Cancer trial enrollment after state-mandated reimbursement

Association Between State Medicaid Policies and Accrual of Black or Hispanic Patients to Cancer Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

It is unknown whether Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or state-level policies mandating Medicaid coverage of the routine costs of clinical trial participation have ameliorated longstanding racial and ethnic disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional difference-in-differences analysis examining the effect of Medicaid expansion on rates of enrollment for Black or Hispanic nonelderly adults in nonobservational, US cancer clinical trials using data from Medidata's Rave platform for 2012-2019. We examined heterogeneity in this effect on the basis of whether states had pre-existing mandates requiring Medicaid coverage of the routine costs of clinical trial participation.

RESULTS

The study included 47,870 participants across 1,353 clinical trials and 344 clinical trial sites. In expansion states, the proportion of participants who were Black or Hispanic increased from 16.7% before expansion to 17.2% after Medicaid expansion (0.5 percentage point [PP] change [95% CI, -1.1 to 2.0]). In nonexpansion states, this proportion increased from 19.8% before 2014 (when the first states expanded eligibility under the ACA) to 20.4% after 2014 (0.6 PP change [95% CI, -2.3 to 3.5]). These trends yielded a nonsignificant difference-in-differences estimate of 0.9 PP (95% CI, -2.6 to 4.4). Medicaid expansion was associated with a 5.3 PP (95% CI, 1.9 to 8.7) increase in the enrollment of Black or Hispanic participants in states with mandates requiring Medicaid coverage of the routine costs of trial participation, but not in states without mandates (-0.3 PP [95% CI, -4.5 to 3.9]).

CONCLUSION

Medicaid expansion was not associated with a significant increase in the proportion of Black or Hispanic oncology trial participants overall, but was associated with an increase specifically in states that mandated Medicaid coverage of the routine costs of trial participation.

Prostate cancer clinical trial completion: The role of geography

BACKGROUND/AIMS

One in five cancer clinical trials fails with another third failing to meet enrollment goals. Prior efforts to improve enrollment focus on patient facing interventions, but geographic factors such as regional cancer incidence may doom trials before they even begin. For these reasons, we examined associations of regional prostate cancer incidence with trial termination, and identified scientifically-underserved areas where future trials might thrive.

METHODS

We merged US phase 2-3 prostate cancer clinical trial data from ClinicalTrials.gov with prostate cancer incidence data from statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov. We matched trial information from 293 closed and 560 active trials with incidence data for 2947 counties. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified associations with trial termination. We identified 'scientifically-underserved' counties with the highest cancer incidence quintile (>61 annual cases) but lowest active trials quintile (0 or 1 trial).

RESULTS

Of 293 closed trials, one in three was terminated (n = 96, 32.8%). On multivariable analysis, only lower regional prostate cancer incidence was associated with higher likelihood of premature trial termination (OR 0.98, 95% CI [0.96-0.99] for every 100 cases, p = 0.03). We identified 188 counties with >61 annual prostate cancer cases but 0 or 1 active trials, indicating potential scientifically-underserved areas.

CONCLUSIONS

In this novel study, we found prostate cancer trials in areas with low prostate cancer incidence were more likely to fail. We also identified scientifically-underserved areas where trials might thrive. Our findings provide a more nuanced understanding of clinical trial feasibility and upstream opportunities for improvement.

Treatment options for older unfit patients with acute myeloid leukemia

Older acute myeloid leukemia patients usually experience a bleak outcome, especially those in the unfit group. For this unfit category, intensive chemotherapy and allogeneic stem cell transplantation are usually accompanied by higher early mortality, which results from higher risk genetic profiles and worse psychological and physiological conditions. The significant improvement in genetic technology recently has driven the appearance of several mutation-targeted therapies, such as FLT3, Bcl-2, IDH and Hedgehog pathway inhibitors and an anti-CD33 antibody-drug conjugate, which have changed enormously the therapeutic landscape of acute myeloid leukemia. This review describes the treatment dilemma of the unfit group and discusses the objective clinical data of each targeted drug and mechanisms of resistance, with a focus on combination strategies with fewer toxicities and abrogation of drug resistance.

The Impact of the Affordable Care Act on Disparities in Private and Medicaid Insurance Coverage Among Patients Under 65 With Newly Diagnosed Cancer

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of the Affordable Care Act on racial and rural-urban disparities in insurance coverage for patients under age 65 with cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data from 2011 to 2015, we calculated the proportions of uninsured, Medicaid, and non-Medicaid insured (including private insurance) patients before and after the Medicaid expansion. We calculated the absolute percent change and difference in differences (DiD) to evaluate whether the Medicaid expansion had an impact on the distribution of types of insurance. Adjusted DiD analyses accounted for age, race, sex, county-level median household income, and rural-urban residence.

RESULTS

There was a greater decrease in uninsured rate in expansion states (-3.0%) versus nonexpansion states (-0.9%, DiD -2.1%), particularly among Black (DiD -3.4%), Hispanic (-3.9%), and rural patients (-4.8%). In expansion states, an increase in the proportion of patients with Medicaid coincided with a decrease in the proportion with non-Medicaid insurance; the opposite was observed in nonexpansion states. The decrease in non-Medicaid insurance varied by patient race: Asian/Pacific Islanders (adjusted DiD -9.7%), Hispanic (-4.2%), non-Hispanic black (-4.0%), and non-Hispanic white (-2.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Medicaid expansion versus nonexpansion states observed a slightly greater reduction in the uninsured rate, but Medicaid expansion states also observed a corresponding shift from non-Medicaid (including private) to Medicaid insurance, which may paradoxically exacerbate disparities in access to care and cancer outcomes. Long-term outcomes and continued study are required to fully understand the impact of the Affordable Care Act on disparities in cancer care.

State insurance mandates and off-label use of chemotherapy

Access to cancer drugs used off-label is important to cancer patients but may drive up healthcare costs with little evidence of clinical benefit. We hypothesized that state health insurance mandates for private insurers to provide coverage for off-label use of cancer drugs cause higher rates of off-label use. We used Truven MarketScan data from 1999 to 2007 on utilization of 35 infused chemotherapy drugs in private health plans in the United States, covering the period when eight states implemented off-label coverage laws. We studied trends in off-label use of drugs, distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate off-label use according to drug compendia, and estimated difference-in-difference regressions of the effect of state laws on off-label use. We estimate 41% of utilization was off-label, including 17% of use conservatively defined as inappropriate. Trends show gradual declines in off-label use over time. We also find no discernable effect of state laws mandating coverage of off-label use of cancer drugs on utilization patterns under multiple empirical specifications. Our conclusion is that policymakers should consider shifting away from mandating coverage as a way to ensure access to drugs off-label and towards incentivizing adherence to clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality and value of off-label use.

Clinical trial insurance coverage for cancer patients under the Affordable Care Act

Background

Participation in cancer clinical trials has been shown to increase overall survival with minimal increase in cost, but enrollment in adult cancer clinical trials remains low. One factor limiting enrollment is lack of insurance coverage, but this barrier should be reduced under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which includes a provision requiring coverage for clinical trial participation as of 2014.

Methods

To assess the number of Kansas adults aged 19-64, newly covered with health insurance for participation in oncology clinical trials as a result of the ACA, a cross sectional design using extracted data from the 2012 American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample to estimate the number of individuals covered by insurance and data from the 2014 Department of Health and Human Services Health Insurance Marketplace enrollment to estimate those newly enrolled through ACA.

Results

In 2014, there was an estimated increase of 3% (54,397; 95% CI: 44,149-64,244) for a total of 72% (1,171,041) of Kansans aged 19 to 64 with health insurance coverage for clinical trial participation.

Conclusion

Three main factors limit the effectiveness of the ACA provisions in expanding clinical trial coverage: 1) 'grandfathered' self-funded employer plans not subject to state Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulations, 2) Medicaid coverage limits not addressed under the ACA, 3) populations that remain uninsured. Kansas saw a negligible increase in insurance coverage as a result of the ACA thus lack of insurance coverage is likely to remain a concern for cancer patients.

Big data analysis of treatment patterns and outcomes among elderly acute myeloid leukemia patients in the United States

Over half of patients diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are 65 years or older. We examined patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival among elderly patients in routine clinical practice. We utilized a retrospective cohort analysis of first primary AML patients in the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Patients were diagnosed between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2009, >66 years, and continuously enrolled in Medicare Part A and B in the year prior to diagnosis. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards regression assessed overall survival by treatment. There were 3327 (40 %) patients who received chemotherapy within 3 months of diagnosis. Treated patients were more likely younger, male, and married, and less likely to have secondary AML and poor performance indicators and comorbidity score compared to untreated patients. In multivariate survival analysis, treated patients exhibited a significant 33 % lower risk of death compared to untreated patients. Significant survival benefits were noted with receipt of intensive and hypomethylating agent (HMA) therapies compared to no therapy. A survival benefit with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation was seen in younger Medicare patients. This real-world study showed that about 60 % of elderly AML patients remain untreated following diagnosis. Use of anti-leukemic therapy was associated with a significant survival benefit in this elderly cohort.

Designing therapeutic clinical trials for older and frail adults with cancer: U13 conference recommendations

A majority of cancer diagnoses and deaths occur in patients age ≥ 65 years. With the aging of the US population, the number of older adults with cancer will grow. Although the coming wave of older patients with cancer was anticipated in the early 1980s, when the need for more research on the cancer-aging interface was recognized, many knowledge gaps remain when it comes to treating older and/or frailer patients with cancer. Relatively little is known about the best way to balance the risks and benefits of existing cancer therapies in older patients; however, these patients continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials. Furthermore, the available clinical trials often do not include end points pertinent to the older adult population, such as preservation of function, cognition, and independence. As part of its ongoing effort to advance research in the field of geriatric oncology, the Cancer and Aging Research Group held a conference in November 2012 in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute on Aging, and the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. The goal was to develop recommendations and establish research guidelines for the design and implementation of therapeutic clinical trials for older and/or frail adults. The conference sought to identify knowledge gaps in cancer clinical trials for older adults and propose clinical trial designs to fill these gaps. The ultimate goal of this conference series is to develop research that will lead to evidence-based care for older and/or frail adults with cancer.

The impact of health insurance mandates on drug innovation: evidence from the United States

An important health policy issue is the low rate of patient enrollment into clinical trials, which may slow down the process of clinical trials and discourage their supply, leading to delays in innovative life-saving drug treatments reaching the general population. In the US, patients' cost of participating in a clinical trial is considered to be a major barrier to patient enrollment. In order to reduce this barrier, some states in the US have implemented policies requiring health insurers to cover routine care costs for patients enrolled in clinical trials. This paper evaluates empirically how effective these policies were in increasing the supply of clinical trials and speeding up their completion, using data on cancer clinical trials initiated in the US between 2001 and 2007. Our analysis indicates that the policies did not lead to an increased supply in the number of clinical trials conducted in mandate states compared to non-mandate states. However, we find some evidence that once clinical trials are initiated, they are more likely to finish their patient recruitment in a timely manner in mandate states than in non-mandate states. As a result, the overall length to completion was significantly shorter in mandate states than in non-mandate states for cancer clinical trials in certain phases. The findings hint at the possibility that these policies might encourage drug innovation in the long run.

Effect of state-mandated insurance coverage on accrual to community cancer clinical trials

Thirty-five U.S. states and territories have implemented policies requiring insurers to cover patient care costs in the context of cancer clinical trials; however, evidence of the effectiveness of these policies is limited. This study assesses the impact of state insurance mandates on clinical trial accrual among community-based practices participating in the NCI Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP), which enrolls approximately one-third of all NCI cancer trial participants. We analyzed CCOP clinical trial enrollment over 17 years in 37 states, 14 of which implemented coverage policies, using fixed effects least squares regression to estimate the effect of state policies on trial accrual among community providers, controlling for state and CCOP differences in capacity to recruit. Of 91 CCOPs active during this time, 28 were directly affected by coverage mandates. Average recruitment per CCOP between 1991 and 2007 was 95.1 participants per year (SD=55.8). CCOPs in states with a mandate recruited similar numbers of participants compared to states without a mandate. In multivariable analysis, treatment trial accrual among CCOPs in states that had implemented a coverage mandate, was not statistically different than accrual among CCOPs in states that did not implement a coverage mandate (β=2.95, p=0.681). State mandates did not appear to confer a benefit in terms of CCOP clinical trial accrual. State policies vary in strength, which may have diluted their effect on accrual. Nonetheless, policy mandates alone may not have a meaningful impact on participation in clinical trials in these states.

Effect of the accountable care act of 2010 on clinical trial insurance coverage

PURPOSE

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 implemented dramatic changes in our health care system. The new law requires that insurers and health plans provide coverage for individuals participating in clinical trials. Currently, there are states that already have laws or agreements requiring clinical trial coverage, but there remain deficiencies that will need to be addressed to achieve compliance with the new law.

METHODS

State mandates were reviewed to determine current laws and agreements. The ACA was reviewed to outline its provisions, and these were compared with current mandates to identify deficiencies.

RESULTS

Eighteen states meet the requirements set forth by the ACA either through a state law or agreement; 33 states do not meet the requirements. Of these 33 states, 15 do not have any existing laws or agreements in place regarding clinical trials. In states that have deficient policies in place, the most common deficiency is the lack of phase I coverage. The second most common deficiency in policy is coverage of only therapeutic studies.

CONCLUSION

Most states currently do not meet the requirements of the ACA and will be required to make changes by 2014. The implications of the ACA with regard to insurance coverage of clinical trials remain unclear as implementation of the legislation unfolds. State governments can take steps to ensure insurance coverage by creating and expanding agreements with insurance companies.

Potential pitfalls of crossover and thoughts on iniparib in triple-negative breast cancer

As recruitment for oncology clinical trials has become more difficult, there appears to have been an increase in the number of studies that allow patients in the control arm to "crossover" and receive the experimental therapy after disease progression. Although some researchers worry that allowing such crossover may abolish gains in progression-free survival in the experimental arm, the possibility that crossover might inadvertently benefit the experimental arm has not been addressed. In clinical trials in which the experimental agent has little or no intrinsic activity and is used to modulate an active combination, such crossover might negatively affect the overall survival of the control arm. Because resistance to the active combination--manifested as disease progression--has occurred, the likelihood of benefit from adding the experimental drug is reduced. Consequently, patients who were randomly assigned to the control arm continue to receive the now inactive combination after crossover, whereas patients in the experimental arm who discontinue study participation may seek out potentially effective salvage regimens. This difference in subsequent therapies may confer an advantage to the experimental arm that is manifested as gains beyond those achieved in progression-free survival, gains that occur not because the experimental therapy induced a change in tumor biology that persists beyond treatment discontinuation but because the control arm suffers by continuing to receive a therapy on which their tumor is progressing. Such an outcome may explain the recently reported trial results for iniparib in triple-negative breast cancer. Given that allowing patients in the control arm to receive the experimental agent may confound interpretation of overall survival, such crossover should not be used indiscriminately, especially if the experimental agent has little or no intrinsic activity.

Ensuring quality cancer care: a follow-up review of the Institute of Medicine's 10 recommendations for improving the quality of cancer care in America

Responding to growing concerns regarding the safety, quality, and efficacy of cancer care in the United States, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences commissioned a comprehensive review of cancer care delivery in the US health care system in the late 1990s. The National Cancer Policy Board (NCPB), a 20-member board with broad representation, performed this review. In its review, the NCPB focused on the state of cancer care delivery at that time, its shortcomings, and ways to measure and improve the quality of cancer care. The NCPB described an ideal cancer care system in which patients would have equitable access to coordinated, guideline-based care and novel therapies throughout the course of their disease. In 1999, the IOM published the results of this review in its influential report, Ensuring Quality Cancer Care. The report outlined 10 recommendations, which, when implemented, would: 1) improve the quality of cancer care, 2) increase the current understanding of quality cancer care, and 3) reduce or eliminate access barriers to quality cancer care. Despite the fervor generated by this report, there are lingering doubts regarding the safety and quality of cancer care in the United States today. Increased awareness of medical errors and barriers to quality care, coupled with escalating health care costs, has prompted national efforts to reform the health care system. These efforts by health care providers and policymakers should bridge the gap between the ideal state described in Ensuring Quality Cancer Care and the current state of cancer care in the United States.

Clinical trials in the era of personalized oncology

The rapid pace of discoveries in tumor biology, imaging technology, and human genetics hold promise for an era of personalized oncology care. The successful development of a handful of new targeted agents has generated much hope and hype about the delivery of safer and more effective new treatments for cancer. The design and conduct of clinical trials has not yet adjusted to a new era of personalized oncology and so we are more in transition to that era than in it. With the development of treatments for breast cancer as a model, we review the approaches to clinical trials and the development of novel therapeutics in the prior era of population oncology, the current transitional era, and the future era of personalized oncology.

A descriptive analysis of state legislation and policy addressing clinical trials participation

OBJECTIVES

This report describes state policy and legislation related to clinical trials participation and Maryland's model to enhance clinical trial availability and participation.

METHODS

Descriptive review of state policy and legislation related to coverage for clinical trials costs based on data from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) State Cancer Legislative Database, the American Cancer Society, and NCI; additionally, discussion of Maryland's comprehensive multilevel clinical trial model comprising policy initiatives, community engagement, research, education, and infrastructure support.

RESULTS

Twenty-four states have mandated clinical trial coverage through specific legislation or agreements since 1994. Covered benefits varied among the states.

CONCLUSIONS

Besides cost and insurance barriers, there is a need to address important patient, physician and researcher, and structural barriers to clinical trial participation. Maryland provides a comprehensive model to address the multi-faceted clinical trial participation determinants as it tracks state and federal policy, documents trial barriers, and conducts community education.

Clinical trials: the art of enrollment

OBJECTIVES

Enrollment barriers and multidisciplinary approaches to increase cancer trials participation are presented. Recruitment barriers, research in Maryland, and a Best Practice for cancer trials are discussed.

DATA SOURCES

Journal and research articles, web sites.

CONCLUSION

Clinical trials have produced prevention and care advances for cancer and other diseases. Trial enrollment is lower for minorities and underserved communities. A comprehensive program for addressing enrollment barriers should incorporate research on barriers, multidisciplinary teams, and education and trial infrastructure in community settings.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Health disparities training, including culturally appropriate enrollment approaches for education and retention of underserved communities, should incorporate community stakeholders and nurse/physician researchers.

Identification of cancer care and protocol characteristics associated with recruitment in breast cancer clinical trials

PURPOSE

It is estimated that only 5% of patients with cancer participate in a clinical trial. Barriers to participation may relate to available protocols, physicians, and patients, but few data exist on barriers related to cancer care environments and protocol characteristics.

METHODS

The primary objective was to identify characteristics of cancer care environments and clinical trial protocols associated with a low recruitment into breast cancer clinical trials. Secondary objectives were to determine yearly recruitment fraction onto clinical trials from 1997 to 2002 in Ontario, Canada, and to compare recruitment fraction among years. Questionnaires were sent to hospitals requesting characteristics of cancer care environments and to cooperative groups/pharmaceutical companies for information on protocols and the number of patients recruited per hospital/year. Poisson regression was used to estimate the recruitment fraction.

RESULTS

Questionnaire completion rate varied between 69% and 100%. Recruitment fraction varied between 5.4% and 8.5% according to year. More than 30% of patients were diagnosed in hospitals with no available trials. In multivariate analysis, the following characteristics were associated with recruitment: use of placebo versus not (relative risk [RR] = 0.80; P = .05), nonmetastatic versus metastatic trial (RR = 2.80; P < .01), and for nonmetastatic trials, protocol allowing an interval of 12 weeks or longer versus less than 12 weeks (from diagnosis, surgery, or end of therapy) before enrollment (RR = 1.36; P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Allowable interval of 12 weeks or longer to randomly assign patients in clinical trials could help recruitment. In our study, absence of an available clinical trial represented the largest barrier to recruitment.

Participation in surgical oncology clinical trials: gender-, race/ethnicity-, and age-based disparities

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the representation of racial/ethnic minorities, women, and older persons among participants in surgical trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

METHODS

The NCI Clinical Trial Cooperative Group surgical oncology trials database was queried for breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers treated during the period 2000-2002 (n=13,991). Data from the SEER program and the Census were used to estimate age-, gender-, and race/ethnicity-specific incidence of the same cancers among U.S. adults during the same period. Enrollment fraction (EF), defined as the number of trial enrollees divided by the estimated U.S. cancer cases in each demographic group, was the primary outcome measure. Logistic regression was used to compare the enrollment of racial/ethnic, gender and age subgroups in this analysis.

RESULTS

Relative to white patients (EF=0.72%), lower EFs were noted in African-American (0.48%, odds ratio [OR] vs whites 0.67, P<0.001), Hispanic (0.54%, OR 0.76, P<0.001), and Asian/Pacific islander (0.59%, OR 0.82, P=0.001) patients. Overall, women were more likely to enroll in surgical trials (1.12%) than men (0.22%, OR 5.06, P<0.001). Patients 65-74 years of age (EF 0.45%) were less likely to be enrolled than those 20-44 years of age (EF=2.28%, OR 0.20, P=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The enrollment in surgical oncology trials is very low across all demographics. However, racial/ethnic minorities and older persons are less likely to be enrolled in cooperative group surgical oncology trials than are whites and younger patients. The high EF for women is due to the high availability of trials for women with breast cancer. Strategies to increase accrual to surgical trials and ameliorate disparities related to race/ethnicity, gender, and age are needed.

The impact of breast cancer awareness and socioeconomic status on willingness to receive breast cancer prevention drugs

PURPOSE

To find associations between knowledge about risk factors for breast cancer and the socioeconomic status of healthy women, as well as their attitude toward taking chemopreventive drugs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between April and September 1999, 7135 healthy women completed questionnaires providing information about their willingness to take chemopreventive drugs. Items in the questionnaire included the sources of the information they had, their estimates of the population and personal lifetime risk, and risk factors for breast cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 6597 questionnaires were evaluable. The responders' median age was 44. Fifty-five percent of the women were willing to consider receiving chemopreventive drugs to lower their risk for breast cancer. Participants who estimated the population risk as being very high were more disposed to receive chemoprevention (65.3%), as were women who estimated their own breast cancer risk as being high (74.1%). A family history of breast cancer only had a low impact on willingness to receive chemoprevention. Women with a family history of breast cancer were willing to take chemopreventive agents in 57.2% of cases. The multivariate analysis showed that knowing about risk factors and having a lower educational level were factors positively correlated with willingness to consider chemoprevention.

CONCLUSION

These findings emphasize the role of estimations of the risk of breast cancer for patients considering whether to accept chemoprevention treatment. To date, only a few modern models of risk estimation have been evaluated in relation to chemoprevention. There is a need for better integration of professional risk estimations into clinical practice.

Randomized clinical trials for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: lessons to be learned from the European experience

We evaluated the number and characteristics of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for patients with hematological malignancies, comparing the productivity of US and Europe. A MEDLINE search was conducted to identify all published RCTs for the management of adult patients with hematological malignancies from January 1992 to December 2003. Eighty-three of the 306 trials identified included HSCT as one of the treatment arms. The US produced 25, Europe 54, and all other countries four. Four European countries, France, Italy, Germany, and UK (FIGU), produced 32 out of the 54 European studies. Significant differences emerged when focus of the study and accrual numbers were analyzed. Trials comparing HSCT to standard dose therapy represented 34.9% of the 83 trials and 59.4% of FIGU trials, but only 4% of US studies (P = 0.001). US trials accrued a mean of 110.2 patients per study, as compared to 222.6 in FIGU studies (P = 0.006) and 205.3 when all non-US countries are considered (P = 0.01). Our conclusions are that US transplant RCT have focused on issues other than the comparison of HSCT to standard therapies. There is serious paucity of US trials defining the role of HSCT in the management of hematological malignancies.

Increasing participation of cancer patients in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There are many barriers to patient participation in randomised controlled trials of cancer treatments. To increase participation in trials, strategies need to be identified to overcome these barriers. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of interventions to overcome barriers to patient participation in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer treatments.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted. Published and unpublished studies in any language were searched for in fifteen electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, from inception to the end of 2004. Studies of any interventions to improve cancer patient participation in RCTs, which reported the change in recruitment rates, were eligible for inclusion. RCTs and non-randomised controlled trials as well as before and after studies reporting baseline rates specific to the population being investigated were included. Data were extracted by one reviewer into structured summary tables and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer. Each included study was assessed against a checklist for methodological quality by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. A narrative synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria: three RCTs, two non-randomised controlled trials and three observational studies. Six of the studies had an intervention that had some relevance to the UK. There was no robust evidence that any of the interventions investigated led to an increase in cancer patient participation in RCTs, though one good quality RCT found that urologists and nurses were equally effective at recruiting participants to a treatment trial for prostate cancer. Although there was no evidence of an effect in any of the studies, the evidence was not of sufficient quality to be able to conclude that these interventions therefore do not work.

CONCLUSION

There is not a strong evidence-base for interventions that increase cancer patient participation in randomised trials. Further research is required to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to increase participation in cancer treatment trials.

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

BACKGROUND

To the authors' knowledge, only limited data are available regarding clinical trial accrual patterns and the barriers encountered among newly diagnosed patients seen at community-based cancer centers.

METHODS

In the current study, the authors prospectively collected clinical and sociodemographic data from all adult patients seen at a community-based cancer center who had new cancers diagnosed between 2003-2004. Clinical trial enrollment decisions were noted and factors that prevented accrual were identified.

RESULTS

There was a total of 1012 new cancer patients. In 587 patients (58%), clinical trials appropriate for the diagnosis and stage of disease were not available. Among those patients for whom trials were available, 19.8% did not meet eligibility criteria, and only 9.9% of patients were enrolled. Although more trials were found to be available for women compared with men (51% vs. 32%; P < 0.01), the accrual rates were equal (11.2% vs. 7.6%; P = 0.24). Elderly patients comprised approximately 59.4% of those patients with available trials, but they were less likely to be enrolled (5.1% vs. 16.8%; P < 0.01). The major barriers to nonparticipation can be grouped into protocol limitations (68.1%), physician triage (16%), and patient decisions (15.9%). The overall accrual rate when all patients were included was 4% (42 of 1012 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

At the study institution, participation in clinical trials is reported to be low. The unavailability of appropriate clinical trials represents the most significant barrier. Continuing efforts to encourage physicians and to educate patients remain necessary. If the current study findings are found to be applicable to other community-based cancer centers, making a larger variety of clinical trials available to the community may help to improve the accrual of patients to national cancer clinical trials.

Factors influencing inclusion of patients with malignancies in clinical trials

Participation in clinical trials remains low and is a central issue in oncology. The authors identified, through a systematic review, 75 papers published up to August 2004 that report barriers to recruitment of patients in clinical trials. These barriers range from patient preference and concern about information/consent to clinical problems with protocols. Strategies to overcome barriers on the part of patients and clinicians are needed and should be carefully evaluated. Thirty-three (44%) papers reported factors related to patients as influencing the inclusion of patients, 28 (37%) reported clinician's related factors, and 37 (49%) other factors from either specific groups of patients (30 papers, 40%) and/or other scopes (13 papers, 17%). No differences in prevalence were found between papers dedicated to hematologic malignancies and solid tumors. Factors related to clinicians as influential were more frequently reported before 1995 (70%) than thereafter (25%; P = 0.0009). Reporting specific groups of patients as influential was more frequent in North American articles (50%) than in others (14%, P = 0.008). Patients' barriers included mostly patient preference (12 papers), concern about information and/or consent (11 papers), worry about uncertainty (7 papers), and/or relationship with medical team (7 papers). Concerning clinicians, incompatibility of protocol with normal practice (nine papers), problems in complying with the protocol (eight papers), and/or consent procedure (eight papers) were the most reported factors. The remaining factors mostly relied on specific groups of patients (30 papers), notably age of patients (18 papers) and/or minority population (11 papers, all from the USA). Strategies to overcome these barriers are needed and should be carefully evaluated.

Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors

BACKGROUND

Enrolling participants onto clinical trials of cancer presents an important challenge. We aimed to identify the concerns of patients with cancer about, and the barriers to, participation in clinical trials.

METHODS

We did a systematic review to assess studies of barriers to participation in experimental trials and randomised trials for validity and content. We estimated the frequency with which patients identified particular issues by pooling across studies that presented data for barriers to participation in clinical trials as proportions.

FINDINGS

We analysed 12 qualitative studies (n=722) and 21 quantitative studies (n=5452). Two qualitative studies inquired of patients who were currently enrolled onto clinical trials, and ten inquired of patients who were eligible for enrolment onto various clinical trials. Barriers to participation in clinical trials were protocol-related, patient-related, or physician-related. The most common reasons cited as barriers included: concerns with the trial setting; a dislike of randomisation; general discomfort with the research process; complexity and stringency of the protocol; presence of a placebo or no-treatment group; potential side-effects; being unaware of trial opportunities; the idea that clinical trials are not appropriate for serious diseases; fear that trial involvement would have a negative effect on the relationship with their physician; and their physician's attitudes towards the trial. Meta-analysis confirmed the findings of our systematic review.

INTERPRETATION

The identification of such barriers to the participation in clinical trials should help trialists to develop strategies that will keep to a maximum participation and cooperation in cancer trials, while informing and protecting prospective participants adequately.