Achieving high cancer control trial enrollment in the community setting: an analysis of the Community Clinical Oncology Program

Barriers for cancer clinical trial enrollment: A qualitative study of the perspectives of healthcare providers

Background

Barriers to clinical trial enrollment have been the subject of extensive research; however, the rate of clinical trial participation has not improved significantly over time. Studies often emphasize patient-related barriers, but institutional and organizational barriers in the health care system may have a more substantial impact on clinical trial participation.

Objective

To qualitatively identify perceived barriers to clinical trial participation based on perspectives from healthcare providers.

Design

Qualitative research design with a phenomenological approach was used. A purposive sample of 18 healthcare providers participated in an in-depth focus group session. Participants were involved in cancer care and clinical research from a large hospital in the United States Midwest region. Data were transcribed, coded, and systematically analyzed through thematic content analysis.

Results

The data revealed four levels of barriers to clinical trial enrollment, with emergent themes within each level: patient (beliefs or trust, distance to trial sites, health insurance coverage, language, and immigration status), provider (limited awareness of trial, time constraint, and non-cooperation from colleagues), clinical (eligibility criteria and clinical design), and institutional (policy and limited logistic support).

Conclusion

Healthcare providers face complex, multifaceted, and interrelated barriers to clinical trial enrollment. To overcome these barriers, health care organizations need to commit more human and financial resources, break down boundaries for more efficient inter-departmental cooperation, develop more coordinated efforts in promoting trial awareness and participation, and remove unnecessary regulatory barriers.

One size does not fit all: Insights for engaging front-line clinicians in pragmatic clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Despite the proliferation of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) conducted in health care delivery settings, we know relatively little about how practicing clinicians perceive their potential roles in such research. Empirical evidence and practical guidance concerning clinician engagement in research is needed to inform the design and successful implementation of PCTs.

METHODS

We conducted a two-phase qualitative study to better understand how and to what extent practicing clinicians should be involved in PCTs and to develop guidance for researchers on engaging front-line clinicians in PCTs. In phase one, clinicians who spend the majority of their time providing direct patient care participated in 90-min focus groups. In phase two, we conducted key informant interviews with PCT research teams and clinicians participating in the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) trial.

RESULTS

Thirty-four physicians, nurses, and other care providers from four health care delivery organizations participated in focus groups. Focus group participants stressed the importance of engaging clinicians early in the PCT planning process to identify clinically relevant study questions, provide input on study design, and customize study protocols to fit unique clinic workflows. We conducted 18 interviews with principal investigators, project managers, and clinicians involved in the ADAPTABLE trial across six clinical data research networks. Study team members described trying multiple approaches to optimize in-clinic recruitment and enrollment of eligible patients. Successful strategies involved several key factors related to research team interactions with eligible patients, clinicians, and clinic staff.

CONCLUSIONS

More active involvement by a range of clinical stakeholders in PCT planning may help researchers avoid common barriers to trial implementation. We propose a "medium-touch" approach to involving clinicians in PCT recruitment and enrollment that focuses clinician effort where it is most critical-to reassure eligible patients that trial participation is a safe alternative for them.

The Growth of Integrated Care Models in Urology

With heightened awareness of health care outcomes and efficiencies and reimbursement-based metrics, it is ever more important that urologists consider the effects of integrated care models on physicians/staff/clinics fulfillment and patient outcomes, and whether and how to optimally implement these models within their unique practice settings. Despite growing evidence that integrating care improves outcomes, uncertainty persists regarding which approach is most efficient and achievable in terms of specialty considerations and financial resources. In this article, we discuss strategies for integrating urologic care and its impact on current and future health care delivery.

Enrollment of adolescents and young adults onto SWOG cancer research network clinical trials: A comparative analysis by treatment site and era

Background

Few adolescents and young adults (AYAs, 15‐39 years old) enroll onto cancer clinical trials, which hinders research otherwise having the potential to improve outcomes in this unique population. Prior studies have reported that AYAs are more likely to receive cancer care in community settings. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has led efforts to increase trial enrollment through its network of NCI‐designated cancer centers (NCICC) combined with community outreach through its Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP; replaced by the NCI Community Oncology Research Program in 2014).

Methods

Using AYA proportional enrollment (the proportion of total enrollments who were AYAs) as the primary outcome, we examined enrollment of AYAs onto SWOG therapeutic trials at NCICC, CCOP, and non‐NCICC/non‐CCOP sites from 2004 to 2013 by type of site, study period (2004‐08 vs 2009‐13), and patient demographics.

Results

Overall, AYA proportional enrollment was 10.1%. AYA proportional enrollment decreased between 2004‐2008 and 2009‐2013 (13.1% vs 8.5%, P < .001), and was higher at NCICCs than at CCOPs and non‐NCICC/non‐CCOPs (14.1% vs 8.3% and 9.2%, respectively; P < .001). AYA proportional enrollment declined significantly at all three site types. Proportional enrollment of AYAs who were Black or Hispanic was significantly higher at NCICCs compared with CCOPs or non‐NCICC/non‐CCOPs (11.5% vs 8.8, P = .048 and 11.5% vs 8.6%, P = .03, respectively).

Conclusion

Not only did community sites enroll a lower proportion of AYAs onto cancer clinical trials, but AYA enrollment decreased in all study settings. Initiatives aimed at increasing AYA enrollment, particularly in the community setting with attention to minority status, are needed.

Low Enrollment of Adolescents and Young Adults Onto Cancer Trials: Insights From the Community Clinical Oncology Program

PURPOSE

Stagnant outcomes for adolescents and young adults (AYAs; 15 to 39 years old) with cancer are partly attributed to poor enrollment onto clinical trials. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) was developed to improve clinical trial participation in the community setting, where AYAs are most often treated. Further, many CCOP sites had pediatric and medical oncologists with collaborative potential for AYA recruitment and care. For these reasons, we hypothesized that CCOP sites enrolled proportionately more AYAs than non-CCOP sites onto Children's Oncology Group (COG) trials.

METHODS

For the 10-year period 2004 through 2013, the NCI Division of Cancer Prevention database was queried to evaluate enrollments into relevant COG studies. The proportional enrollment of AYAs at CCOP and non-CCOP sites was compared and the change in AYA enrollment patterns assessed. All sites were COG member institutions.

RESULTS

Although CCOP sites enrolled a higher proportion of patients in cancer control studies than non-CCOP sites (3.5% v 1.8%; P < .001), they enrolled a lower proportion of AYAs (24.1% v 28.2%, respectively; P < .001). Proportional AYA enrollment at CCOP sites decreased during the intervals 2004 through 2008 and 2009 through 2013 (26.7% v 21.7%; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Despite oncology practice settings that might be expected to achieve otherwise, CCOP sites did not enroll a larger proportion of AYAs in clinical trials than traditional COG institutions. Our findings suggest that the CCOP (now the NCI Community Oncology Research Program) can be leveraged for developing targeted interventions for overcoming AYA enrollment barriers.

Impact of a clinical trial initiative on clinical trial enrollment in a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic

Clinical oncology trials are hampered by low accrual rates, with fewer than 5% of adult patients with cancer treated on study. Clinical trial enrollment was evaluated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center's Multidisciplinary Prostate Cancer Clinic (MPCC) to assess whether a clinical trial initiative, introduced in 2006, impacted enrollment. The trial initiative included posting trial-specific information in clinic, educating patients about appropriate clinical trial options during the treatment recommendation discussion, and providing patients with trial-specific educational information. The investigators evaluated the frequency of clinical trial enrollment for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer seen in the MPCC from 2004 to 2008. Logistic regression evaluated the impact of patient characteristics and the clinical trial initiative on trial enrollment. The median age of the 1370 men was 64 years; 32% had low-risk, 49% had intermediate-risk, and 19% had high-risk disease. Overall, 74% enrolled in at least one trial and 29% enrolled in more than one trial. Trial enrollment increased from 39% before the initiative (127/326) to 84% (880/1044) after the trial initiative. Patient enrollment increased in laboratory studies (from 25% to 80%), quality-of-life studies (from 10% to 26%), and studies evaluating investigational treatments and systemic agents (from 6% to 15%) after the trial initiative. In multivariate analysis, younger men (P<.001) and men seen after implementation of the clinical trial initiative (P<.001) were more likely to enroll in trials. Clinical trial enrollment in the MPCC was substantially higher than that seen nationally in adult patients with cancer, and enrollment rates increased after the introduction of a clinical trial initiative.

Strategies addressing barriers to clinical trial enrollment of underrepresented populations: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials remains a reality while they have disproportionately higher rates of health disparities.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to identify successful community-engaged interventions that included health care providers as a key strategy in addressing barriers to clinical trial enrollment of underrepresented patients.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the literature on interventions addressing enrollment barriers to clinical trials for racial and ethnic minorities was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, EBSCO Megafile, and EBSCO CINAHL. The systematic review identified 360 studies, and 20 were selected using the inclusion criteria. An iterative process extracted information from the eligible studies.

RESULTS

The 20 selected studies were analyzed and then grouped by first author, nature of the clinical research initiative, priority populations, key strategies, and study outcomes. Nine of the studies addressed cancer clinical trials and 11 related to chronic medical conditions, including diabetes, hypertension management, and chronic kidney disease. The key strategies employed were categorized according to their presumed impact on barriers incurred at distinct steps in study recruitment: clinical trial awareness, opportunity to participate, and acceptance of enrollment. The strategies were further categorized by whether they would address barriers associated with minority perceptions of the research process and barriers related to how studies were designed and implemented.

CONCLUSION

Multiple and flexible strategies targeting providers and participants at provider sites and within communities might be needed to enroll underrepresented populations into clinical trials.

Organizational and physician factors associated with patient enrollment in cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Our purpose was to identify physicians' individual characteristics, attitudes, and organizational contextual factors associated with higher enrollment of patients in cancer clinical trials among physician participants in the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP). We hypothesized that physicians' individual characteristics, such as age, medical specialty, tenure, CCOP organizational factors (i.e. policies and procedures to encourage enrollment), and attitudes toward participating in CCOP would directly determine enrollment. We also hypothesized that physicians' characteristics and CCOP organizational factors would influence physicians' attitudes toward participating in CCOP, which in turn would predict enrollment.

METHODS

We evaluated enrollment in National Cancer Institute-sponsored cancer clinical trials in 2011 among 481 physician participants using Structural Equation Modeling. The data sources include CCOP Annual Progress Reports, two surveys of CCOP administrators and physician participants, and the American Medical Association Masterfile.

RESULTS

Physicians with more positive attitudes toward participating in CCOP enrolled more patients than physicians with less positive attitudes. In addition, physicians who practiced in CCOPs that had more supportive policies and practices in place to encourage enrollment (i.e. offered trainings, provided support to screen and enroll patients, gave incentives to enroll patients, instituted minimum accrual expectations) also significantly enrolled more patients. Physician status as CCOP Principal Investigator had a positive direct effect on enrollment, while physician age and non-oncology medical specialty had negative direct effects on enrollment. Neither physicians' characteristics nor CCOP organizational factors indirectly influenced enrollment through an effect on physician attitudes.

CONCLUSION

We examined whether individual physicians' characteristics and attitudes, as well as CCOP organizational factors, influenced patient enrollment in cancer clinical trials among CCOP physicians. Physician attitudes and CCOP organizational factors had positive direct effects, but not indirect effects, on physician enrollment of patients. Our results could be used to develop physician-directed strategies aimed at increasing involvement in clinical research. For example, administrators may want to ensure physicians have access to support staff to help screen and enroll patients or institute minimum accrual expectations. Our results also highlight the importance of recruiting physicians for volunteer clinical research programs whose attitudes and values align with programmatic goals. Given that physician involvement is a key determinant of patient enrollment in clinical trials, these interventions could expand the overall number of patients involved in cancer research. These strategies will be increasingly important as the CCOP network continues to evolve.

Patients' rationale for declining participation in a cancer-associated weight loss study

BACKGROUND

Fewer than 5 % of cancer patients participate in clinical research. Although this paltry rate has led to extensive research on this topic, previous studies have not sought verbatim comments in a real-time, comprehensive manner to understand why patients decline.

METHODS

This study used a low-risk, non-interventional parent study that focused on cancer-associated weight loss to understand patients' reasons for declining research participation. A research assistant wrote down the name and verbatim reason of all patients who declined to participate. These comments with accompanying patient demographic data are the subject of this report.

RESULTS

Of the 334 patients, 51 (15 %) declined parent study enrollment; three comment-related themes emerged: (1) a repelling sense of too much institutional research, (2) overwhelming personal health issues, and (3) a low likelihood of returning to the institution. In univariate and multivariate analyses, only age (older) and gender (female) were associated with non-enrollment. Interestingly, 41 patients with fatigue scores of 7 or worse and 26 with pain scores of 7 or worse were enrolled.

CONCLUSIONS

Although many factors were associated with declining to participate in research, symptom severity was not. Upfront education might help cancer patients better prioritize their participation in research, particularly as some patients felt overwhelmed by too much research in the institution; and for now, investigators should continue to keep asking patients for their participation.

Barriers and challenges to global clinical cancer research

BACKGROUND

There are concerns about growing barriers to cancer research. We explored the characteristics of and barriers to global clinical cancer research.

METHODS

The American Society of Clinical Oncology International Affairs Committee invited 300 selected oncologists with research experience from 25 countries to complete a Web-based survey. Fisher's exact test was used to compare answers between participants from high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Barriers to clinical cancer research were ranked from 1 (most important) to 8 (least important). Mann-Whitney's nonparametric test was used to compare the ranks describing the importance of investigated obstacles.

RESULTS

Eighty oncologists responded, 41 from HICs and 39 from LMICs. Most responders were medical oncologists (62%) at academic hospitals (90%). Researchers from HICs were more involved with academic and industry-driven research than were researchers from LMICs. Significantly higher proportions of those who considered their ability to conduct academic research and industry-driven research over the past 5 years more difficult were from HICs (73% vs. 27% and 70% vs. 30%, respectively). Concerning academic clinical cancer research, a lack of funding was ranked the most important (score: 3.16) barrier, without significant differences observed between HICs and LMICs. Lack of time or competing priorities and procedures from competent authorities were the second most important barriers to conducting academic clinical research in HICs and LMICs, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Lack of funding, lack of time and competing priorities, and procedures from competent authorities might be the main global barriers to academic clinical cancer research.

The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations

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.