A novel clinical trial recruitment strategy for women's cancer

"The Truth Is, We Must Miss Some": A Qualitative Study of the Patient Eligibility Screening Process, and Automation Perspectives, for Cancer Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Recruitment of cancer patients into clinical trials (CTs) is a challenge. We aimed to explore how patient eligibility assessment is conducted in practice, what factors support or hinder this process, and to assess the potential usefulness of Clinical Trial Recruitment Support Systems (CTRSS) for patient-to-trial matching.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews in France with healthcare professionals involved in cancer CTs and experts on trial recruitment. We focused on the stages in-between trial feasibility, and patient information and consent. Interviews were recorded, and the transcripts were analyzed thematically. We used the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 2.0 framework to organize our results.

RESULTS

We interviewed 25 participants. We identified common steps for cancer patient eligibility assessment: prescreening under medical supervision, followed by the validation of patient-trial matching based on manual chart review. This process built on rich interactions between clinicians, other professionals (clinical research assistants, data scientists, medical coding experts), and patients. Technological factors, mainly related to data infrastructure (both for patient data and trial data), and organizational factors (research culture, incentives, formal and informal research networks) mediated the performance of the recruitment process. Participants had mixed feelings towards CTRSSs; they welcomed automated pre-screening but insisted on manual verification. Given the necessary collaborative nature of multisite trials, coordinated efforts to support a common data infrastructure could be helpful.

CONCLUSIONS

Material, organizational, and human factors affect cancer patient eligibility assessment for CTs. Patient-to-trial matching tools bear potential, but good understanding of the ecosystem, including stakeholders' motivations, is a prerequisite.

The usage of population and disease registries as pre-screening tools for clinical trials, a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to outline the use of population and disease registries for clinical trial pre-screening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The search was conducted in the time period of January 2014 to December 2022 in three databases: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. References were screened using the Rayyan software, firstly based on titles and abstracts only, and secondly through full text review. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the List of Included Studies and quality Assurance in Review tool, enabling inclusion of publications of only moderate to high quality.

RESULTS

The search originally identified 1430 citations, but only 24 studies were included, reporting the use of population and/or disease registries for trial pre-screening. Nine disease domains were represented, with 54% of studies using registries based in the USA, and 62.5% of the studies using national registries. Half of the studies reported usage for drug trials, and over 478,679 patients were identified through registries in this review. Main advantages of the pre-screening methodology were reduced financial burden and time reduction.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The use of registries for trial pre-screening increases reproducibility of the pre-screening process across trials and sites, allowing for implementation and improvement of a quality assurance process. Pre-screening strategies seem under-reported, and we encourage more trials to use and describe their pre-screening processes, as there is a need for standardized methodological guidelines.

Diversity and transparency in gynecologic oncology clinical trials

PURPOSE

Clinical trials advance the standard of care for patients. Patients enrolled in trials should represent the population who would benefit from the intervention in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess whether clinical trials enrolling patients with gynecologic cancers report racial and ethnic participant composition and to examine the level of diversity in clinical trials.

METHODS

Using ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified clinical trials enrolling patients with ovarian, uterine/endometrial, cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancers from 1988 to 2019. Race and ethnicity data were extracted from participant demographics. Descriptive statistics on race, ethnicity, cancer type, location, study status, and sponsor type were calculated. Among trials which reported race and/or ethnicity, sub-analyses were performed on composition of race and ethnicity by funding source, location, and completed study status.

RESULTS

A total of 1,882 trials met inclusion criteria; only 179 trials (9.5%) reported race information. Of these, the racial distribution of enrollees was 66.9% White, 8.6% Asian, 8.5% Black/African American, 0.4% Indian/Alaskan Native, 0.1% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 1.0% more than one race, and 14.5% unknown. Only 100 (5.3%) trials reported ethnicity. Except for trials enrolling patients with cervical cancer which enrolled 65.2% White and 62.1% Non-Hispanic/Latino/a patients, enrollees in trials for other gynecologic cancers were over 80% White and 88% Non-Hispanic/Latino/a. Industry funded trials enrolled higher proportions of White (68.4%) participants than non-industry funded trials (57.5%). Domestic trials report race (11.5%) and ethnicity (7.6%) at higher rates than international trials (6.9% and 2.3%, respectively). Reporting of race (1.7% vs. 13.9%) and ethnicity (1.7% vs. 11.1%) has increased over time for patients enrolled in 2000 vs. 2018.

CONCLUSION

Less than 10% of trials enrolling patients with gynecologic malignancies report racial/ethnic participant composition on ClinicalTrials.gov. Accurate reporting of participant race/ethnicity is imperative to ensuring minority representation in clinical trials.

Contemporary use of real-world data for clinical trial conduct in the United States: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Real-world data (RWD), defined as routinely collected healthcare data, can be a potential catalyst for addressing challenges faced in clinical trials. We performed a scoping review of database-specific RWD applications within clinical trial contexts, synthesizing prominent uses and themes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Querying 3 biomedical literature databases, research articles using electronic health records, administrative claims databases, or clinical registries either within a clinical trial or in tandem with methodology related to clinical trials were included. Articles were required to use at least 1 US RWD source. All abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction was performed by 1 reviewer. Two reviewers independently verified all decisions.

RESULTS

Of 2020 screened articles, 89 qualified: 59 articles used electronic health records, 29 used administrative claims, and 26 used registries. Our synthesis was driven by the general life cycle of a clinical trial, culminating into 3 major themes: trial process tasks (51 articles); dissemination strategies (6); and generalizability assessments (34). Despite a diverse set of diseases studied, <10% of trials using RWD for trial process tasks evaluated medications or procedures (5/51). All articles highlighted data-related challenges, such as missing values.

DISCUSSION

Database-specific RWD have been occasionally leveraged for various clinical trial tasks. We observed underuse of RWD within conducted medication or procedure trials, though it is subject to the confounder of implicit report of RWD use.

CONCLUSION

Enhanced incorporation of RWD should be further explored for medication or procedure trials, including better understanding of how to handle related data quality issues to facilitate RWD use.

Success of promotion strategies for a stroke rehabilitation protocol

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively evaluate the success of promotion strategies for a protocol of motor rehabilitation strategies for patients with stroke at Albert Einstein Hospital.

METHODS

In a clinical trial of neuromodulation and rehabilitation for patients with stroke, conventional methods of dissemination and publications about the research protocol in social networks or on the hospital's website were performed. Frequencies of types of advertisements that reached potentially eligible subjects were calculated.

RESULTS

Data from 80 potentially eligible patients were analyzed. The types of ads that motivated contacts more frequently were social media (38.8%) and information provided to physicians from other hospitals (23.8%) (p=0,288). The frequencies of contacts motivated by publications on the internet (53%) and conventional strategies (47%) were similar. Facebook was the digital strategy associated with the higher number of contacts, followed by the hospital's website.

CONCLUSION

Social networks and websites can be as effective as traditional methods of advertisement, in order to reach patients for stroke rehabilitation protocols. These results may have an impact on the planning of clinical trials, including studies that evaluate effects of rehabilitation interventions in patients with stroke.

Evaluation of 3 approaches for increasing patient engagement in clinical research: Feedback from a community engagement advisory board

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to obtain feedback from a diverse group of community advisory board members about different clinic or hospital-based approaches to increasing research participation.

Methods

Members of an established community engagement advisory board (n=16) provided qualitative and survey data regarding attitudes and preferences for 3 hospital and clinic system strategies to recruit patients into clinical research including universal consent for research, patient registries, and patient portals.

Results

Overall, there was moderate support for each of the 3 approaches discussed. Board members described advantages and disadvantages of each method. Based on the qualitative data, universal consent was viewed as the best strategy for consenting high volumes of patients for research. However, patient registries and portals were seen as more acceptable, less-intrusive and more likely to result in higher participation rates. Survey data were consistent with qualitative findings.

Conclusions

Input from community stakeholders is needed to identify strategies to enhance participation and increase diversity in clinical research. Members of our CEAB identified patient registries and portals as feasible and nonintrusive approaches to increasing research participation. Additional research is needed to confirm these findings and to establish best practices for supporting patients in using registry approaches.

Clinical Research Informatics: Supporting the Research Study Lifecycle

Objectives: The primary goal of this review is to summarize significant developments in the field of Clinical Research Informatics (CRI) over the years 2015-2016. The secondary goal is to contribute to a deeper understanding of CRI as a field, through the development of a strategy for searching and classifying CRI publications. Methods: A search strategy was developed to query the PubMed database, using medical subject headings to both select and exclude articles, and filtering publications by date and other characteristics. A manual review classified publications using stages in the "research study lifecycle", with key stages that include study definition, participant enrollment, data management, data analysis, and results dissemination. Results: The search strategy generated 510 publications. The manual classification identified 125 publications as relevant to CRI, which were classified into seven different stages of the research lifecycle, and one additional class that pertained to multiple stages, referring to general infrastructure or standards. Important cross-cutting themes included new applications of electronic media (Internet, social media, mobile devices), standardization of data and procedures, and increased automation through the use of data mining and big data methods. Conclusions: The review revealed increased interest and support for CRI in large-scale projects across institutions, regionally, nationally, and internationally. A search strategy based on medical subject headings can find many relevant papers, but a large number of non-relevant papers need to be detected using text words which pertain to closely related fields such as computational statistics and clinical informatics. The research lifecycle was useful as a classification scheme by highlighting the relevance to the users of clinical research informatics solutions.

The generalizability of NCI-sponsored clinical trials accrual among women with gynecologic malignancies

OBJECTIVES

Enrollment of a representative population to cancer clinical trials ensures scientific reliability and generalizability of results. This study evaluated the similarity of patients enrolled in NCI-supported group gynecologic cancer trials to the incident US population.

METHODS

Accrual to NCI-sponsored ovarian, uterine, and cervical cancer treatment trials between 2003 and 2012 were examined. Race, ethnicity, age, and insurance status were compared to the analogous US patient population estimated using adjusted SEER incidence data.

RESULTS

There were 18,913 accruals to 156 NCI-sponsored gynecologic cancer treatment trials, ovarian (56%), uterine (32%), and cervical cancers (12%). Ovarian cancer trials included the least racial, ethnic and age diversity. Black women were notably underrepresented in ovarian trials (4% versus 11%). Hispanic patients were underrepresented in ovarian and uterine trials (4% and 5% versus 18% and 19%, respectively), but not in cervical cancer trials (14 versus 11%). Elderly patients were underrepresented in each disease area, with the greatest underrepresentation seen in ovarian cancer patients over the age of 75 (7% versus 29%). Privately insured women were overrepresented among accrued ovarian cancer patients (87% versus 76%), and the uninsured were overrepresented among women with uterine or cervical cancers. These patterns did not change over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Several notable differences were observed between the patients accrued to NCI funded trials and the incident population. Improving representation of racial and ethnic minorities and elderly patients on cancer clinical trials continues to be a challenge and priority.