist KM, Rodriguez M, Kauderer J, Walker JL, Myers TKN, Drake JG, Havrilesky LJ, Van Le L, Landrum LM, Brown CL. Patient and physician factors associated with participation in cervical and uterine cancer trials: an NRG/GOG247 study. Gynecol Oncol 2015; 138:101-8. [PMID: 25937529 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.04.033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2015] [Accepted: 04/25/2015] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of this study was to identify patient and physician factors related to enrollment onto Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) trials. METHODS Prospective study of women with primary or recurrent cancer of the uterus or cervix treated at a GOG institution from July 2010 to January 2012. Logistic regression examined probability of availability, eligibility and enrollment in a GOG trial. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for significant (p<0.05) results reported. RESULTS Sixty institutions, 781 patients, and 150 physicians participated, 300/780 (38%) had a trial available, 290/300 had known participation status. Of these, 150 women enrolled (59.5%), 102 eligible did not enroll (35%), 38 (13%) were ineligible. Ethnicity and specialty of physician, practice type, data management availability, and patient age were significantly associated with trial availability. Patients with >4 comorbidities (OR 4.5; CI 1.7-11.8) had higher odds of trial ineligibility. Non-White patients (OR 7.9; CI 1.3-46.2) and patients of Black physicians had greater odds of enrolling (OR 56.5; CI 1.1-999.9) in a therapeutic trial. Significant patient therapeutic trial enrollment factors: belief trial may help (OR 76.9; CI 4.9->1000), concern about care if not on trial (OR12.1; CI 2.1-71.4), pressure to enroll (OR .27; CI 0.12-.64), caregiving without pay (OR 0.13; CI .02-.84). Significant physician beliefs were: patients would not do well on standard therapy (OR 3.6; CI 1.6-8.4), and trial would not be time consuming (OR 3.3; CI 1.3-8.1). CONCLUSIONS Trial availability, patient and physician beliefs were factors identified that if modified could improve enrollment in cancer cooperative group clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Randy L Carter
- University at Buffalo, NY, United States; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, United States; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14263, United States
| | - Steven C Plaxe
- Gynecologic Oncology, Rebecca and John Moores UCSD Cancer Center, La Jolla, CA 92093, United States
| | - Karen M Basen-Engquist
- Department of Behavioral Science, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, United States
| | - Michael Rodriguez
- Gynecologic Oncology, Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, Memorial Hospital, Mishawaka, IN 46545, United States
| | - James Kauderer
- University at Buffalo, NY, United States; NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, United States; Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14263, United States
| | - Joan L Walker
- Gynecologic Oncology, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, United States
| | | | - Janet G Drake
- Gynecologic Oncology, Waukesha Memorial Hospital, Waukesha, WI 01199, United States
| | | | - Linda Van Le
- Gynecologic Oncology, University of Norton Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 26588, United States
| | - Lisa M Landrum
- Gynecologic Oncology, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, United States
| | - Carol L Brown
- Office of Diversity Programs in Clinical Care, Research and Training, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, United States
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Abstract
Bedside shift reports are viewed as an opportunity to reduce errors and important to ensure communication between nurses and communication. Models of bedside report incorporating the patient into the triad have been shown to increase patient engagement and enhance caregiver support and education. Nurse shift reports and nurse handovers are 2 of the most critical processes in patient care that can support patient safety and reduce medical errors in the United States. Nurses continue to not recognize the evidence supporting this practice and adopt bedside report into practice.
Collapse
|
18
|
St Germain D, Denicoff AM, Dimond EP, Carrigan A, Enos RA, Gonzalez MM, Wilkinson K, Mathiason MA, Duggan B, Einolf S, McCaskill-Stevens W, Bryant DM, Thompson MA, Grubbs SS, Go RS. Use of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program screening and accrual log to address cancer clinical trial accrual. J Oncol Pract 2014; 10:e73-80. [PMID: 24424313 PMCID: PMC3948711 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2013.001194] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Screening logs have the potential to help oncology clinical trial programs at the site level, as well as trial leaders, address enrollment in real time. Such an approach could be especially helpful in improving representation of racial/ethnic minority and other underrepresented populations in clinical trials. METHODS The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed a screening log. Log data collected from March 2009 through May 2012 were analyzed for number of patients screened versus enrolled, including for demographic subgroups; screening methods; and enrollment barriers, including reasons for ineligibility and provider and patient reasons for declining to offer or participate in a trial. User feedback was obtained to better understand perceptions of log utility. RESULTS Of 4,483 patients screened, 18.4% enrolled onto NCCCP log trials. Reasons for nonenrollment were ineligibility (51.6%), patient declined (25.8%), physician declined (15.6%), urgent need for treatment (6.6%), and trial suspension (0.4%). Major reasons for patients declining were no desire to participate in trials (43.2%) and preference for standard of care (39%). Major reasons for physicians declining to offer trials were preference for standard of care (53%) and concerns about tolerability (29.3%). Enrollment rates onto log trials did not differ between white and black (P = .15) or between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients (P = .73). Other races had lower enrollment rates than whites and blacks. Sites valued the ready access to log data on enrollment barriers, with some sites changing practices to address those barriers. CONCLUSION Use of screening logs to document enrollment barriers at the local level can facilitate development of strategies to enhance clinical trial accrual.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diane St Germain
- National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; SAIC-Frederick, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; St Joseph Hospital of Orange, Orange, CA; Billings Clinic Cancer Center, Billings, MT; Gundersen Health System, La Crosse; Waukesha Memorial Hospital (ProHealth Care), Waukesha, WI; The Cancer Program of Our Lady of the Lake and Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE
| | - Andrea M. Denicoff
- National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; SAIC-Frederick, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; St Joseph Hospital of Orange, Orange, CA; Billings Clinic Cancer Center, Billings, MT; Gundersen Health System, La Crosse; Waukesha Memorial Hospital (ProHealth Care), Waukesha, WI; The Cancer Program of Our Lady of the Lake and Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE
| | - Eileen P. Dimond
- National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; SAIC-Frederick, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; St Joseph Hospital of Orange, Orange, CA; Billings Clinic Cancer Center, Billings, MT; Gundersen Health System, La Crosse; Waukesha Memorial Hospital (ProHealth Care), Waukesha, WI; The Cancer Program of Our Lady of the Lake and Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE
| | - Angela Carrigan
- National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; SAIC-Frederick, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; St Joseph Hospital of Orange, Orange, CA; Billings Clinic Cancer Center, Billings, MT; Gundersen Health System, La Crosse; Waukesha Memorial Hospital (ProHealth Care), Waukesha, WI; The Cancer Program of Our Lady of the Lake and Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE
| | - Rebecca A. Enos
- National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; SAIC-Frederick, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; St Joseph Hospital of Orange, Orange, CA; Billings Clinic Cancer Center, Billings, MT; Gundersen Health System, La Crosse; Waukesha Memorial Hospital (ProHealth Care), Waukesha, WI; The Cancer Program of Our Lady of the Lake and Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE
| | - Maria M. Gonzalez
- National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; SAIC-Frederick, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; St Joseph Hospital of Orange, Orange, CA; Billings Clinic Cancer Center, Billings, MT; Gundersen Health System, La Crosse; Waukesha Memorial Hospital (ProHealth Care), Waukesha, WI; The Cancer Program of Our Lady of the Lake and Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE
| | - Kathy Wilkinson
- National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; SAIC-Frederick, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; St Joseph Hospital of Orange, Orange, CA; Billings Clinic Cancer Center, Billings, MT; Gundersen Health System, La Crosse; Waukesha Memorial Hospital (ProHealth Care), Waukesha, WI; The Cancer Program of Our Lady of the Lake and Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE
| | - Michelle A. Mathiason
- National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; SAIC-Frederick, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; St Joseph Hospital of Orange, Orange, CA; Billings Clinic Cancer Center, Billings, MT; Gundersen Health System, La Crosse; Waukesha Memorial Hospital (ProHealth Care), Waukesha, WI; The Cancer Program of Our Lady of the Lake and Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE
| | - Brenda Duggan
- National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; SAIC-Frederick, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; St Joseph Hospital of Orange, Orange, CA; Billings Clinic Cancer Center, Billings, MT; Gundersen Health System, La Crosse; Waukesha Memorial Hospital (ProHealth Care), Waukesha, WI; The Cancer Program of Our Lady of the Lake and Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE
| | - Shaun Einolf
- National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; SAIC-Frederick, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; St Joseph Hospital of Orange, Orange, CA; Billings Clinic Cancer Center, Billings, MT; Gundersen Health System, La Crosse; Waukesha Memorial Hospital (ProHealth Care), Waukesha, WI; The Cancer Program of Our Lady of the Lake and Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE
| | - Worta McCaskill-Stevens
- National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; SAIC-Frederick, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; St Joseph Hospital of Orange, Orange, CA; Billings Clinic Cancer Center, Billings, MT; Gundersen Health System, La Crosse; Waukesha Memorial Hospital (ProHealth Care), Waukesha, WI; The Cancer Program of Our Lady of the Lake and Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE
| | - Donna M. Bryant
- National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; SAIC-Frederick, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; St Joseph Hospital of Orange, Orange, CA; Billings Clinic Cancer Center, Billings, MT; Gundersen Health System, La Crosse; Waukesha Memorial Hospital (ProHealth Care), Waukesha, WI; The Cancer Program of Our Lady of the Lake and Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE
| | - Michael A. Thompson
- National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; SAIC-Frederick, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; St Joseph Hospital of Orange, Orange, CA; Billings Clinic Cancer Center, Billings, MT; Gundersen Health System, La Crosse; Waukesha Memorial Hospital (ProHealth Care), Waukesha, WI; The Cancer Program of Our Lady of the Lake and Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE
| | - Stephen S. Grubbs
- National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; SAIC-Frederick, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; St Joseph Hospital of Orange, Orange, CA; Billings Clinic Cancer Center, Billings, MT; Gundersen Health System, La Crosse; Waukesha Memorial Hospital (ProHealth Care), Waukesha, WI; The Cancer Program of Our Lady of the Lake and Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE
| | - Ronald S. Go
- National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; SAIC-Frederick, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; St Joseph Hospital of Orange, Orange, CA; Billings Clinic Cancer Center, Billings, MT; Gundersen Health System, La Crosse; Waukesha Memorial Hospital (ProHealth Care), Waukesha, WI; The Cancer Program of Our Lady of the Lake and Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, Baton Rouge, LA; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
The nurse liaison role in the cooperative group setting. Semin Oncol Nurs 2014; 30:11-6. [PMID: 24559775 DOI: 10.1016/j.soncn.2013.12.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To review the history of nurse involvement within the cooperative group environment, define the role of the nurse liaison, identify challenges for the nurse in interdisciplinary research, and explore future trends of nurse involvement in cooperative group studies. DATA SOURCES Published articles, government reports, and Web sites. CONCLUSION Nurse liaisons provide a nursing perspective to the design of cooperative group trials and ensure that nursing and patient feasibility issues about the trial are addressed, and provide guidance to nurses at participating institutions, as well as their home institution. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE The nurse liaison must be committed to their cooperative group role. Because of their proximity in time and space to the patient, nurse liaisons have a unique vantage point that can provide meaningful feedback for all stages of protocol development, implementation, and evaluation.
Collapse
|
20
|
Petkov VI, Penberthy LT, Dahman BA, Poklepovic A, Gillam CW, McDermott JH. Automated determination of metastases in unstructured radiology reports for eligibility screening in oncology clinical trials. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 2013; 238:1370-8. [PMID: 24108448 PMCID: PMC4358809 DOI: 10.1177/1535370213508172] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Enrolling adequate numbers of patients that meet protocol eligibility criteria in a timely manner is critical, yet clinical trial accrual continues to be problematic. One approach to meet these accrual challenges is to utilize technology to automatically screen patients for clinical trial eligibility. This manuscript reports on the evaluation of different automated approaches to determine the metastatic status from unstructured radiology reports using the Clinical Trials Eligibility Database Integrated System (CTED). The study sample included all patients (N = 5,523) with radiologic diagnostic studies (N = 10,492) completed in a two-week period. Eight search algorithms (queries) within CTED were developed and applied to radiology reports. The performance of each algorithm was compared to a reference standard which consisted of a physician's review of the radiology reports. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predicted values were calculated for each algorithm. The number of patients identified by each algorithm varied from 187 to 330 and the number of true positive cases confirmed by physician review ranged from 171 to 199 across the algorithms. The best performing algorithm had sensitivity 94%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 90%, negative predictive value 100%, and accuracy of 99%. Our evaluation process identified the optimal method for rapid identification of patients with metastatic disease through automated screening of unstructured radiology reports. The methods developed using the CTED system could be readily implemented at other institutions to enhance the efficiency of research staff in the clinical trials eligibility screening process.
Collapse
|
21
|
Somkin CP, Ackerson L, Husson G, Gomez V, Kolevska T, Goldstein D, Fehrenbacher L. Effect of medical oncologists' attitudes on accrual to clinical trials in a community setting. J Oncol Pract 2013; 9:e275-83. [PMID: 24151327 PMCID: PMC5706122 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2013.001120] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Oncology clinical trials (OCTs) are crucial in evaluating new cancer treatments, but only 2% to 3% of US adult patients with cancer enter OCTs. This study assessed barriers to participation in clinical trials among oncologists in a large integrated health care delivery system with an active clinical trials program. Although many studies have identified major physician barriers to enrollment, few have examined how these barriers affect actual trial accrual. METHODS Using information from a mailed survey, we examined the effect of oncologists' attitudes, beliefs, experiences, sociodemographic factors, and practice characteristics on clinical trial accrual in the 2 years following the survey. We identified relationships between these variables and subsequent clinical trial accrual using correlations and mixed effects models. RESULTS A construct combining questions that assessed oncologist attitudes, beliefs, and experiences substantially influenced OCT enrollment (r = .51; P < .0001). This construct included awareness of open clinical trials and specific eligible patients, as well as the practice of initiating a discussion about OCTs with most eligible patients. This broad concept of awareness had the greatest correlation with enrollment and mediated the effect on enrollment of other values and beliefs, such as welcoming a patient's initiation of a trial discussion and valuing the support of research nurses and coordinators. CONCLUSION Even in a health care setting with an active clinical trials program, substantial research personnel, infrastructure support, and widespread access to trials among oncologists and patients, oncologists' participation remains quite variable. Oncologist values, beliefs, and awareness of clinical trials play an important role in OCT accrual.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carol P. Somkin
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland; and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Vallejo, CA
| | - Lynn Ackerson
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland; and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Vallejo, CA
| | - Gail Husson
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland; and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Vallejo, CA
| | - Vicky Gomez
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland; and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Vallejo, CA
| | - Tatjana Kolevska
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland; and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Vallejo, CA
| | - Desiree Goldstein
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland; and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Vallejo, CA
| | - Louis Fehrenbacher
- Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland; and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Vallejo, CA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Denicoff AM, McCaskill-Stevens W, Grubbs SS, Bruinooge SS, Comis RL, Devine P, Dilts DM, Duff ME, Ford JG, Joffe S, Schapira L, Weinfurt KP, Michaels M, Raghavan D, Richmond ES, Zon R, Albrecht TL, Bookman MA, Dowlati A, Enos RA, Fouad MN, Good M, Hicks WJ, Loehrer PJ, Lyss AP, Wolff SN, Wujcik DM, Meropol NJ. The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations. J Oncol Pract 2013; 9:267-76. [PMID: 24130252 PMCID: PMC3825288 DOI: 10.1200/jop.2013.001119] [Citation(s) in RCA: 109] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Many challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions. METHODS The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature. RESULTS Few rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations. CONCLUSIONS A combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea M. Denicoff
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Worta McCaskill-Stevens
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Stephen S. Grubbs
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Suanna S. Bruinooge
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Robert L. Comis
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Peggy Devine
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - David M. Dilts
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Michelle E. Duff
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Jean G. Ford
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Steven Joffe
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Lidia Schapira
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Kevin P. Weinfurt
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Margo Michaels
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Derek Raghavan
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Ellen S. Richmond
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Robin Zon
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Terrance L. Albrecht
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Michael A. Bookman
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Afshin Dowlati
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Rebecca A. Enos
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Mona N. Fouad
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Marjorie Good
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - William J. Hicks
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Patrick J. Loehrer
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Alan P. Lyss
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Steven N. Wolff
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Debra M. Wujcik
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Neal J. Meropol
- National Cancer Institute; Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials, Bethesda; The EMMES Corporation, Rockville, MD; Delaware Cancer Consortium, Dover; Helen F. Graham Cancer Center, Newark, DE; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups; University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA; Cancer Information & Support Network, Auburn, CA; Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; Pancreatic Cancer Action Network; Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham; Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, NC; Michiana Hematology Oncology and Northern Indiana Cancer Research Consortium, South Bend, IN; Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ; University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN; Heartland Cancer Research CCOP, St. Louis, MO; Meharry Medical College; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Smith OM, McDonald E, Zytaruk N, Foster D, Matte A, Clarke F, Fleury S, Krause K, McArdle T, Skrobik Y, Cook DJ. Enhancing the informed consent process for critical care research: strategies from a thromboprophylaxis trial. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2013; 29:300-9. [PMID: 23871290 DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2013.04.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2012] [Revised: 04/11/2013] [Accepted: 04/26/2013] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Critically ill patients lack capacity for decisions about research participation. Consent to enrol these patients in studies is typically obtained from substitute decision-makers. OBJECTIVE To present strategies that may optimise the process of obtaining informed consent from substitute decision-makers for participation of critically ill patients in trials. We use examples from a randomised trial of heparin thromboprophylaxis in the intensive care unit (PROTECT, clinicaltrials.gov NCT00182143). METHODS 3764 patients were randomised, with an informed consent rate of 82%; 90% of consents were obtained from substitute decision-makers. North American PROTECT research coordinators attended three meetings to discuss enrolment: (1) Trial start-up (January 2006); (2) Near trial closure (January 2010); and (3) Post-publication (April 2011). Data were derived from slide presentations, field notes from break-out groups and plenary discussions, then analysed inductively. RESULTS We derived three phases for the informed consent process: (1) Preparation for the Consent Encounter; (2) The Consent Encounter; and (3) Follow-up to the Consent Encounter. Specific strategies emerged for each phase: Phase 1 (four strategies); Phase 2 (six strategies); and Phase 3 (three strategies). CONCLUSION We identified 13 strategies that may improve the process of obtaining informed consent from substitute decision-makers and be generalisable to other settings and studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Orla M Smith
- Critical Care Department and Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Cantrell MA, Conte T, Hudson M, Shad A, Ruble K, Herth K, Canino A, Kemmy S. Recruitment and retention of older adolescent and young adult female survivors of childhood cancer in longitudinal research. Oncol Nurs Forum 2013; 39:483-90. [PMID: 22940512 DOI: 10.1188/12.onf.483-490] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES To describe the challenges encountered in the recruitment and retention of a sample of older adolescent and young adult female survivors of childhood cancer for a longitudinal study testing a targeted psychosocial intervention aimed at enhancing hope. DATA SOURCES Published literature on constructing longitudinal intervention studies and strategies in the recruitment and retention of childhood cancer survivors in research was used to develop the protocol of this study. DATA SYNTHESIS Using empirical literature to construct the study's design resulted in achieving certain goals for the design, but not in the recruitment and retention of study participants. Using online technology to deliver the intervention and collect data was efficient and effective. Traditional approaches to recruitment and retention of those survivors, however, were not effective. Use of more novel approaches to enroll study participants demonstrated only modest success. CONCLUSIONS Additional research is needed on strategies to successfully recruit and retain older adolescents and young adult female survivors of childhood cancer in longitudinal intervention studies. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING The improvement in the psychological well-being of female survivors of childhood cancer remains an important outcome in ongoing care. The need to continue to identify creative and effective ways to recruit and retain those survivors is warranted.
Collapse
|
25
|
Penberthy L, Brown R, Wilson-Genderson M, Dahman B, Ginder G, Siminoff LA. Barriers to therapeutic clinical trials enrollment: differences between African-American and white cancer patients identified at the time of eligibility assessment. Clin Trials 2012; 9:788-97. [PMID: 23033547 DOI: 10.1177/1740774512458992] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical trials (CTs) are the mechanism by which research is translated into standards of care. Low recruitment among underserved and minority populations may result in inequity in access to the latest technology and treatments, compromise the generalizability, and lead to failure in identification of important positive or negative treatment effects among under-represented populations. METHODS Data were collected over a 39-month period on patient eligibility for available therapeutic cancer CTs. Reasons for ineligibility and refusal were collected. The data were captured using an automated software tool for tracking eligibility pre-enrollment. We examined characteristics associated with being evaluated for a trial, and reasons for ineligibility and refusal, overall and by patient race. RESULTS African-Americans (AAs) were more likely than Whites to be ineligible (odds ratio, (OR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0-1.58) and if eligible, to refuse participation (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.27-2.52), even after adjusting for insurance, age, gender, study phase, and cancer type. White patients were more likely to be ineligible due to study-specific or cancer characteristics. AAs were more likely to be ineligible due to mental status or perceived noncompliance. Whites were more likely to refuse due to extra burden, due to concerns with randomization and toxicity, or because they express a positive treatment preference. AAs were more likely to refuse because they were not interested in CTs, because of family pressures, or they felt overwhelmed (NS)). DISCUSSION This study is the first to directly compare ineligibility and refusal rates and reasons captured prospectively in AA and White cancer patients. The data are consistent with earlier studies that indicated that AA patients more often are deemed ineligible and, when eligible, more often refuse participation. However, differences in reasons for ineligibility and refusal by race have implications for a cancer center to participate in CTs appropriate for the population of patients served. On a broader scale, consideration should be given to modifying eligibility criteria and other design aspects to permit broader participation of minority and other underserved groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lynne Penberthy
- Department of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, 23298-0306, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Su L, Huang J, Mellor D, Yang W, McCabe M, Shen Y, Li H, Wang W, Xu Y. The rights of psychiatric patients in China: a survey of medical staff and consumers' attitudes toward patient participation in clinical trials. Soc Sci Med 2012; 75:823-7. [PMID: 22655675 DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2011] [Revised: 02/16/2012] [Accepted: 03/06/2012] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
To explore and compare attitudes of consumers (patients and their family members) and medical staff toward clinical trials related to mental health in China, we developed two questionnaires for medical staff and patients and their family members. Approximately 66.2% of medical staff who had no research experience believed that patients could be persuaded to participate in clinical trials, but the percentage of consumers who believed so was just 12.5%. Both groups agreed that written informed consent was required; however, more medical staff than patients agreed that such consent could be provided by patients or their guardian (88.4% vs. 71.4%). Only 9.5% of medical staff thought that patient treatment would be compromised by refusal to participate; the proportion of consumers who thought the same was 29.4%. Great differences exist between medical staff and consumers' attitudes and beliefs regarding clinical trials. Medical staff were more likely to have a favorable attitude toward their patients participating in clinical trials and considered that informed consent could be provided by guardians rather than the patient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liang Su
- Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, No. 600 Wan Ping Nan Road, Shanghai 200030, People's Republic of China.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
Sutherland MA, Fantasia HC. Successful research recruitment strategies in a study focused on abused rural women at risk for sexually transmitted infections. J Midwifery Womens Health 2012; 57:381-5. [PMID: 22758360 DOI: 10.1111/j.1542-2011.2011.00134.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The purpose of this article is to describe the successful recruitment methods of a study focused on a pilot intervention for rural women who were experiencing abuse and who also were at risk for sexually transmitted infections. Initial recruitment into the study was the primary challenge, and strategies to overcome recruitment difficulties are discussed. METHODS Eighty-seven women were screened, and 20 women were recruited from clinics into a 1-group pretest/posttest pilot study. The main inclusion criterion for the intervention was a past-year history of intimate partner violence (IPV). RESULTS After 1 month of recruitment, only 10 women agreed to be screened for IPV. Several creative strategies were utilized in the revision of the recruitment plan, with the most successful being knitting by the research staff and incentives to participants for screening. An additional 77 women agreed to be screened for study participation within 3 months of implementing the recruitment changes. DISCUSSION Personal involvement by the research staff and a nonthreatening and welcoming environment were necessary components for timely recruitment. Researcher flexibility and reevaluation allowed for changes to the recruitment plan that ultimately proved successful.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melissa A Sutherland
- Boston College, William F. Connell School of Nursing, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Chu SH, Jeong SH, Kim EJ, Park MS, Park K, Nam M, Shim JY, Yoon YR. The views of patients and healthy volunteers on participation in clinical trials: an exploratory survey study. Contemp Clin Trials 2012; 33:611-9. [PMID: 22405971 DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.02.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2011] [Revised: 02/17/2012] [Accepted: 02/19/2012] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS This study was conducted to investigate the views of patients and healthy volunteers on participation in clinical trials. METHODS A total of 291 clinical trial participants, including 140 patients and 151 healthy volunteers, were recruited from four university hospital-affiliated clinical trial centers among 15 Korean regional clinical trial centers in South Korea where the levels of information and care were sufficient to meet the global standard. Participants were recruited from phase I trials or bioequivalence tests, a short term hospitalization under close monitoring in the clinical trial centers, or from phase II, III or IV trials occurring in both wards and outpatient clinics. A structured questionnaire survey was performed to identify their perspectives on clinical trials. RESULTS Participants who were patients were significantly influenced by medical personnels regarding the decision making processes for participation in clinical trials when compared to healthy volunteers. However, no difference was found between the two groups in the level of willingness to participate in and satisfaction with clinical trials. More than 50% of patient subjects misunderstood and thought that their physicians could persuade them to participate in clinical trials or that all the participants would receive a new drug or treatment during trials. CONCLUSIONS Clinical researchers who are involved in clinical trials should make an extra effort to confirm the level of understanding of their patients regarding the clinical trial and to guarantee that each patient has sufficient time to make an informed decision before participating in a clinical trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sang Hui Chu
- Nursing Policy and Research Institute, Biobehavioral Research Center, Yonsei University College of Nursing, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
29
|
Yabroff KR, Harlan L, Zeruto C, Abrams J, Mann B. Patterns of care and survival for patients with glioblastoma multiforme diagnosed during 2006. Neuro Oncol 2012; 14:351-9. [PMID: 22241797 DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nor218] [Citation(s) in RCA: 71] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Standard treatment for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) changed in 2005 when addition of temozolomide (TMZ) to maximal surgical resection followed by radiation therapy (RT) was shown to prolong survival in a clinical trial. In this study, we assessed treatment patterns and survival of patients with GBM in community settings in the United States. Patients with newly diagnosed GBM who were aged ≥20 years in 2006 (n = 1202) were identified as part of the National Cancer Institute 's Patterns of Care Studies. We assessed treatment patterns, and in the subset of patients who received total or partial surgical resection, we used multivariable regression analysis to assess patient, clinical, and health system factors associated with receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy and RT and survival through 2008. Approximately 65% of patients with GBM received total or partial surgical resection, and approximately 70% of these patients received adjuvant TMZ and RT. Receipt of adjuvant therapy was associated with patient age, marital status, health insurance, and tumor location. Median survival in all patients was 10 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-11 months). Receipt of adjuvant therapy following resection was associated with a lower risk of dying in adjusted analyses for patients who received TMZ and RT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.25; 95% CI, 0.18-0.35) and other adjuvant therapies (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.37-0.81), compared with no adjuvant therapy. We observed rapid diffusion of a new standard of treatment, adjuvant and concurrent TMZ with RT, among adult patients with newly diagnosed GBM in the community setting following publication of a pivotal clinical trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K Robin Yabroff
- Health Services and Economics Branch/Applied Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Executive Plaza North, Rm. 4005, 6130 Executive Blvd., MSC 7344, Bethesda, MD 20892-7344, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
The attitudes of 1066 patients with cancer towards participation in randomised clinical trials. Br J Cancer 2010; 103:1801-7. [PMID: 21119659 PMCID: PMC3008615 DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6606004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 70] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Barriers to randomised clinical trial (RCT) recruitment include failure to identify eligible patients, reluctance of staff to approach them and attitudes of some health-care professionals and patients. As part of a larger UK prospective study examining the communication and involvement in RCTs of 22 multidisciplinary teams in Wales, we also assessed the attitudes of patients they treat towards trials. Methods: Out of 1146 patients attending outpatient departments who were approached, 1146 (93%) completed the seven-item Attitudes to Randomised Trials Questionnaire (ARTQ), probing their general attitudes towards medical research and likely participation in a hypothetical two-arm RCT. Results: Randomisation initially deterred many patients from endorsing a willingness to participate. However, if information about the trial logic, voluntary nature and rights to withdraw were provided, together with further treatment details, 83% (886 out of 1066) would potentially participate. Other variables associated with a positive inclination towards participation included previous trial experience (P<0.01), male gender (P<0.01) and younger age, with patients ⩾70 years less likely to consider trial entry (P<0.01). Conclusion: The majority of patients were receptive to RCT participation. Many of those initially disinclined because of randomisation would consider joining if given further details that form part of standard GCP consent guidelines. These data show the importance and need for clear communication and information to encourage RCT participation. Evidence-based training courses are available to assist with this.
Collapse
|