Rate limiting factors in recruitment of patients to clinical trials in cancer research: descriptive study

Community Engagement Strategies for Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Populations

The representation of racial and ethnic minority populations in clinical trials continues to be a challenge despite mandates, good intentions, and concerted efforts by funding agencies, regulatory bodies, and researchers to close the clinical trials gap. A lack of diversity in research results in both continued disparities and poorer health outcomes. It is thus imperative that investigators understand and effectively address the challenges of clinical trials participation by underrepresented populations. In this paper, we expound on best practices for participatory research by clearly defining the community, highlighting the importance of proper identification and engagement of strong community partners, and exploring patient- and provider-level barriers and facilitators that require consideration. A clearer understanding of the balance of power between researchers and community partners is needed for any approach that addresses clinical trials representation. Unintended biases in study design and methods may continue to prevent racial and ethnic minority participants from taking part, and significant organizational changes are necessary for efficient and transparent relationships. Comprehensive community engagement in research includes dissemination of clinical trial results within and in partnership with community partners. Through careful deliberation and honest reflection, investigators, institutions, and community partners can develop the tailored blueprints of research collaborations essential for true equity in clinical trials.

Early clinical trial unit tumor board: a real-world experience in a national cancer network

PURPOSE

Early clinical trials are the first step into clinical therapies for new drugs. Within the six Bavarian university-based hospitals (Augsburg, Erlangen, Regensburg, Munich (LMU and TU), Würzburg) we have enrolled a virtual network platform for patient discussion.

METHODS

The virtual Early Clinical Trial Unit Tumor Board (ECTU Tumor Board) is a secured web-based meeting to evaluate early clinical trial options for patients, where representatives from local ECTUs participate. We retrospectively analyzed patient cases discussed between November 2021 and November 2022.

RESULTS

From November 2021 to November 2022, a total of 43 patients were discussed in the ECTU Tumor Board. Median age at diagnosis was 44.6 years (range 10-76 years). The median number of previous lines of therapies was 3.7 (range 1-9 therapies) including systemic treatment, surgery, and radiation therapy. A total of 27 different tumor entities were presented and 83.7% (36/43) patients received at least one trial recommendation. In total, 21 different active or shortly recruiting clinical trials were recommended: ten antibody trials, four BiTE (bispecific T cell engager) trials, six CAR (chimeric antigen receptor) T-cell trials, and one chemotherapy trial. Only six trials (28.6%) were recommended on the basis of the previously performed comprehensive genetic profiling (CGP).

CONCLUSION

The ECTU Tumor Board is a feasible and successful network, highlighting the force of virtual patient discussions for improving patient care as well as trial recruitment in advanced diseases. It can provide further treatment options after local MTB presentation, aiming to close the gap to access clinical trials.

First-In-Human Phase 1 Clinical Trials - A Single-Center Experience In The Era Of Modern Oncotherapeutics

In the era of precision medicine the treatment options for cancer patients and subsequent outcomes are expected to improve. We present a review of patients enrolled in first-in-human Phase1 trials at University of Alabama at Birmingham. Between 1/2015-6/2017, 162 cancer patients (whole cohort, WC) were enrolled on phase1 studies receiving either targeted therapy (TT) or immuno-therapy (IOT). We assessed 90 day mortality (90DM) and time to treatment failure (TTF) to determine the predictors. Of the WC (122 (TT), 40 (IOT)), 90 (56%) received ≥ 2 prior therapies and 38 (24%) ⩾ 5 prior therapies. Overall, Grade 3 or 4 events were observed in 33% (WC) vs 31% (TT) vs 38% (IOT). The 90DM was 9.3% (WC) vs 7.4% (TT) vs 15% (IOT). The median TTF was 4.2 months vs 4.5 m vs 3.6 m. The number of lines of prior therapy and performance status were identified as outcome predictors. Our data reflects the new trend in precision oncology where majority received non-cytotoxic therapeutic interventions. The observation that number of lines of prior therapy and performance status predictive of PFS and 90DM emphasizes the need to consider phase1 trials earlier, preferably upon progression following definitive therapy.

Inclusion of Older Patients with Cancer in Clinical Trials: The SAGE Prospective Multicenter Cohort Survey

BACKGROUND

The primary objective was to evaluate the rates of older patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) who were eligible for a clinical trial, invited to participate, and, ultimately, included. The secondary objective was to assess the reasons for ineligibility, noninvitation, and noninclusion and factors associated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Sujets AGés dans les Essais Cliniques (SAGE; Older Subjects in Clinical Trials) multicenter prospective cohort was established in seven centers (10 departments of medical oncology, digestive oncology, and digestive surgery) between 2012 and 2016. All patients with CRC aged 65 or older were studied. The endpoints were clinical trial availability, patient's eligibility, invitation, and enrollment in a trial.

RESULTS

We included 577 older patients (mean age ± SD: 75.6 ± 7 years; males: 56%; metastasis: 41%). Thirty-seven trials were ongoing (one trial for older patients). Of the 474 patients with at least one available trial for their cancer stage and site, 127 (27%) were eligible; 84 of these 127 (66%) were invited to participate, and 70 of these 84 (83%) were included. In a multivariate analysis, noninvitation was found to be associated with older age (p = .016): adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval), 0.14 (0.02-0.60) for ≥80 vs. 65-69; 0.54 (0.18-1.04) for 75-79 vs. 65-69; 0.47 (0.17-0.93) for 70-74 vs. 65-69.

CONCLUSION

Three-quarters of older patients with CRC were ineligible for a clinical trial. One-third of the eligible patients were not invited to participate in a trial, and 17% of invited patients were not included. Few trials are reserved for older patients. Patients aged 80 or older were significantly less likely to be eligible for a trial and invited to participate. Clinical trial identification number: NCT01754636.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The results of this study suggest that barriers to participation of older patients in clinical trials are particularly marked at age 80 years or older. Secondly, the results emphasize the need for trials for older patients. Thirdly, there is also a need for more pragmatic "real-world" trials, rather than solely randomized trials performed in idealized settings with strictly selected patients. Large prospective observational cohorts with a precise follow-up of toxicity, functional decline, and quality of life may constitute one way of generating more data on the risk-benefit ratio for cancer treatments in older patients.

Assessing the external validity of a randomized controlled trial of anthelminthics in mothers and their children in Entebbe, Uganda

Background

The ‘external validity’ of randomized controlled trials is an important measure of quality, but is often not formally assessed. Trials concerning mass drug administration for helminth control are likely to guide public health policy and careful interpretation of their context is needed. We aimed to determine how representative participants in one such trial were of their community. We explore implications for trial interpretation and resulting public health recommendations.

Methods

The trial assessed was the Entebbe Mother and Baby Study (EMaBS), a trial of anthelminthic treatment during pregnancy and early childhood. In a novel approach for assessing external validity, we conducted a two-stage cluster sample community survey within the trial catchment area and compared characteristics of potentially-eligible community children with characteristics of children participating in the trial.

Results

A total of 173 children aged three to five-years-old were surveyed from 480 households. Of children surveyed, we estimated that mothers of 60% would have been eligible for recruitment, and of these, 31% had actually been enrolled. Children surveyed were compared to 199 trial children in the same age group reviewed at annual trial visits during the same time period. There were significant differences in ethnicity between the trial participants and the community children, and in socioeconomic status, with those in the trial having, on average, more educated parents and higher maternal employment. Trial children were less likely to have barefoot exposure and more likely to use insecticide-treated bed nets. There were no significant differences in numbers of reported illness events over the last year.

Conclusions

The trial had not enrolled all eligible participants, and those enrolled were of higher socioeconomic status, and had lower risk of exposure to the parasitic infections targeted by the trial interventions. It is possible the trial may have underestimated the absolute effects of anthelminthic treatment during pregnancy and early childhood, although the fact that there were no differences in reported incidence of common infectious diseases (one of the primary outcomes of EMaBS) between the two groups provides reassurance. Concurrent community surveys may be an effective way to test the external validity of trials.

EMaBS Trial registration

ISRCTN32849447, registered 22 July 2005

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-310) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Use of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program screening and accrual log to address cancer clinical trial accrual

PURPOSE

Screening logs have the potential to help oncology clinical trial programs at the site level, as well as trial leaders, address enrollment in real time. Such an approach could be especially helpful in improving representation of racial/ethnic minority and other underrepresented populations in clinical trials.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed a screening log. Log data collected from March 2009 through May 2012 were analyzed for number of patients screened versus enrolled, including for demographic subgroups; screening methods; and enrollment barriers, including reasons for ineligibility and provider and patient reasons for declining to offer or participate in a trial. User feedback was obtained to better understand perceptions of log utility.

RESULTS

Of 4,483 patients screened, 18.4% enrolled onto NCCCP log trials. Reasons for nonenrollment were ineligibility (51.6%), patient declined (25.8%), physician declined (15.6%), urgent need for treatment (6.6%), and trial suspension (0.4%). Major reasons for patients declining were no desire to participate in trials (43.2%) and preference for standard of care (39%). Major reasons for physicians declining to offer trials were preference for standard of care (53%) and concerns about tolerability (29.3%). Enrollment rates onto log trials did not differ between white and black (P = .15) or between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients (P = .73). Other races had lower enrollment rates than whites and blacks. Sites valued the ready access to log data on enrollment barriers, with some sites changing practices to address those barriers.

CONCLUSION

Use of screening logs to document enrollment barriers at the local level can facilitate development of strategies to enhance clinical trial accrual.

The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Many challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature.

RESULTS

Few rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.

Barriers to study enrollment in patients with advanced cancer referred to a phase I clinical trials unit

We conducted this retrospective study to identify reasons that patients referred to a phase I clinical trial failed to enroll or delayed enrollment onto the trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Outcome analyses were conducted independently on data collected from electronic medical records of two sets of consecutive patients referred to a phase I clinical trial facility at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Data from the first set of 300 patients were used to determine relevant variables affecting enrollment; data from the second set of 957 patients were then analyzed for these variables.

RESULTS

Results from the two sets of patients were similar. Approximately 55% of patients were enrolled in a phase I trial. Patients referred from within MD Anderson were more likely to be enrolled than patients seen originally outside the institution (p = .006); black patients were more likely than white patients to enroll (69% vs. 43%; p = .04). The median interval from the initial visit to initiation of treatments was 19 days. Major reasons for failure to enroll included failure to return to the clinic (36%), opting for treatment in another clinic (17%), hospice referral (11%), early death (10%), and lack of financial clearance (5%). Treatment was delayed for three weeks or more in 250 patients; in 85 patients (34%), the delay was caused by financial and insurance issues.

CONCLUSION

Failure to return to the clinic, pursuit of other therapy, and rapid deterioration were the major reasons for failure to enroll; lengthy financial clearance was the most common reason for delayed enrollment onto a phase I trial.

Image guidance protocols: balancing imaging parameters against scan time

OBJECTIVE

Optimisation of imaging protocols is essential to maximise the use of image-guided radiotherapy. This article evaluates the time for daily online imaging with TomoTherapy® (Accuray®, Sunnyvale, CA), separating mechanical scan acquisition from radiographer-led image matching, to estimate the time required for a clinical research study (VoxTox).

METHODS

Over 5 years, 18 533 treatments were recorded for 3 tumour sites of interest (prostate, head and neck and central nervous system). Data were collected for scan length, number of CT slices, slice thickness, scan acquisition time and image matching time.

RESULTS

The proportion of coarse thickness scans increased over time, with a move of making coarse scans as the default. There was a strong correlation between scan time and scan length. Scan acquisition requires 40 s of processing time. For coarse scans, each additional centimetre requires 8 s for acquisition. Image matching takes approximately 1.5 times as long, so each additional centimetre needs 20 s extra in total. Modest changes to the imaging protocol have minimal impact over the course of the day.

CONCLUSION

This work quantified the effect of changes to clinical protocols required for research. The results have been found to be reassuring in the busy National Institutes of Health department.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This novel method of data collection and analysis provides evidence of the minimal impact of research on clinical turnover. Whilst the data relate specifically to TomoTherapy, some aspects may apply to other platforms in the future.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with advanced gastric cancer who declined to participate in a randomized clinical chemotherapy trial

PURPOSE

There is insufficient data to verify whether participation in clinical trials in itself can lead to better clinical outcomes. We have analyzed the characteristics and outcomes of patients who declined to participate in a randomized trial in comparison with those who participated in the trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A randomized trial for naive advanced gastric cancer was offered to 286 patients. The trial investigated the superiority of irinotecan plus cisplatin and the noninferiority of S-1 compared with continuous fluorouracil infusion. We retrospectively reviewed the characteristics and outcomes for both participants and nonparticipants in this trial.

RESULTS

Of the 286 patients, 98 (34%) declined to participate in the trial. The rate of declining was significantly higher among younger patients (P = .003), and it varied significantly between attending physicians (range, 23% to 58%; P = .004). There were no other significant correlations between rate of declining and patient characteristics. No significant differences were observed in the clinical outcomes between the participants and nonparticipants, for whom the median survival times were 367 versus 347 days, respectively. The hazard ratio for overall survival, adjusted for other confounding variables, was 1.21 (95% CI, 0.91 to 1.60). No interaction was observed between participation and the various regimens.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in clinical outcomes between participants and nonparticipants. However, the patient's age and the doctor-patient relationship may have an effect on patient accrual to randomized trials.

Are clinical trials dealing with severe infection fitting routine practices? Insights from a large registry

Introduction

Guidelines dealing with severe sepsis and septic shock mostly rely on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to ensure the best standards of care for patients. However, patients included in high-quality studies may differ from the routine population and alter external validity of recommendations. We aimed to determine to what extent non-inclusion criteria of RCTs dealing with severe sepsis and septic shock may affect application of their conclusions in routine care.

Methods

In a first step, the MEDLINE database was searched for RCTs treating severe sepsis and septic shock patients between 1992 and 2008, and non-inclusion criteria for these studies were abstracted. Two reviewers independently evaluated the articles, which were checked by a third reviewer. We extracted data on the study design, main intervention, primary endpoint, criteria for inclusion, and criteria for non-inclusion. In a second step, the distribution of the non-inclusion criteria was observed in a prospective multicenter cohort of severe sepsis and septic shock patients (Cub-Rea network, 1992 to 2008).

Results

We identified 96 articles out of 7,012 citations that met the screening criteria. Congestive heart failure (35%) and cancer (30%) were frequent exclusion criteria in selected studies, as well as other frequent disorders such as gastrointestinal and liver diseases and all causes of immune suppression. Of the 67,717 patients with severe sepsis and septic shock in the Cub-Rea database, 40,325 (60%) experienced at least one of the main exclusion criteria, including 11% of congestive heart failure patients and 11% of cancer patients. In addition, we observed a significant trend for increasing number of patients with these criteria along time.

Conclusion

Current exclusion criteria for RCTs dealing with severe sepsis and septic shock excluded most patients encountered in daily practice and limit external validity of the results of high-quality studies.

The effect of clinical trial participation versus non-participation on overall survival in men receiving first-line docetaxel-containing chemotherapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Previous studies have reported better outcomes in cancer patients that enrolled in clinical trials, suggesting that trial participation in itself might be beneficial. We investigated the potential positive effect of clinical trial participation on survival outcomes of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were treated with first-line docetaxel-containing chemotherapy. After accounting for potential baseline inequalities, participation in a clinical trial itself was associated with significantly longer overall survival in these patients.

OBJECTIVE

• To study differences in baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving first-line docetaxel-containing chemotherapy on prospective clinical studies (trial participants) versus those receiving this therapy outside of a clinical study (non-participants).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• Records from 247 consecutive chemotherapy-naive patients who were treated with docetaxel-containing chemotherapy for mCRPC at a single high-volume centre from 1998 to 2010 were reviewed. • All patients received docetaxel either as clinical trial participants (n= 142; 11 separate studies) or as non-participants (n= 105). • Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models predicted overall survival after chemotherapy initiation.

RESULTS

• There was no significant difference between trial participation and non-participation with respect to patient age, type of primary treatment, tumour grade or clinical stage. • Multivariable analyses showed a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 0.567; P= 0.027) among trial participants vs non-participants.

CONCLUSIONS

• Patients that were treated with docetaxel for mCRPC showed a significantly longer overall survival when enrolled in a clinical trial. • Improved survival in trial participants may reflect the better medical oversight typically seen in patients enrolled in trials, more regimented follow-up schedules, or a positive effect on caregivers' attitudes because of greater contact with medical services. • With the retrospective nature of this analysis and the small study population, prospective studies are needed to validate the present findings and to further investigate the relationship between clinical trial participation and outcomes.

Propensity score applied to survival data analysis through proportional hazards models: a Monte Carlo study

Propensity score methods are increasingly used in medical literature to estimate treatment effect using data from observational studies. Despite many papers on propensity score analysis, few have focused on the analysis of survival data. Even within the framework of the popular proportional hazard model, the choice among marginal, stratified or adjusted models remains unclear. A Monte Carlo simulation study was used to compare the performance of several survival models to estimate both marginal and conditional treatment effects. The impact of accounting or not for pairing when analysing propensity-score-matched survival data was assessed. In addition, the influence of unmeasured confounders was investigated. After matching on the propensity score, both marginal and conditional treatment effects could be reliably estimated. Ignoring the paired structure of the data led to an increased test size due to an overestimated variance of the treatment effect. Among the various survival models considered, stratified models systematically showed poorer performance. Omitting a covariate in the propensity score model led to a biased estimation of treatment effect, but replacement of the unmeasured confounder by a correlated one allowed a marked decrease in this bias. Our study showed that propensity scores applied to survival data can lead to unbiased estimation of both marginal and conditional treatment effect, when marginal and adjusted Cox models are used. In all cases, it is necessary to account for pairing when analysing propensity-score-matched data, using a robust estimator of the variance.

Propensity scores in intensive care and anaesthesiology literature: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Propensity score methods have been increasingly used in the last 10 years. However, the practical use of the propensity score (PS) has been reported as heterogeneous in several papers reviewing the use of propensity scores and giving some advice. No precedent work has focused on the specific application of PS in intensive care and anaesthesiology literature.

OBJECTIVES

After a brief development of the theory of propensity score, to assess the use and the quality of reporting of PS studies in intensive care and anaesthesiology, and to evaluate how past reviews have influenced the quality of the reporting.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Forty-seven articles published between 2006 and 2009 in the intensive care and anaesthesiology literature were evaluated. We extracted the characteristics of the report, the type of analysis, the details of matching procedures, the number of patients in treated and control groups, and the number of covariates included in the PS models.

RESULTS

Of the 47 articles reviewed, 26 used matching on PS, 12 used stratification on PS and 9 used adjustment on PS. The method used was reported in 81% of the articles, and the choice to conduct a paired analysis or not was reported in only 15%. The comparison with the previously published reviews showed little improvement in reporting in the last few years.

CONCLUSION

The quality of reporting propensity scores in intensive care and anaesthesiology literature should be improved. We provide some recommendations to the investigators in order to improve the reporting of PS analyses.

Are patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma in clinical therapy optimization protocols representative of these groups of patients in Germany?

BACKGROUND

Improvement of lymphoma therapy is largely driven by clinical therapy optimization protocols (TOPs). It is unclear, however, whether the patients treated in clinical TOP are representative for all patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

TOP participants were compared with nonstudy patients in a population-based approach. The study included patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (hgNHL). Incident cases (N = 743) were ascertained in a large population-based epidemiologic survey. Each patient's status with respect to exclusion criteria of the pertinent TOP was abstracted from primary data sources. TOP participants were identified on the basis of the trial databases. Baseline characteristics and risk factor prevalence were compared between nonstudy and TOP patients.

RESULTS

Eligible for the respective TOPs were 64.1% of all incident HL patients and 29.6% of all hgNHL patients in the population. Main exclusion criterion was age (HL: 15.2%; hgNHL: 27.4%). Only 71 HL patients (23.0%) and 11 hgNHL patients (3.4%) had actually been enrolled in the respective TOPs.

CONCLUSIONS

TOP participants do not represent all patients with hgNHL and HL in the population. TOP inclusion criteria caused considerable selection among the participants. Further investigation is required to clarify possible limitations for the application of the outcomes observed in TOP patients for all patients with these diseases.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who declined to participate in randomised clinical chemotherapy trials

There are inadequate data on the outcomes of patients who declined to participate in randomised clinical trials as compared with those of participants. We retrospectively reviewed the patient characteristics and treatment outcomes of both participants and non-participants in the two randomised trials for chemotherapy-naive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Trial 1 compared four platinum-based combination regimens. Trial 2 compared two sequences of carboplatin plus paclitaxel and gefitinib therapies. Nineteen of 119 (16%) and 153 (37%) patients declined to participate in Trials 1 and 2, respectively. Among the background patient characteristics, the only variable associated with trial participation or declining was the patients' attending physicians (P<0.001). Important differences were not observed in the clinical outcomes between participants and non-participants, for whom the response rates were 30.6 vs 34.2% and the median survival times were 489 vs 461 days, respectively. The hazard ratio for overall survival, adjusted for other confounding variables, was 0.965 (95% confidence interval: 0.73–1.28). In conclusion, there was no evidence to suggest any difference in the characteristics and clinical outcomes between participants and non-participants. Trial designs and the doctor–patient relationship may have an impact on the patient accrual to randomised trials.

Recruitment of minority and underserved populations in the United States: the Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities experience

OBJECTIVE

The recruitment of minority and underserved individuals to research studies is often problematic. The purpose of this study was to describe the recruitment experiences of projects that actively recruited minority and underserved populations as part of The Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities (CPHHD) initiative.

METHODS

Principal investigators and research staff from 17 research projects at eight institutions across the United States were surveyed about their recruitment experiences. Investigators reported the study purpose and design, recruitment methods employed, recruitment progress, problems or challenges to recruitment, strategies used to address these problems, and difficulties resulting from Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) requirements. Additionally, information was collected about participant burden and compensation. Burden was classified on a three-level scale. Recruitment results were reported as of March 31, 2007.

RESULTS

Recruitment attainment ranged from 52% to 184% of the participant recruitment goals. Commonly reported recruitment problems included administrative issues, and difficulties with establishing community partnerships and contacting potential participants. Long study questionnaires, extended follow-up, and narrow eligibility criteria were also problematic. The majority of projects reported difficulties with IRB approvals, though few reported issues related to HIPAA requirements. Attempted solutions to recruitment problems varied across Centers and included using multiple recruitment sites and sources and culturally appropriate invitations to participate. Participant burden and compensation varied widely across the projects, however, accrual appeared to be inversely associated with the amount of participant burden for each project.

CONCLUSION

Recruitment of minority and underserved populations to clinical trials is necessary to increase study generalizbility and reduce health disparities. Our results demonstrate the importance of flexible study designs which allow adaptation to recruitment challenges. These experiences also highlight the importance of involving community members and reducing participant burden to achieve success in recruiting individuals from minority and underserved populations.

Maximising recruitment into randomised controlled trials: the role of multidisciplinary cancer teams

Multidisciplinary cancer teams offer many theoretical benefits, although few have been formally examined. This study evaluated the role of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings in recruitment into randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Consecutive MDT patient records were categorised into those with or without a recommendation for a national multicentre RCT. Clinical trial office records identified whether patients were subsequently screened and randomised. In 125 MDT meetings, 350 new patients were discussed, of whom 103 were potentially suitable for a RCT. The MDT recommended 68 patients for the trial, of whom 58 (85%) were screened for trial eligibility. Of the 35 without an MDT trial recommendation, only 23 (66%) were screened (p=0.022). This difference persisted and resulted in a greater proportion of MDT recommended patients being recruited (65% versus 49%; p=0.12). This study demonstrates that trial recommendation by an MDT significantly increases trial screening rates and may improve recruitment.

What constitutes a "clinical trial"?: a survey of oncology professionals

Background

What constitutes a "clinical trial" is inconsistently defined in the medical literature. With an initiative by Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) to report institutional clinical trials activity across the province of Ontario, Canada, we sought to investigate the variability in the interpretation of the term by local oncology professionals.

Methods

A survey amongst the physicians and nurses at the Juravinski Cancer Centre at Hamilton Health Sciences, Ontario was conducted. The survey included 12 summaries of local clinical research studies, and respondents were asked which they believed represented a clinical trial. Subsequently, they were asked which of the same 12 studies they believed should be labeled as clinical trials when considering separate definitions provided by CCO and by the Ontario Cancer Research Network (OCRN).

Results

A total of 66 (54%) of 123 surveys were completed; 32/46 (70%) by physicians, 21/59 (36%) by primary care nurses, and 13/18 (72%) by clinical trial nurses. Without a standardized definition, all studies, 12/12, were considered to be clinical trials by at least 50% of respondents. When provided with the CCO definition only 6/12 studies were considered to be clinical trials by the majority of respondents, while with the OCRN definition it was 9/12 studies. Studies evaluating natural health products, non-traditional medical interventions, and non-randomized studies with standard interventions consistently ranked the lowest, regardless of the definition used.

Conclusion

Oncology professionals appear to have a broadly inclusive baseline definition of what constitutes a clinical trial. Establishing rigor and consistency in the definition of a clinical trial is important for any program, institutional or jurisdictional based comparisons of clinical trials activity, especially when used as a quality indicator of patient care.

Barriers in phase I cancer clinical trials referrals and enrollment: five-year experience at the Princess Margaret Hospital

Background

There is a paucity of literature on the referral outcome of patients seen in phase I trial clinics in academic oncology centres. This study aims to provide information on the accrual rate and to identify obstacles in the recruitment process.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed for all new patients referred and seen in the phase I clinic at the Princess Margaret Hospital between January 2000 and June 2005. Data on their demographics, medical history, and details of trial participation or non-entry were recorded.

Results

A total of 667 new phase I referrals were seen during the stated period. Of these patients, 197 (29.5%) patients were enrolled into a phase I trial, and 64.5% of them started trial within 1 month of the initial visit. About a quarter (165 of 667) of the patients referred were deemed ineligible at their first visit, with the most frequent reasons for ineligibility being poor performance status, unacceptable bloodwork, too many prior treatments and rapid disease progression. The remaining 305 patients (45.7%) were potentially eligible at their initial visit, but never entered a phase I trial. The main reasons for their non-entry were patient refusal, other treatment recommended first, and lack of available trials or trial spots.

Conclusion

This study provides information on the clinical realities underlying a referral to a phase I clinic and eventual trial enrollment. Better selection of patients, appropriate education of referring physicians, and opening phase I trials with fewer restrictions on some criteria such as prior therapy may enhance their recruitment rates.

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.