Differences in trial knowledge and motives for participation among cancer patients in phase 3 clinical trials

Exploring patient-reported barriers to participating in proton therapy clinical trials

Introduction

Clinical trials lead the progress in healthcare. To ensure reliable research conclusions, it is essential to enroll diverse patient groups. Identifying and understanding patient-reported barriers to clinical trials may help enhance recruitment among diverse patient groups.The clinical potential of proton therapy (PT) to reduce late effects is being investigated in clinical trials worldwide. Thus, for some patients, PT is only accessible by participating in clinical trials.Individuals with smoking-related head and neck cancer (HNC) are sometimes socioeconomically deprived, leading to barriers to trial participation. This study aims to identify barriers to their participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving PT.

Method

Interviews were conducted with 14 HNC patients declining participation in an RCT involving PT. The interviews were transcribed and systematically analysed using an inductive approach identifying categories and themes.

Results

The identified barriers to RCT-participation are: (1) existential distress, which influenced participants' mental and cognitive capacities, (2) insufficient RCT-related knowledge arising from information overload during clinical consultations, (3) the wish for safety and familiarity during the treatment trajectory, particularly for participants needing accommodation during  radiotherapy, and (4) the motivation for study participation was impacted by uncertainty due to randomisation and clinical equipoise. Existential distress is identified as an overarching theme because it influences and amplifies the other three themes.

Conclusion

Existential distress is a central theme that influences and amplifies other participation barriers in PT RCTs. It affects participants' comprehension of trial information, their preference for familiar environments, and their motivation to participate in clinical trials.

Evaluation of Adolescents’ and Young Adults’ Attitudes Toward Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials

PURPOSE:

Participation in cancer clinical trials (CCTs) for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) remains the lowest of any patient group with cancer. Little is known about the personal barriers to AYA accrual. The aim of this study was to explore AYA attitudes that influence CCT participation.

METHODS:

A mixed-methods approach was used. AYAs and non-AYAs (≥ 40 years) completed the Cancer Treatment subscale of the Attitudes Toward Cancer Trials Scales and 9 supplementary questions formed from interview analysis. Differences between AYA and non-AYA cohorts were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate the effect of demographics on perceptions of CCTs.

RESULTS:

Surveys were distributed to 61 AYAs (median age, 29 years; range, 17-39 years) and 74 non-AYAs (median age, 55 years; range, 40-88 years). Compared with non-AYAs, AYAs perceived CCTs to be unsafe/more difficult (Personal Barrier/Safety domain; P = .01). There were no differences based on age in other domains. AYAs were also more concerned with CCT interference in their long-term goals ( P = .04). Multivariable ordered logistic regression identified increased personal barriers in the Personal Barrier/Safety domain for AYAs ( P = .01), in patients with English as a second language (ESL; P < .01), and in patients previously not offered a clinical trial ( P = .03). Long-term goals were identified as a barrier in particular tumor types ( P = .01) and in patients with ESL ( P < .01), with a trend identified in AYAs ( P = .12).

CONCLUSION:

Age-related differences in attitudes toward CCTs suggest that tailored approaches to CCT accrual are warranted. Patient-centered delivery of information regarding CCTs, particularly in patients with ESL and who are trial naïve, may improve accrual.

Different Policy Measures and Practices between Swedish Counties Influence Market Dynamics: Part 1-Biosimilar and Originator Infliximab in the Hospital Setting

Background

Decentralisation of healthcare budgets and issuance of local guidelines means that the use of biosimilars can vary by region within a particular country, for example between the 21 counties of Sweden.

Objectives

This study aimed to analyse the county-level market dynamics of biosimilar and originator infliximab, which are hospital products, and to examine how local policy measures and practices, in addition to national policy, influenced market dynamics.

Methods

We first conducted a literature review on (biosimilar) policies in Sweden, then analysed market data provided by IQVIA™ on uptake of originator and biosimilar infliximab within the different counties (Q2 2012 to Q4 2017), including discounts from (tender) contracts. Biosimilar market shares were calculated with volume data (measured as defined daily doses [DDDs]). We then discussed our findings in semi-structured interviews with the national pricing and reimbursement agency, key experts within the county councils of Skåne, Västra Götaland, and Stockholm, and an industry representative.

Results

Market shares of biosimilar infliximab vary widely between counties (range 18–96% in 2017). The initial uptake of biosimilar infliximab was slow and variable, with abrupt increments in biosimilar market shares coinciding with expiration of contracts for the originator product. Different approaches taken by counties to achieve a low cost per DDD of infliximab were identified, i.e., a rapid switch to the biosimilar (Skåne), a delayed switch to the biosimilar (Stockholm), or no switch to the biosimilar when a favourable price on the originator product could be obtained (Västra Götaland). Quantitative analysis showed that 59% of the variability in biosimilar market shares could be explained by the relative difference in discounted price between the biosimilar and the originator product. In addition, qualitative analysis indicated the presence of key opinion leaders, local guidelines and initiatives, and whose budget it affects as drivers in the decision-making process.

Conclusions

Variations in the market share of biosimilar infliximab between the Swedish counties is largely explained by the discounted price difference between biosimilar and originator product, and counties used different strategies to leverage such biosimilar competition. Additionally, the presence of key opinion leaders, local guidelines and gainsharing arrangements appeared to play a role in infliximab market dynamics in counties.

Patients' understanding of clinical research: An Italian cancer patient survey

INTRODUCTION:

Patients' awareness of clinical research and their involvement in clinical trials is of great importance, but it is difficult to estimate the extent of knowledge on the research being undertaken.

METHODS:

We evaluated the level of knowledge about clinical research using a self-reporting survey distributed to 967 adult patients with cancer attending the Departments of Medical Oncology and Onco-Haematology Units of IRST IRCCS and 4 hospitals in the region of Emilia-Romagna, Italy. The questionnaire was composed of 10 specific items on research knowledge. Patients responding correctly to at least 8 of the 10 items were considered to have a good understanding of clinical research.

RESULTS:

The questionnaire was completed by 769 patients (response rate 79.5%). Only 19% of patients were found to have a good understanding of clinical research. Patients with higher education and those who had previous clinical trial experience showed a significantly better understanding. Fifty-three percent of patients said that they would be willing to participate in a trial studying a new drug and 75% expressed an interest in taking part in informative meetings/events about clinical studies.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our results show that patients' understanding of clinical research is limited and highlight an interest in learning more.

Patients' reasoning regarding the decision to participate in clinical cancer trials: an interview study

BACKGROUND

Clinical cancer trials are crucial for the implementation of new treatments in the clinical setting, but it is equally crucial that patients are given the opportunity to make a well-informed decision about participation. The inclusion process is complex, including both oral and written information about the trial. The process of patients' decision-making regarding clinical cancer trials has not yet been sufficiently studied. This interview study aims to explore the process of patients' reasoning regarding the decision to participate in a clinical cancer trial.

METHODS

The study is based on 27 individual face-to-face interviews with patients who had decided to participate in a clinical cancer trial. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim and then analysed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Content analysis revealed 17 subthemes grouped into five themes: (1) an unhesitating decision to participate; (2) a decision based on flimsy grounds and guided by emotion; (3) feeling safe and secure with my decision; (4) faced with a choice versus what choice do I have? and (5) hoping for help while helping others. The decision to participate in a clinical cancer trial was often immediate and guided by emotions, based on a trusting relationship with healthcare personnel rather than on careful reading of written information. Palliative patients, in particular, sometimes had unrealistic beliefs about the effectiveness of the trial treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

It is vital that the decision to participate in a clinical cancer trial is preceded by an honest dialogue about possible positive and negative effects of the trial treatments, including other options such as supportive care in the palliative setting. Our findings also raise the questions of how important written information is for the decision-making process and also whether genuine informed consent is possible. To reach a higher degree of informed consent, it is most important that the oral information is given in a thorough and unbiased manner.