Quality of online information about phase I clinical cancer trials in Sweden, Denmark and Norway

Motivations and experiences of patients with advanced cancer participating in Phase 1 clinical trials: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Persons with advanced cancer may participate in Phase 1 clinical trials - first-in-human trials that are conducted with the main objectives of safety and dosing. The motivations for participation are not well understood and may include hope for cure.

AIM

To explore the perspectives of persons with advanced cancer in order to understand the motivations for participating in Phase 1 clinical trials, experiences while being on trial and views on palliative care provision.

DESIGN

Qualitative study with a constructivist stance, using thematic analysis based upon the grounded theory approach.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

20 persons with advanced cancer who were participating in a Phase 1 clinical trial.

RESULTS

Many participants described how Phase 1 clinical trial participation was their last hope, as they were cognisant of their advanced disease. Information-seeking needs differed - some needed comprehensive information while others relied on the doctor's recommendation. Participants experienced varied negative and positive physical and psycho-emotional concerns, and needed to draw on multiple sources of support such as family, friends and healthcare professionals. Some could list potential benefits of palliative care but felt they did not require it yet. The overarching theme was hope and positive thinking as a way of coping.

CONCLUSIONS

The concepts of hope as a way of coping and the supportive presence of healthcare professionals could be weaved into a future model of palliative care to improve the illness journey for patients considering Phase 1 clinical trial participation and other persons with advanced cancer.

Are cancer patients better off if they participate in clinical trials? A mixed methods study

Background

Research and cancer care are closely intertwined; however, it is not clear whether physicians and nurses believe that clinical trials offer the best treatment for patients and, if so, whether this belief is justified. The aim of this study was therefore: (i) to explore how physicians and nurses perceive the benefits of clinical trial participation compared with standard care and (ii) whether it is justified to claim that clinical trial participation improves outcomes for cancer patients.

Methods

A mixed methods approach was used employing semi-structured interviews with 57 physicians and nurses in oncology and haematology and a literature review of the evidence for trial superiority, i.e. the idea that receiving treatment in a clinical trial leads to a better outcome compared with standard care. Inductive thematic analysis was used to examine the interview data. A literature review comprising nine articles was conducted according to a conceptual framework developed by Peppercorn et al. and evaluated recent evidence on trial superiority.

Results

Our findings show that many physicians and nurses make claims supporting trial superiority, however very little evidence is available in the literature comparing outcomes for trial participants and non-participants that supports their assertions.

Conclusions

Despite the recent rapid development and use of targeted therapy and immunotherapy, we find no support for trial participation to provide better outcomes for cancer patients than standard care. Hence, our present results are in line with previous results from Peppercorn et al. A weaker version of the superiority claim is that even if a trial does not bring about a direct positive effect, it brings about indirect positive effects. However, as the value of such indirect effects is dependent on the individual’s specific circumstances and preferences, their existence cannot establish the general claim that treatment in trials is superior. Belief in trial superiority is therefore unfounded. Hence, if such beliefs are communicated to patients in a trial recruitment context, it would provide misleading information. Instead emphasis should be on patients volunteering to give an altruistic contribution to the furthering of knowledge and to the potential benefit of future patients.