A New Framework for Patient Engagement in Cancer Clinical Trials Cooperative Group Studies

Attitudes toward patient engagement in clinical pain research: Insights from individuals with chronic pain in the United States

The value of engaging people with lived experience into chronic pain research is becoming increasingly recognized, yet the perspectives of individuals with chronic pain who have not previously participated in research are underexplored. This study aims to fill this gap by assessing the attitudes, preferences, and barriers related to patient engagement among adults living with chronic pain in the United States (US). An online survey was developed in collaboration with an advisory board and community engagement studio and distributed through Qualtrics panels from December 2023-January 2024. Quotas for age, gender, and race were employed to reach a representative sample for each of these variables based on the 2020 US census.1,2 Of the 505 participants, 267 reported chronic low back pain (53%) and 144 had headaches or migraines (22%). A majority (65%-79%) were familiar with medical research, and 64% (n = 327) expressed interest in engaging as patient partners. Key facilitators for engagement included the desire to help others and learn about their condition, while compensation was also an important motivator. Barriers were time constraints, lack of payment, and worry about privacy. Younger participants (Chi-square p = 0.04) and those with higher education (Chi-square p = 0.01) were more likely to express interest in research partnerships. Strategies to enhance patient engagement should focus on reducing barriers and providing clear, meaningful opportunities for engagement, potentially increasing both recruitment and retention in chronic pain research. Future research should explore these dynamics further and consider international perspectives to develop comprehensive patient engagement strategies. PERSPECTIVE: This study surveys over 500 individuals with chronic pain to understand their attitudes towards engagement in clinical pain research. It identifies key facilitators and barriers, such as time constraints and low compensation, and aims to refine strategies to enhance patient partner engagement and representation in clinical pain research.

Global perspectives on patient-centered outcomes: advancing patient-centered cancer clinical trials globally

Patient-centered clinical trials prioritize the patient experience and outcomes that matter most to those affected by cancer. By centering on patient values and experiences, patient-centered outcomes research generates evidence to inform policies and practices, facilitating more personalized and effective cancer care. This manuscript explores the importance of patient-centered approaches in the global context, emphasizing challenges and opportunities for substantive patient engagement and the integration of patient-reported measures in clinical therapeutic trials in low- and middle-income countries. Despite important barriers such as limited infrastructure and funding constraints, leveraging innovative strategies and investing in research infrastructure and regulatory harmonization initiatives can enhance the capacity of low- and middle-income countries to conduct high-quality research and address the global burden of cancer more effectively. Through these efforts, patient-centered care and research can be extended to underserved populations, ensuring equitable access to cancer care worldwide.

Roadmap for the next generation of Children's Oncology Group rhabdomyosarcoma trials

Clinical trials conducted by the Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) Study Group and the Children's Oncology Group have been pivotal to establishing current standards for diagnosis and therapy for RMS. Recent advancements in understanding the biology and clinical behavior of RMS have led to more nuanced approaches to diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment. The complexities introduced by these advancements, coupled with the rarity of RMS, pose challenges to conducting large-scale phase 3 clinical trials to evaluate new treatment strategies for RMS. Given these challenges, systematic planning of future clinical trials in RMS is paramount to address pertinent questions regarding the therapeutic efficacy of drugs, biomarkers of response, treatment-related toxicity, and patient quality of life. Herein, the authors outline the proposed strategic approach of the Children's Oncology Group Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee to the next generation of RMS clinical trials, focusing on five themes: improved novel agent identification and preclinical to clinical translation, more efficient trial development and implementation, expanded opportunities for knowledge generation during trials, therapeutic toxicity reduction and quality of life, and patient engagement.

Bioethics and Neurosurgery: An Overview of Existing and Emerging Topics for the Practicing Neurosurgeon

Neurosurgery is a field with complex ethical issues. In this article, we aim to provide an overview of key and emerging ethical issues in neurosurgery with a focus on issues relevant to practicing neurosurgeons. These issues include those of informed consent, capacity, clinical trials, emerging neurotechnology, innovation, equity and justice, and emerging bioethics areas including community engagement and organizational ethics. We argue that bioethics can help neurosurgeons think about and address these issues, and, in turn, the field of bioethics can benefit from engagement by neurosurgeons. Several ideas for increasing engagement in bioethics are proposed.

Identifying research priorities and essential elements of palliative care services for people facing malignant brain tumors: A participatory co-design approach

Background

Primary malignant brain tumors (ie, brain cancer) impact the quality of life (QoL) for patients and care partners in disease-specific ways involving cognition and communication. Palliative care (PC) addresses patient/care partner QoL, but it is not known how PC may address the unique needs of brain cancer patients. The purpose of this project was to identify brain cancer PC research priorities using participatory co-design methods.

Methods

Participatory co-design included the formation of a longitudinal, collaborative advisory group, engagement frameworks, design-thinking processes, and social media-based engagement over a 1-year period. Community-identified brain cancer QoL needs and research priorities were mapped to proposed "essential elements" of brain cancer PC services.

Results

We engaged an estimated 500 patients, care partners, healthcare professionals, and others with an interest in QoL and PC services for people with malignant brain tumors. Research priorities included testing the early introduction of PC services designed to address the unique QoL needs of brain cancer patients and care partners. Essential elements of brain cancer PC include: (1) addressing brain cancer patients' unique range of QoL needs and concerns, which change over time, (2) tailoring existing services and approaches to patient needs and concerns, (3) enhancing the involvement of interprofessional care team members, and (4) optimizing timing for PC services. This was the first participatory research effort exploring brain cancer patient and care partner QoL needs and PC services.

Conclusions

The brain tumor community calls for research testing PC service models for patients that incorporate the "essential elements" of palliative care.

Patient engagement in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and cell therapy: a survey by the EBMT patient engagement task force & transplantation complications working party

The EBMT (European Blood and Marrow Transplantation Society) aims to connect patients, the scientific community, and other stakeholders to improve hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy outcomes. We performed a cross-sectional online survey to understand the perceptions regarding Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient Active Involvement in Research (PAIR) in over 800 stakeholders (n = 813). Patients (n = 278) and health care professionals (HCPs) (n = 351) were compared. We observed high openness for EBMT PRO collection (n = 680, 84.5% across stakeholders' groups; patients n = 256, 93.1% versus HCPs n = 273, 78.4% [p < 0.001]) and PAIR (n = 702, 87.3% across stakeholder groups; patients n = 256, 92.4% versus HCPs n = 296, 85.8% [p = 0.009]), with a significantly higher proportion of patients expressing interest compared to HCPs. Priority domains for PROs data-collection identified were the assessment of symptom experience, psychosocial and cognitive functioning. The most important issues for patients specifically were the data-collection of PROs reflecting cognitive function, the option of reporting data at home, the importance of identifying actionable targets to improve their recovery, and receiving feedback on their input when participating in research projects. Our multistakeholder approach suggests an added value to embracing patient engagement in the development of meaningful research and service design within the transplantation and cellular therapy community.

Emphasizing Patient-Centricity Through a Tailored Training Program to Empower Patients, Advocates, and Ethics Committees in Good Clinical Practice

OBJECTIVES

Good Clinical Practices (GCP) are essential for patient-centric research. The standard bioethics and GCP training emphasizing a "one-size-fits-all" approach may not adequately equip ethics committee members, especially the lay and social scientist members, towards their critical role in reviewing clinical trials and related documentation. This article explores a patient-centered, patient advocates-driven training program focused on raising awareness about research ethics and GCP among patients, advocates and ethics committee members.

METHODS

A patient advocates-driven program called Patient Advocates for Clinical Research (PACER) conducted trainings focused on GCP for patient-centric research for patients, advocates and ethics committee members. Pre- and post-workshop questionnaires were used to assess the participants' knowledge of GCP.

RESULTS

The workshop was attended by 116 participants. Of these 91 consented to participate in questionnaire evaluation that assessed participants' knowledge on ethics committee (EC) functionality, research ethics and data confidentiality. Pre-workshop evaluations highlighted knowledge gaps. Only 16.5% were familiar with the primary ethical consideration for vulnerable populations and 69.2% were knowledgeable about data governance. Post-workshop evaluations demonstrated significant overall response improvement of 5.4% (𝜒2=13.890; p<0.001). The understanding of ethical considerations for vulnerable populations rose by 15.4% (p=0.007), and knowledge of data privacy regulations improved by 11.0% (p=0.041).

CONCLUSION

The workshop under PACER initiative highlighted the knowledge gaps in understanding the EC functionality, research ethics and data confidentiality. The workshop effectively fostered participants' understanding of ethical research practices.

Patient and public involvement and engagement in the development of innovative patient-centric early phase dose-finding trial designs

BACKGROUND

In light of the FDA's Project Optimus initiative, there is fresh interest in leveraging Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) data to enhance the assessment of tolerability for investigational therapies within early phase dose-finding oncology trials. Typically, dose escalation in most trial designs is solely reliant on clinician assessed adverse events. Research has shown a disparity between patients and clinicians when assessing whether an investigational therapy is tolerable, leading to the recommendation of potentially intolerable doses for further investigation in subsequent trials. It is also increasingly recognized that patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) plays a pivotal role in enriching trial design and conduct. However, to our knowledge, no PPIE has explored the optimal integration of PROs in the development of advanced statistical trial designs within early phase dose-finding oncology trials.

METHODS

A virtual PPIE session was held with nine participants on 18th October 2023 to discuss the incorporation of PROs within a dose-finding trial design. This cross disciplinary session was developed and led by a team of statisticians, clinical specialists, qualitative experts, and trial methodologists. Following the session, in-depth perspectives were provided by two patient advocates who actively engaged in the PPIE session. We discuss the importance of PPIE in shaping advanced dose-finding trial designs, share insights from patients on integrating PROs to inform treatment tolerability, and present a template for meaningful patient involvement in trial design development.

RESULTS

Participants generally supported the introduction of PROs within dose-finding trials but showed some apprehensiveness as to how PROs may reduce the size of the recommended dose (and potentially efficacious effect). Some participants shared that they may be reluctant to record the real severity of their symptoms via PROs if it would mean that they would have to discontinue treatment. They discussed that PROs could be used to assess tolerability rather than toxicity of a dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Amplifying patient voice in the development of patient-centric dose-finding trial designs is now essential. This paper offers an exemplary illustration of how trialists and methodologists can effectively incorporate patient voice in the future development of advanced dose-finding trial designs.

Challenges in clinical trials for high-risk but curable prostate cancer

Clinical trials studying neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy around prostatectomy for patients with high‐risk prostate cancer have faced multiple challenges. Patients who have a very good response to neoadjuvant therapy may not wish to continue to adjuvant treatment, and prostate‐specific antigen–based end points are difficult to interpret because of variations in testosterone recovery.

Patient engagement in designing, conducting, and disseminating clinical pain research: IMMPACT recommended considerations

ABSTRACT

In the traditional clinical research model, patients are typically involved only as participants. However, there has been a shift in recent years highlighting the value and contributions that patients bring as members of the research team, across the clinical research lifecycle. It is becoming increasingly evident that to develop research that is both meaningful to people who have the targeted condition and is feasible, there are important benefits of involving patients in the planning, conduct, and dissemination of research from its earliest stages. In fact, research funders and regulatory agencies are now explicitly encouraging, and sometimes requiring, that patients are engaged as partners in research. Although this approach has become commonplace in some fields of clinical research, it remains the exception in clinical pain research. As such, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials convened a meeting with patient partners and international representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, government regulatory agencies, research funding organizations, academic journals, and the biopharmaceutical industry to develop consensus recommendations for advancing patient engagement in all stages of clinical pain research in an effective and purposeful manner. This article summarizes the results of this meeting and offers considerations for meaningful and authentic engagement of patient partners in clinical pain research, including recommendations for representation, timing, continuous engagement, measurement, reporting, and research dissemination.

Meaningful Patient Engagement in Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Cancer Research: A Framework for Qualitative Studies

Over the last two decades, patient engagement in cancer research has evolved significantly, especially in addressing the unique challenges faced by adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer populations. This paper introduces a framework for meaningful engagement with AYA cancer patient research partners, drawing insights from the "FUTURE" Study, a qualitative study that utilizes focus groups to explore the impact of cancer diagnosis and treatment on the sexual and reproductive health of AYA cancer patients in Canada. The framework's development integrates insights from prior works and addresses challenges with patient engagement in research specific to AYA cancer populations. The framework is guided by overarching principles (safety, flexibility, and sensitivity) and includes considerations that apply across all phases of a research study (collaboration; iteration; communication; and equity, diversity, and inclusion) and tasks that apply to specific phases of a research study (developing, conducting, and translating the study). The proposed framework seeks to increase patient engagement in AYA cancer research beyond a supplementary aspect to an integral component for conducting research with impact on patients.

Community-engaged basic science in an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center: antioxidants and chemotherapeutic efficacy

PURPOSE

While community engagement has been a longstanding aspect of cancer-relevant research in social and behavioral sciences, it is far less common in basic/translational/clinical research. With the National Cancer Institute's incorporation of Community Outreach and Engagement into the Cancer Center Support Grant guidelines, successful models are desirable. We report on a pilot study supported by the University of Maryland Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center (UMGCCC), that used a community-engaged, data-driven process to inform a pre-clinical study of the impact of antioxidants on the efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapeutics.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of UMGCCC catchment area residents (n = 120) to identify commonly used antioxidants. We then evaluated the effect of individually combining commonly used antioxidants from the survey (vitamin C, green tea, and melatonin) with platinum agents in models of non-small cell lung cancer (A549), colon adenocarcinoma (SW620) and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (FaDu).

RESULTS

In vitro, the anti-neoplastic activity of each chemotherapy was not potentiated by any of the antioxidants. Instead, when combined at fixed ratios, most antioxidant-chemotherapy combinations were antagonistic. In vivo, addition of antioxidants did not improve chemotherapeutic efficacy and in a FaDu-tumor bearing model, cisplatin-mediated tumor growth inhibition was significantly impeded by the addition of epigallocatechin gallate, the main antioxidant in green tea.

CONCLUSION

These initial findings do not support addition of antioxidant supplementation to improve platinum-based chemotherapeutic efficacy. This study's approach can serve as a model of how to bring together the two seemingly discordant areas of basic research and community engagement.

NCI Rectal-Anal Task Force consensus recommendations for design of clinical trials in rectal cancer

The optimal management of locally advanced rectal cancer is rapidly evolving. The National Cancer Institute Rectal-Anal Task Force convened an expert panel to develop consensus on the design of future clinical trials of patients with rectal cancer. A series of 82 questions and subquestions, which addressed radiation and neoadjuvant therapy, patient perceptions, rectal cancer populations of special interest, and unique design elements, were subject to iterative review using a Delphi analytical approach to define areas of consensus and those in which consensus is not established. The task force achieved consensus on several areas, including the following: 1) the use of total neoadjuvant therapy with long-course radiation therapy either before or after chemotherapy, as well as short-course radiation therapy followed by chemotherapy, as the control arm of clinical trials; 2) the need for greater emphasis on patient involvement in treatment choices within the context of trial design; 3) efforts to identify those patients likely, or unlikely, to benefit from nonoperative management or minimally invasive surgery; 4) investigation of the utility of circulating tumor DNA measurements for tailoring treatment and surveillance; and 5) the need for identification of appropriate end points and recognition of challenges of data management for patients who enter nonoperative management trial arms. Substantial agreement was reached on priorities affecting the design of future clinical trials in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

Combination Early-Phase Trials of Anticancer Agents in Children and Adolescents

PURPOSE

There is an increasing need to evaluate innovative drugs for childhood cancer using combination strategies. Strong biological rationale and clinical experience suggest that multiple agents will be more efficacious than monotherapy for most diseases and may overcome resistance mechanisms and increase synergy. The process to evaluate these combination trials needs to maximize efficiency and should be agreed by all stakeholders.

METHODS

After a review of existing combination trial methodologies, regulatory requirements, and current results, a consensus among stakeholders was achieved.

RESULTS

Combinations of anticancer therapies should be developed on the basis of mechanism of action and robust preclinical evaluation, and may include data from adult clinical trials. The general principle for combination early-phase studies is that, when possible, clinical trials should be dose- and schedule-confirmatory rather than dose-exploratory, and every effort should be made to optimize doses early. Efficient early-phase combination trials should be seamless, including dose confirmation and randomized expansion. Dose evaluation designs for combinations depend on the extent of previous knowledge. If not previously evaluated, limited evaluation of monotherapy should be included in the same clinical trial as the combination. Randomized evaluation of a new agent plus standard therapy versus standard therapy is the most effective approach to isolate the effect and toxicity of the novel agent. Platform trials may be valuable in the evaluation of combination studies. Patient advocates and regulators should be engaged with investigators early in a proposed clinical development pathway and trial design must consider regulatory requirements.

CONCLUSION

An optimized, agreed approach to the design and evaluation of early-phase pediatric combination trials will accelerate drug development and benefit all stakeholders, most importantly children and adolescents with cancer.

A Smart Digital Health Platform to Enable Monitoring of Quality of Life and Frailty in Older Patients with Cancer: A Mixed-Methods, Feasibility Study Protocol

OBJECTIVES

LifeChamps is an EU Horizon 2020 project that aims to create a digital platform to enable monitoring of health-related quality of life and frailty in patients with cancer over the age of 65. Our primary objective is to assess feasibility, usability, acceptability, fidelity, adherence, and safety parameters when implementing LifeChamps in routine cancer care. Secondary objectives involve evaluating preliminary signals of efficacy and cost-effectiveness indicators.

DATA SOURCES

This will be a mixed-methods exploratory project, involving four study sites in Greece, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The quantitative component of LifeChamps (single-group, pre-post feasibility study) will integrate digital technologies, home-based motion sensors, self-administered questionnaires, and the electronic health record to (1) enable multimodal, real-world data collection, (2) provide patients with a coaching mobile app interface, and (3) equip healthcare professionals with an interactive, patient-monitoring dashboard. The qualitative component will determine end-user usability and acceptability via end-of-study surveys and interviews.

CONCLUSION

The first patient was enrolled in the study in January 2023. Recruitment will be ongoing until the project finishes before the end of 2023.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

LifeChamps provides a comprehensive digital health platform to enable continuous monitoring of frailty indicators and health-related quality of life determinants in geriatric cancer care. Real-world data collection will generate "big data" sets to enable development of predictive algorithms to enable patient risk classification, identification of patients in need for a comprehensive geriatric assessment, and subsequently personalized care.

Assessment of Oncology Patient Engagement and Interest in Virtual Mind-Body Programming: Moving Toward Personalization of Virtual Care

PURPOSE

Accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the virtual platform has become a prominent medium to deliver mind-body therapies, but the extent to which patients engage in virtual mind-body programming remains unclear. This study aims to assess oncology patient engagement in a virtual mind-body program.

METHODS

We surveyed oncology patients enrolled in a live-streamed (synchronous) virtual mind-body program in May 2021. Patients self-reported engagement by weekly attendance. We applied multivariate regression to identify associations of engagement with sociodemographic and clinical factors. As an exploratory analysis, we used machine learning to partition engagement subgroups to determine preferential interest in prerecorded (asynchronous) mind-body therapy videos.

RESULTS

Among 148 patients surveyed (response rate: 21.4%), majority were female (94.5%), White (83.1%), age 65 years or older (64.9%), retired (64.2%), and in survivorship (61.8%). Patient engagement ranged from 1 to 13 classes/week (mean [standard deviation]: 4.23 [2.56]) and was higher for female (β, .82; 95% CI, 0.01 to 1.62), non-White (β, .63; 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.13), and retired patients (β, .50; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.88). The partition model identified three engagement subgroups: employed (low engagers), retired White (intermediate engagers), and retired non-White (high engagers). Particularly, low engagers had preferential interest in meditation videos (odds ratio, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.24 to 6.54), and both low and high engagers had preferential interest in Tai Chi videos (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.06 to 4.82).

CONCLUSION

In this cross-sectional study among oncology patients, engagement in virtual mind-body programming was higher for female, non-White, and retired patients. Our findings suggest the need for both synchronous and asynchronous mind-body programming to meet the diverse needs of oncology patients.

Promoting patient engagement in cancer genomics research programs: An environmental scan

Background: A national priority in the United States is to promote patient engagement in cancer genomics research, especially among diverse and understudied populations. Several cancer genomics research programs have emerged to accomplish this priority, yet questions remain about the meaning and methods of patient engagement. This study explored how cancer genomics research programs define engagement and what strategies they use to engage patients across stages in the conduct of research. Methods: An environmental scan was conducted of cancer genomics research programs focused on patient engagement. Research programs were identified and characterized using materials identified from publicly available sources (e.g., websites), a targeted literature review, and interviews with key informants. Descriptive information about the programs and their definitions of engagement, were synthesized using thematic analysis. The engagement strategies were synthesized and mapped to different stages in the conduct of research, including recruitment, consent, data collection, sharing results, and retention. Results: Ten research programs were identified, examples of which include the Cancer Moonshot Biobank, the MyPART Network, NCI-CONNECT, and the Participant Engagement and Cancer Genome Sequencing (PE-CGS) Network. All programs aimed to include understudied or underrepresented populations. Based on publicly available information, four programs explicitly defined engagement. These definitions similarly characterized engagement as being interpersonal, reciprocal, and continuous. Five general strategies of engagement were identified across the programs: 1) digital (such as websites) and 2) non-digital communications (such as radio broadcasts, or printed brochures); 3) partnering with community organizations; 4) providing incentives; and 5) affiliating with non-academic medical centers. Digital communications were the only strategy used across all stages of the conduct of research. Programs tailored these strategies to their study goals, including overcoming barriers to research participation among diverse populations. Conclusion: Programs studying cancer genomics are deeply committed to increasing research participation among diverse populations through patient engagement. Yet, the field needs to reach a consensus on the meaning of patient engagement, develop a taxonomy of patient engagement measures in cancer genomics research, and identify optimal strategies to engage patients in cancer genomics. Addressing these needs could enable patient engagement to fulfill its potential and accelerate the pace of cancer genomic discoveries.

Patient-centred clinical trial design

Patient involvement in clinical trial design can facilitate the recruitment and retention of participants as well as potentially increase the uptake of the tested intervention and the impact of the findings on patient outcomes. Despite these benefits, patients still have very limited involvement in designing and conducting trials in nephrology. Many trials do not address research questions and outcomes that are important to patients, including patient-reported outcomes that reflect how patients feel and function. This limitation can undermine the relevance, reliability and value of trial-based evidence for decision-making in clinical practice and health policy. However, efforts to involve patients with kidney disease are increasing across all stages of the trial process from priority setting, to study design (including selection of outcomes and approaches to improve participant recruitment and retention) and dissemination and implementation of the findings. Harnessing the patient voice in designing trials can ensure that efforts and resources are directed towards patient-centred trials that address the needs, concerns and priorities of patients living with kidney disease with the aim of achieving transformative improvements in care and outcomes.

Improving Patient Advocacy in NCI Scientific Steering Committees and Task Forces

This article discusses improving research advocacy as part of NCI clinical trial activities in Scientific Steering Committees (SSCs) and Task Forces (TFs) between 2016 and 2020. Prior to 2016, the focus of patient advocate input on clinical trial concept evaluation was assessing accrual feasibility. By leveraging informal benchmarking and an outside-in perspective, the NCI Patient Advocate Steering Committee (PASC), comprised of NCI Scientific Steering Committee and Task Force Advocates, has recalibrated research advocacy within and across its clinical trial concepts. Additionally, by focusing on research advocacy fundamentals, the PASC clarified the scope of the research advocate roles, focused its mission, defined and developed competencies, measured engagement, and created collateral and processes that support better interactions and greater value generation. Continuous improvement in the collateral and the underlying approaches, along with calibrating their application and monitoring results, will be necessary to keep pace with the science and further enhance the value of cancer clinical trial research advocacy. The road ahead should build on these fundamentals and include increased emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion in clinical trial and research advocacy participants and the supporting infrastructure.

The Current Landscape of Research Advocacy and Education for Patients with Colorectal Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Research advocacy is an evolving concept and should be tailored for the colorectal cancer research community. Research advocacy training and evaluation must be designed for the patient community with their insight included at each step of engagement, training, and implementation. Patient advocates bring a great deal of expertise to the research review process, but it is important to ensure that their insight is appropriately placed, and they bring an appropriate orientation to the research process as the most informed patient. This can be accomplished in part by providing advocates with the proper training, employing universal core competencies, and applying principles of adult learning. Additionally, the research community, advocacy organizations, and industry partners must understand the need to diversify the voices that are being leveraged to guide research, recognizing the importance of adequate mental health tools and compensation commensurate with their experience. As a community, it is necessary that we create and implement training programs, as well as evaluate and measure their impact to continually improve and tailor the delivery of this specific education. Research advocacy has become a necessity to the field, and when implemented effectively, research advocates can have a significant impact on the delivery of health care research, improving health outcomes for all those affected by colorectal cancer.

[Implication of bronchopulmonary cancer patients in thoracic oncology]

Changed relationships between patient and health care provider have given patients a greater role in their care. Nowadays, they have the opportunity to be involved in decision-making regarding any diagnostic, therapeutic or monitoring intervention related to their disease. Access to international scientific data through the web, the activity of different patient associations, and the information given by their referring physician can enrich their knowledge about their disease and its possible treatments. In addition to the objective criteria usually assessed, the role currently assumed by patient associations in clinical research helps to identify their expectations. In addition, a number of new tools allow the thoracic oncologist to better understand patients' wishes. Health authorities' use of patient-reported outcomes and patients' use of digital applications contribute to improved survival without any deleterious impact on quality of life. Web applications designed to monitor a patient's toxicities during treatment are now commercially available. To meet our patients' expectations, we are called upon to incorporate these different digital tools into our daily practice.

Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network State of the Science Symposium 2021: Looking Forward as the Network Celebrates its 20th Year

In 2021 the BMT CTN held the 4th State of the Science Symposium where the deliberations of 11 committees concerning major topics pertinent to a particular disease, modality, or complication of transplant, as well as two committees to consider clinical trial design and inclusion, diversity, and access as cross-cutting themes were reviewed. This article summarizes the individual committee reports and their recommendations on the highest priority questions in hematopoietic stem cell transplant and cell therapy to address in multicenter trials.

A call to action: Antiracist patient engagement in adolescent and young adult oncology research and advocacy

Amidst the concurrent global crises of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), uprisings against Anti-Black racism and police brutality, as well as anti-Asian racism and violence, the field of medicine found itself simultaneously called upon to respond as essential workers in the public health devastation of COVID-19, and as representatives of healthcare institutions wrought with the impacts of systemic racism. Clinicians, researchers, and advocates in adolescent and young adult (AYA) oncology, must come together in authentic activism to begin the work of creating structural change to advance antiracist approaches to patient engagement in AYA oncology research and advocacy. Critical review of existing practices is needed to ensure that ethical and effective research methods are employed when engaging with racial and ethnic minority AYA patients with cancer, who may be particularly vulnerable and exploited in the current context.

Patient engagement in melanoma research: from bench to bedside

Advances in research have transformed the management of melanoma in the past decade. In parallel, patient advocacy has gained traction, and funders are increasingly prioritizing patient and public involvement. Here we discuss the ways in which patients and the public can be engaged in different stages of the research process, from developing, prioritizing and refining the research question to preclinical studies and clinical trials, then finally to ongoing research in the clinic. We discuss the challenges and opportunities that exist at each stage in order to ensure that a representative population of patients and the public contribute to melanoma research both now and in the future.

Co-creation of practical "how-to guides" for patient engagement in key phases of medicines development-from theory to implementation

BACKGROUND

The effective impact of patient engagement (PE) across the medicines development continuum is widely acknowledged across diverse health stakeholder groups, including health authorities; however, the practical applications of how to implement meaningful and consistent PE are not always addressed. Guidance for the practical implementation of PE requires granularity, and the need for such guidance has been identified as a priority. We describe the co-production and summarize the content of how-to guides that focus on PE in the early stages of medicines development.

METHODS

Multi-stakeholder working groups (WGs) were established by Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) for how-to guide development. How-to guides were co-produced with patients for PE activities identified as priorities through public consultation and by WGs. Guides were developed by applying PE quality guidance and associated quality criteria in an iterative process. How-to guides underwent internal review and validation by experts (ie, those with relevant experience in the particular PE activity or focus area) in specific focus groups and external review and validation through appropriate events and public consultation.

RESULTS

Overall, 103 individual contributors from 38 organizations (representing eight stakeholder groups, including patients/patient organizations) and from 14 countries were organized into WGs and workstreams. Each WG comprised 15-30 contributors with PE experience relevant to the specific how-to guide. How-to guides were developed for PE in the early discovery and preclinical phases; PE in the development of a clinical outcomes assessment strategy; and PE in clinical trial protocol design. The how-to guides have a standardized format and structure to promote user familiarity. They provide detailed guidance and examples that are relevant to the individual PE activity and aim to facilitate the practical implementation of PE.

CONCLUSIONS

The how-to guides form a comprehensive series of actionable and stepwise resources that build from and integrate the PE quality criteria across the medicines continuum. They will be made freely available through PFMD's Patient Engagement Management Suite ( pemsuite.org ) and shared widely to a variety of audiences in different settings, ensuring access to diverse patient populations. Implementation of these guides should advance the field of PE in bringing new medicines to the market and ultimately will benefit patients. Medicines are developed to help patients improve their health and lives. Many organizations and individuals want to ensure that medicines are developed to meet real patient needs and to address what is most important to patients. Finding out what patients need and what patients want requires good patient engagement, but knowing how to do patient engagement is not always clear. This is because medicines development is complicated, and a lot of different steps, people, and organizations are involved. Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) was established in 2015 to connect individuals and organizations that are committed to making medicines not just for patients but with patients. To do this, PFMD brought together patients and other groups of people with relevant experience and good ideas on how to achieve patient engagement in the real-world setting. Together, PFMD has developed "how-to guides" for patient engagement that cover the main activities along the medicines development process. The guides are free to use and provide practical advice and examples that anyone can use in their patient engagement activities. The how-to guides will also help patients to understand medicines development and how best they can participate in this process to address their needs.

Pragmatic patient engagement in designing pragmatic oncology clinical trials

Oncology trials are the cornerstone of effective and safe therapeutic discoveries. However, there is increasing demand for pragmatism and patient engagement in the design, implementation and dissemination of oncology trials. Many researchers are uncertain about making trials more practical and even less knowledgeable about how to meaningfully engage patients without compromising scientific rigor to meet regulatory requirements. The present work provides practical guidance for addressing both pragmaticism and meaningful patient engagement. Applying evidence-based approaches like PRECIS-2-tool and the 10-Step Engagement Framework offer practical guidance to make future trials in oncology truly pragmatic and patient-centered. Consequently, such patient-centered trials have improved participation, faster recruitment and greater retention, and uptake of innovative technologies in community-based care.

Patient engagement in cancer research from the patient's perspective

Patient engagement in cancer research involves the inclusion of patient voices into research to ensure knowledge generated will improve the lives of all cancer patients. Patients involved in research have an interest in science, an experience with cancer and want to work directly with researchers to ensure patient concerns are heard. There are many opportunities for patient engagement in laboratory and clinical research, throughout the lifecycle of the project from conception to completion. Researchers and patient advocates can take practical steps to ensure their engagement is effective and meaningful. Adding the patient voice in research honors those who have died, so future cancer patients have access to new therapies to live longer and better lives.

Meaningful engagement of the patient in rare cancer research: sarcoma as an exemplar

Patient advocates who understand scientific methods and proper research processes can bring valuable perspectives to modern research. This is particularly important in rare cancers like sarcoma as each patient becomes a precious source of information to better diagnose, understand the biology and the effect of treatment. Reviewing approaches used by other cancer patient advocates can provide valuable insights to develop effective research advocates in rare cancers such as sarcoma.

Integrating Patient-Centred Research in the Canadian Cancer Trials Group

The inclusion of patients as partners in research is a key link in the delivery of patient-centred care in healthcare systems. Despite genuine intentions to engage patients in authentic partnerships, efforts can result in tokenism and benefits of engagement are missed. Understanding how patient engagement provides value along the research to patient-care continuum and how to best engage patients as partners are key. This document describes the method taken by the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) to implement meaningful patient centricity and engagement and the benefits realized. Originally, Patient Representatives were recruited and assigned to CCTG Committees. Lacking guidance, the role was one of a passive meeting attendee. A gap analysis identified a need for clarity in expectations, understanding of the linkage to CCTG strategic objectives, and supporting tools and training. A plan was developed and successfully implemented in three phases, each phase building on the previous, the level of patient engagement simultaneously changing from “Inform” to “Involve” to “Collaborate” on the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) scale. Results include significant contributions to increased patient accrual in CCTG trials, to increased CCTG grant funding, as well as recognition and adoption of these practices within Canada and internationally.

The ACTTION Guide to Clinical Trials of Pain Treatments, part II: mitigating bias, maximizing value

Summaries of the articles included in part II of the ACTTION Guide to Clinical Trials of Pain Treatments are followed by brief overviews of methodologic considerations involving precision pain medicine, pragmatic clinical trials, real world evidence, and patient engagement in clinical trials.

Engaging patients as partners in a multicentre trial of spinal versus general anaesthesia for older adults

Engaging patients-defined broadly as individuals with lived experience of a given condition, family members, caregivers, and the organisations that represent them-as partners in research is a priority for policymakers, funders, and the public. Nonetheless, formal efforts to engage patients are absent from most studies, and models to support meaningful patient engagement in clinical anaesthesia research have not been previously described. Here, we review our experience in developing and implementing a multifaceted patient engagement strategy within the Regional Versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence After Hip Fracture (REGAIN) surgery trial, an ongoing randomised trial comparing spinal vs general anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in 1600 older adults across 45 hospitals in the USA and Canada. This strategy engaged patients and their representatives at both the level of overall trial oversight and at the level of individual recruiting sites. Activities spanned a continuum ranging from events designed to elicit patients' input on key decisions to longitudinal collaborations that empowered patients to actively participate in decision-making related to trial design and management. Engagement activities were highly acceptable to participants and led to concrete changes in the design and conduct of the REGAIN trial. The REGAIN experience offers a model for future efforts to engage patients as partners in clinical anaesthesia research, and highlights potential opportunities for investigators to increase the relevance of anaesthesia studies by incorporating patient voices and perspectives into the research process.

Real World Survey of Patient Engagement Status in Clinical Research: The First Input from Japan

BACKGROUND

The updated international draft guidelines, the "General Considerations for Clinical Studies, ICH E8 (R1)", state that patient engagement ensures that all perspectives are captured in the research process; however, this is not well understood, specifically in Japan.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the current status and perceptions of patient engagement in clinical research from the perspectives of patient groups, pharmaceutical corporations, and researchers in Japan, using anonymous self-administered questionnaires.

METHODS

Three online surveys were conducted with patient groups (n = 100), pharmaceutical corporations (n = 66), and researchers (n = 300) in May and June 2019. The main variables were the current status and the current perception of patient engagement in clinical research.

RESULTS

The response rate was 71% for patient groups and 85% for pharmaceutical corporations, and there were 300 valid responses (emergence rate: 4.9%) from researchers. Experiences with clinical research involving patient engagement were reported by 76.5% of the patients, 21.4% of the pharmaceutical corporations, and 51.7% of the researchers. Patient groups reported three major factors that negatively impacted their relationship with pharmaceutical corporations and researchers: (1) 'lack of understanding of the benefits of partnering'; (2) 'lack of transparency or openness'; and (3) 'unclear or ill-defined processes'.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmaceutical corporations in Japan have less experience with patient engagement in clinical research than other stakeholders. A neutral connecting system among the stakeholders with a constructive co-learning system will allow effective involvement/engagement of patient groups for enhancing the effectiveness of clinical research.

Effective stakeholder engagement: design and implementation of a clinical trial (SWOG S1415CD) to improve cancer care

Background

The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has engaged an External Stakeholder Advisory Group (ESAG) in the planning and implementation of the TrACER Study (S1415CD), a five-year pragmatic clinical trial assessing the effectiveness of a guideline-based colony stimulating factor standing order intervention. The trial is being conducted by SWOG through the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program in 45 clinics. The ESAG includes ten patient partners, two payers, two pharmacists, two guideline experts, four providers and one medical ethicist. This manuscript describes the ESAG’s role and impact on the trial.

Methods

During early trial development, the research team assembled the ESAG to inform plans for each phase of the trial. ESAG members provide feedback and engage in problem solving to improve trial implementation. Each year, members participate in one in-person meeting, web conferences and targeted email discussion. Additionally, they complete a survey that assesses their satisfaction with communication and collaboration. The research team collected and reviewed stakeholder input from 2014 to 2018 for impact on the trial.

Results

The ESAG has informed trial design, implementation and dissemination planning. The group advised the trial’s endpoints, regimen list and development of cohort and usual care arms. Based on ESAG input, the research team enhanced patient surveys and added pharmacy-related questions to the component application to assess order entry systems. ESAG patient partners collaborated with the research team to develop a patient brochure and study summary for clinic staff. In addition to identifying recruitment strategies and patient-oriented platforms for publicly sharing results, ESAG members participated as co-authors on this manuscript and a conference poster presentation highlighting stakeholder influence on the trial. The annual satisfaction survey results suggest that ESAG members were satisfied with the methods, frequency and target areas of their engagement in the trial during project years 1–3.

Conclusions

Diverse stakeholder engagement has been essential in optimizing the design, implementation and planned dissemination of the TrACER Study. The lessons described in the manuscript may assist others to effectively partner with stakeholders on clinical research.

Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co-design pilot

Background

Numerous frameworks for supporting, evaluating and reporting patient and public involvement in research exist. The literature is diverse and theoretically heterogeneous.

Objectives

To identify and synthesize published frameworks, consider whether and how these have been used, and apply design principles to improve usability.

Search strategy

Keyword search of six databases; hand search of eight journals; ancestry and snowball search; requests to experts.

Inclusion criteria

Published, systematic approaches (frameworks) designed to support, evaluate or report on patient or public involvement in health‐related research.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data were extracted on provenance; collaborators and sponsors; theoretical basis; lay input; intended user(s) and use(s); topics covered; examples of use; critiques; and updates. We used the Canadian Centre for Excellence on Partnerships with Patients and Public (CEPPP) evaluation tool and hermeneutic methodology to grade and synthesize the frameworks. In five co‐design workshops, we tested evidence‐based resources based on the review findings.

Results

Our final data set consisted of 65 frameworks, most of which scored highly on the CEPPP tool. They had different provenances, intended purposes, strengths and limitations. We grouped them into five categories: power‐focused; priority‐setting; study‐focused; report‐focused; and partnership‐focused. Frameworks were used mainly by the groups who developed them. The empirical component of our study generated a structured format and evidence‐based facilitator notes for a “build your own framework” co‐design workshop.

Conclusion

The plethora of frameworks combined with evidence of limited transferability suggests that a single, off‐the‐shelf framework may be less useful than a menu of evidence‐based resources which stakeholders can use to co‐design their own frameworks.

Are patient education materials about cancer screening more effective when co-created with patients? A qualitative interview study and randomized controlled trial

Background

Patient education materials (pems) are frequently used to help patients make cancer screening decisions. However, because pems are typically developed by experts, they might inadequately address patient barriers to screening. We co-created, with patients, a prostate cancer (pca) screening pem, and we compared how the co-created pem and a pem developed by experts affected decisional conflict and screening intention in patients.

Methods

We identified and used patient barriers to pca screening to co-create a pca screening pem with patients, clinicians, and researchers. We then conducted a parallel-group randomized controlled trial with men 40 years of age and older in Ontario to compare decisional conflict and intention about pca screening after those men had viewed the co-created pem (intervention) or an expert-created pem (control). Participants were randomized using dynamic block randomization, and the study team was blinded to the allocation.

Results

Of 287 participants randomized to exposure to the co-created pem, 230 were analyzed, and of 287 randomized to exposure to the expert-created pem, 223 were analyzed. After pem exposure, intervention and control participants did not differ significantly in Decisional Conflict Scale scores [mean difference: 0.37 ± 1.23; 95% confidence interval (ci): -2.05 to 2.79]; in sure (Sure of myself, Understand information, Risk-benefit ratio, or Encouragement) scores (odds ratio: 0.75; 95% ci: 0.52 to 1.08); or in screening intention (mean difference: 0.09 ± 0.08; 95% ci: -0.06 to 0.24]).

Conclusions

The effectiveness of the co-created pem did not differ from that of the pem developed by experts. Thus, pem developers should choose the method that best fits their goals and resources.

Challenges with Novel Clinical Trial Designs: Master Protocols

The 2018 Accelerating Anticancer Agent Development (AAADV) Workshop assembled a panel of experts for an in-depth discussion session to present "Challenges with Novel Clinical Trial Designs." This panel offered assessments of the challenges faced by industry, the FDA, investigators, institutional review boards, and patients. The panel focused on master protocols, which include umbrella trials, platform trials, and basket trials. Umbrella trials and platform trials share many commonalities, whereas basket trials are more distinct. Umbrella and platform trials are generally designed with multiple arms where patients of the same histology or other unifying characteristics are enrolled into different arms and multiple investigational agents are evaluated in a single protocol. In contrast, basket studies generally enroll patients with different tumor types based on the presence of a specific mutation or biomarker regardless of histology; these trials may include expansion cohorts. These novel designs offer the promise of expedited drug assessment and approval, but they also place new challenges on all the stakeholders involved in the drug development process. Only by identifying the challenges of these complex, innovative clinical trial designs and highlighting challenges from each perspective can we begin to address these challenges. The 2018 AAADV Workshop convened a panel of experts from relevant disciplines to highlight the challenges that are created by master protocols, and, where appropriate, offer strategies to address these challenges.

Development and pre-testing of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to assess the quality of engagement from a patient perspective

OBJECTIVES

To develop and examine the content and face validity of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) for assessing the quality of patient engagement in research projects from a patient partner perspective.

METHODS

Our team of researchers and patient partners conducted a mixed qualitative and quantitative study in three phases. Participants were English-speaking adult patients (including informal caregivers, family members, and friends) with varying experiences as partners in research projects in Canada. 1) Questionnaire items were generated following thematic analysis of in-depth interviews and published literature. 2) A three-round e-Delphi survey process via email correspondence was undertaken to refine and select the items for a provisional PEIRS. 3) Two rounds of cognitive interviewing elicited participants' understanding and opinions of each item and the structure of the PEIRS.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty items were generated from 18 interviews and organized across eight themes of meaningful engagement of patients in health research to form an initial questionnaire. The e-Delphi survey and cognitive interviewing each included 12 participants with a range of self-reported diseases, health-related conditions, and use of healthcare services. The e-Delphi survey yielded a 43-item provisional PEIRS. The PEIRS was then reduced to 37 items organized across seven themes after 1) refinement of problems in its instructions and items, and 2) the combining of two themes into one.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a 37-item self-reported questionnaire that has demonstrated preliminary content and face validity for assessing the quality of patient engagement in research.