Factors and Outcomes of Decision Making for Cancer Clinical Trial Participation

Cancer clinical trial participation in socioeconomically vulnerable patients; A risk model to aid in targeted interventions

BACKGROUND

In patients with cancer, those with lower incomes are less likely to participate in clinical trials. A broad-based evaluation of variables that could contribute to this disparity has not been conducted.

METHODS

We used data from Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) databases for survey years 2014, 2017, and 2020, the survey years that included questions about whether patients with cancer participated in a clinical trial. We examined 21 demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, geographic, and health information questions. We derived a risk model to predict clinical trial participation using a training/validation approach with best subset selection and k-fold cross-validation. Logistic regression was used.

RESULTS

We examined N = 1023 participants with household income <$75,000 (the U.S. median). In the training dataset (n = 614), a 5-variable model was identified including race/ethnicity, education, trust, anxiety/depression, and geographic locale. A quartile-level risk score was constructed based on the sum of adverse risk factors. In the validation cohort (n = 409), each increase in quartile level was associated with a 73 % increase in the odds of trial nonparticipation (OR = 1.73, 95 %-CI, 1.19-2.53, p = 0.004), indicating successful model validation. Among all individuals, trial participation rates decreased from 18.6 % to 7.5 % to 4.6 % to 2.8 %, respectively, as the number of adverse risk factors increased from 0 to 1 to 2 to 3 to 4-5.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed and validated a 5-variable risk model that identified a large set of lower-income individuals at lower risk of trial participation. These findings could aid in identification of patients who may benefit from additional support to navigate the treatment trial decision-making process.

Family caregivers support their patient's decision to participate in a phase 1 clinical trial: Weighing the pros and cons, bearing the costs

OBJECTIVES

When patients with advanced cancer pursue phase 1 clinical trials, family caregivers are impacted as they adopt new roles and responsibilities in time-pressured, uncertain circumstances. This study explored the nature of the caregivers' participation in patients' decision to pursue phase 1 clinical trials and the early impact of the decision on the caregiver.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 family caregivers of advanced cancer patients who had agreed to participate in phase 1 clinical trials. They were coded for information about the caregiver's relationship with the patient, typical style of decision-making together, understanding of the patient's prognosis and trial, contributions to decision-making and the initial impacts of the trial on the caregiver. Codes illuminating the research questions were grouped into categories and themes, compared across transcripts and examined against the literature.

RESULTS

Caregivers unequivocally supported the patients' decision to pursue the phase 1 trial as they hoped that the patient would derive medical benefit from the trial. They withheld their opinions and fears about the trial from the patients to support patient autonomy during the decision-making process. The patient's decision to participate increased the caregivers' burdens and deprived them of time spent on pleasurable activities at end of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Respecting the patients' personal autonomy, caregivers supported the trial, despite the complex caregiving required. As the success of phase 1 trials relies on caregiver involvement, it is imperative that healthcare professionals be sensitized to the support needs of these caregivers.

"When Offered to Participate": A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Agreement to Participate in Cancer Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Patient participation in clinical trials is vital for knowledge advancement and outcomes improvement. Few adult cancer patients participate in trials. Although patient.

decision-making about trial participation has been frequently examined, the participation rate for patients actually offered a trial is unknown.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis using 3 major search engines was undertaken. We identified studies from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2020, that examined clinical trial participation in the United States. Studies must have specified the numbers of patients offered a trial and the number enrolled. A random effects model of proportions was used. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

We identified 35 studies (30 about treatment trials and 5 about cancer control trials) among which 9759 patients were offered trial participation. Overall, 55.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 49.4% to 60.5%) of patients agreed to enroll. Participation rates did not differ between treatment (55.0%, 95% CI = 48.9% to 60.9%) and cancer control trials (55.3%, 95% CI = 38.9% to 71.1%; P = .98). Black patients participated at similar rates (58.4%, 95% CI = 46.8% to 69.7%) compared with White patients (55.1%, 95% CI = 44.3% to 65.6%; P = .88). The main reasons for nonparticipation were treatment choice or lack of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of all cancer patients offered a clinical trial do participate. These findings upend several conventional beliefs about cancer clinical trial participation, including that Black patients are less likely to agree to participate and that patient decision-making is the primary barrier to participation. Policies and interventions to improve clinical trial participation should focus more on modifiable systemic structural and clinical barriers, such as improving access to available trials and broadening eligibility criteria.

What influenced people with chronic or refractory breathlessness and advanced disease to take part and remain in a drug trial? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Recruitment and retention in clinical trials remains an important challenge, particularly in the context of advanced disease. It is important to understand what affects retention to improve trial quality, minimise attrition and reduce missing data. We conducted a qualitative study embedded within a randomised feasibility trial and explored what influenced people to take part and remain in the trial.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study embedded within a double-blind randomised trial (BETTER-B[Feasibility]: BETter TreatmEnts for Refractory Breathlessness) designed using a person-centred approach. Participants with cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease (ILD), or chronic heart failure (CHF), with a modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale grade of 3/4 were recruited from three UK sites. A convenience subsample completed qualitative interviews after the trial. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Results were considered in relation to the core elements of person-centred care and our model of the person-centred trial.

RESULTS

In the feasibility trial 409 people were screened for eligibility, and 64 were randomised. No participant was lost to follow-up. Twenty-two participants took part in a qualitative interview. Eleven had a diagnosis of COPD, 8 ILD, 2 CHF and 1 lung cancer. The participants' median age was 71 years (range 56-84). Sixteen were male. Twenty had completed the trial, and two withdrew due to adverse effects. The relationship between patient and professional, potential for benefit, trial processes and the intervention all influenced the decision to participate in the trial. The relationship with the research team and continuity, perceived benefit, and aspects relating to trial processes and the intervention influenced the decision to remain in the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

In this feasibility trial recruitment targets were met, attrition levels were low, and aspects of the person-centred approach were viewed positively by trial participants. Prioritisation of the relationship between the patient and professional; person-centred processes, including home visits, assistance with questionnaires, and involvement of the carer; and enabling people to participate by having processes in line with individual capabilities appear to support recruitment and retention in clinical trials in advanced disease. We recommend the integration of a person-centred approach in all clinical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN32236160. Registered on 13 June 2016.

Cultural Adaptation and Open Pilot of Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy for Puerto Rican Patients with Advanced Cancer

In Puerto Rico, cancer incidence increases significantly, and is accompanied with a greater risk of experiencing high levels of depressive symptoms, emotional distress, and reduced quality of life when compared to other minority ethnic groups. Studies suggest that interventions to attend distress in Latino patient population would benefit from including components that seek to improve patients' spiritual well-being. The purpose of this study is to identify the level of comprehension and acceptance of Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy (MCP) concepts. A mixed method design was conducted with in-depth interviews and open pilot data. A total of nine participants with advanced or metastatic cancer were sampled from an Oncology Clinic in the south of Puerto Rico. Six semi-structured interviews and six ethnographic notes with audiotape sessions were selected and transcribed. All material was analyzed, resulting in a sample of six semi-structured interview and six ethnographic note peer sessions. Patients showed low comprehension of the MCP concepts of meaning, the finite, and legacy. Patients showed low acceptance of death and its related concepts. They also reported high acceptance of integrating family members to their therapy. In order to tailor the intervention and improve comprehension, the content should include examples, shorter questions, and brief definitions. Additionally, there is a need to address death and its related concepts in end of life.

The perceived severity of a disease and the impact of the vocabulary used to convey information: using Rasch scaling in a simulated oncological scenario

BACKGROUND

Healthcare staff should be aware of the importance that patients may attach to the words that are used to convey information. This is relevant in terms of the patients' understanding. Modeling how people understand the information conveyed in a medical context may help health practitioners to better appreciate the patients' approach.

PURPOSE

1) Analyze the participants' self-reported perception of the type of information provided in an oncological scenario in terms of three dimensions: impairment to their health, risks associated with the disease itself and commitment required to undergo the treatment; and 2) show the benefits of using Rasch scaling for the analysis of the data. Starting from a survey, Rasch scaling produces a unidimensional logit-interval scale relating to the extent to which each item conveys a latent dimension. These were related to structure, in particular concerning communication by means of opposite vs. unipolar language.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The participants rated 82 items of information in a questionnaire regarding their perception of impairment to their health (H) and the risks (R) and commitment relating to the treatment prescribed (T).

RESULTS

The scaling produced an item bank for healthcare staff to consult in order to estimate the importance the recipient would be likely to attach to the vocabulary used and the likely impact of the information in terms of the patient's condition. Furthermore, the use of opposites was generally associated with a clearer impression of whether the information given was generally only very negative or slightly negative, whereas 'neutral' information was often perceived as being very negative.

ACTUAL FINDINGS

Is possible to estimate people's understanding more precisely (in terms of H, R and T) which can help healthcare practitioners to modulate the way they convey information.

LIMITATIONS

The participants in the study were healthy volunteers and the context was simulated.

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.

Consumers' Understanding of FDA Approval Requirements and Composite Scores in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Print Ads

In 2 studies, we investigated how laypersons perceive the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval process, FDA authority, and the presentation of composite scores in direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug print ads. The 1st study consisted of 4 focus groups (N = 38) in 2 cities. Using a semi-structured guide, a moderator led participants through the viewing of 3 existing DTC print ads that differed in the presence or absence of composite score information, and participants discussed their views of the ads and their understanding of composite scores. The 2nd study surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1,629 individuals from the general population who saw a fictitious DTC print ad and answered closed-ended questions about the same topics. Results showed that knowledge of FDA approval and authority was mixed, with several misconceptions apparent. Many consumers were not familiar with the use of composite scores in a medical context or in advertising and, in the 1st study, expressed distrust of the product and the ad after learning about how composite scores are used. In the 2nd study, receiving composite score information changed the perceived clarity of the ad but not the perceived risk or benefits. Implications for the presentation of complex medical information are discussed.

Factors affecting patient participation in clinical trials in Ireland: A narrative review

Objective

Clinical trials have long been considered the ‘gold standard’ of research generated evidence in health care. Patient recruitment is an important determinant in the success of the trials, yet little focus is placed on the decision making process of patients towards recruitment. Our objective was to identify the key factors pertaining to patient participation in clinical trials, to better understand the identified low participation rate of patients in one clinical research facility within Ireland.

Design

Narrative literature review of studies focussing on factors which may act to facilitate or deter patient participation in clinical trials. Studies were identified from Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library and CINAHL.

Results

Sixty-one studies were included in the narrative review: Forty-eight of these papers focused specifically on the patient's perspective of participating in clinical trials. The remaining thirteen related to carers, family and health care professional perspectives of participation. The primary factor influencing participation in clinical trials amongst patients was related to personal factors and these were collectively associated with obtaining a form of personal gain through participation. Cancer was identified as the leading disease entity included in clinical trials followed by HIV and cardiovascular disease.

Conclusion

The vast majority of literature relating to participation in clinical trials emanates predominantly from high income countries, with 63% originating from the USA. No studies for inclusion in this review were identified from low income or developing countries and therefore limits the generalizability of the influencing factors.

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

While participants in clinical oncology trials are essential for the advancement of cancer therapies, factors decisive for patient participation have been described but need further investigation, particularly in the case of phase 3 studies. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in trial knowledge and motives for participation in phase 3 clinical cancer trials in relation to gender, age, education levels and former trial experience. The results of a questionnaire returned from 88 of 96 patients (92%) were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. There were small, barely relevant differences in trial knowledge among patients when stratified by gender, age or education. Participants with former trial experience were less aware about the right to withdraw. Male participants and those aged ≥65 years were significantly more motivated by a feeling of duty, or by the opinions of close ones. Men seem more motivated than women by external factors. With the awareness that elderly and single male participants might be a vulnerable group and participants with former trial experience are less likely to be sufficiently informed, the information consent process should focus more on these patients. We conclude that the informed consent process seems to work well, with good results within most subgroups.

Impact of a clinical trial initiative on clinical trial enrollment in a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic

Clinical oncology trials are hampered by low accrual rates, with fewer than 5% of adult patients with cancer treated on study. Clinical trial enrollment was evaluated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center's Multidisciplinary Prostate Cancer Clinic (MPCC) to assess whether a clinical trial initiative, introduced in 2006, impacted enrollment. The trial initiative included posting trial-specific information in clinic, educating patients about appropriate clinical trial options during the treatment recommendation discussion, and providing patients with trial-specific educational information. The investigators evaluated the frequency of clinical trial enrollment for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer seen in the MPCC from 2004 to 2008. Logistic regression evaluated the impact of patient characteristics and the clinical trial initiative on trial enrollment. The median age of the 1370 men was 64 years; 32% had low-risk, 49% had intermediate-risk, and 19% had high-risk disease. Overall, 74% enrolled in at least one trial and 29% enrolled in more than one trial. Trial enrollment increased from 39% before the initiative (127/326) to 84% (880/1044) after the trial initiative. Patient enrollment increased in laboratory studies (from 25% to 80%), quality-of-life studies (from 10% to 26%), and studies evaluating investigational treatments and systemic agents (from 6% to 15%) after the trial initiative. In multivariate analysis, younger men (P<.001) and men seen after implementation of the clinical trial initiative (P<.001) were more likely to enroll in trials. Clinical trial enrollment in the MPCC was substantially higher than that seen nationally in adult patients with cancer, and enrollment rates increased after the introduction of a clinical trial initiative.

Authentic caring occasions for patients in hairy cell leukemia clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Rare diseases present challenges for patients, healthcare providers, and researchers. Rare disease communities exist for collaboration, dissemination of information, and to promote support for all community members. Patients with a rare disease desire to be supported through a rare disease community. Hairy cell leukemia (HCL) is a rare adult B-cell lymphocytic cancer that currently has no cure.

OBJECTIVES

Patients with relapsed or refractory HCL may need to consider participation in a clinical trial. The research nurse can initiate a planned caring occasion based on Watson's Theory of Human Caring. The purpose of the planned caring occasion for patients with HCL in clinical trials is to establish authentic intentional caring encounters between the research nurse and patients and meaningful caring encounters between patients.

OBSERVATIONS

Relapsed or refractory patients enrolled in an HCL clinical trial identify the trial as a microcommunity and the research nurse as an advocate and liaison. Patients seek support, empowerment, and the opportunity to connect with other patients with HCL. The planned caring occasion has the potential to provide a healing environment and facilitate shared experiences of living with HCL. The potential outcome for patients is strengthened holistic wellness.

Engaging patients and caregivers in patient-centered outcomes research on advanced stage lung cancer: insights from patients, caregivers, and providers

Participatory and patient-centered approaches to cancer research have been highlighted as the most appropriate means of engaging patients in the conduct of clinical research. However, there is a paucity of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) on lung cancer. Previous studies seeking to define lung cancer treatment success have generally not included patients' and caregivers' perceptions and views in treatment decision-making. Additionally, little is known about effective strategies for the engagement of lung cancer patients in PCOR. We sought to gain insights into the perceptions of patients, caregivers, and providers on lung cancer treatment success, as well as on strategies for patient engagement in lung cancer PCOR. Four focus groups were conducted with provider, patient, and caregiver participants from four cancer centers in Nebraska and South Dakota. A total of 36 providers, patients, and caregivers participated in this study. Patients and caregivers confirmed that survival alone should not be the measure of lung cancer treatment success and that definitions of treatment success should emphasize factors such as effective clinical guidance throughout treatment, symptom management, functionality, and quality of life. Clinician participants noted that the definition of treatment success evolved over time and appeared to be linked to patients' experiences with chemotherapy. Participants identified barriers to and facilitators of research participation and suggested strategies for the recruitment and retention of research participants. Our study indicates that patients can successfully play active and engaged roles in clinical research, ranging from participant to partner. Judging from the enthusiasm of our focus group attendees, patients and caregivers want to participate and be engaged in clinical research.

Patients' rationale for declining participation in a cancer-associated weight loss study

BACKGROUND

Fewer than 5 % of cancer patients participate in clinical research. Although this paltry rate has led to extensive research on this topic, previous studies have not sought verbatim comments in a real-time, comprehensive manner to understand why patients decline.

METHODS

This study used a low-risk, non-interventional parent study that focused on cancer-associated weight loss to understand patients' reasons for declining research participation. A research assistant wrote down the name and verbatim reason of all patients who declined to participate. These comments with accompanying patient demographic data are the subject of this report.

RESULTS

Of the 334 patients, 51 (15 %) declined parent study enrollment; three comment-related themes emerged: (1) a repelling sense of too much institutional research, (2) overwhelming personal health issues, and (3) a low likelihood of returning to the institution. In univariate and multivariate analyses, only age (older) and gender (female) were associated with non-enrollment. Interestingly, 41 patients with fatigue scores of 7 or worse and 26 with pain scores of 7 or worse were enrolled.

CONCLUSIONS

Although many factors were associated with declining to participate in research, symptom severity was not. Upfront education might help cancer patients better prioritize their participation in research, particularly as some patients felt overwhelmed by too much research in the institution; and for now, investigators should continue to keep asking patients for their participation.

Hope for a cure and altruism are the main motives behind participation in phase 3 clinical cancer trials

It is necessary to carry out randomised clinical cancer trials (RCTs) in order to evaluate new, potentially useful treatments for future cancer patients. Participation in clinical trials plays an important role in determining whether a new treatment is the best therapy or not. Therefore, it is important to understand on what basis patients decide to participate in clinical trials and to investigate the implications of this understanding for optimising the information process related to study participation. The aims of this study were to (1) describe motives associated with participation in RCTs, (2) assess if patients comprehend the information related to trial enrolment, and (3) describe patient experiences of trial participation. Questionnaires were sent to 96 cancer patients participating in one of nine ongoing clinical phase 3 trials at the Department of Oncology, Uppsala University Hospital in Sweden. Eighty-eight patients completed the questionnaire (response rate 92%); 95% of these were patients in adjuvant therapy and 5% participated in clinical trials on palliative care. Two main reasons for participation were identified: personal hope for a cure and altruism. Patients show adequate understanding of the information provided to them in the consent process and participation entails high patient satisfaction.

Decision-making in stem cell trials for spinal cord injury: the role of networks and peers

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to characterize the self-perceived role of professionals and personal caregivers in decision-making about participation in stem cell clinical trials by individuals in early post-spinal cord injury time-points.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Data were obtained from focus groups and semi-structured individual interviews from two networks: healthcare professionals (e.g., physicians, allied healthcare workers) and personal contacts (family and friends). We transcribed audio-recorded data in extenso and analyzed transcripts using the qualitative method of constant comparison.

RESULTS

Results from more than 60 h of data suggest that adequate decision support is difficult to achieve for individuals during the subacute phase of injury. Three major obstacles prevent this goal: the personal dimensions of risk; limited insights into the pathophysiology and recovery process; and deference of each network to the other.

CONCLUSION

The data suggest that novel strategies for decision-making processes, such as those involving peer support, are needed to enrich the knowledge base of all stakeholders. The results further underscore the importance of the role that both the academic and private sector play in ensuring the protection of human subjects in these trials.

Removing barriers to participation in clinical trials, a conceptual framework and retrospective chart review study

BACKGROUND

Enrollment in interventional therapeutic clinical trials is a small fraction of all patients who might participate given reasonable access.

METHODS

A hierarchical approach is utilized in measuring staged participation from trial availability to patient enrollment. Our framework suggests that concern for justice comes in the design and eligibility criteria for clinical trials; attention to beneficence is given in the eligibility and physician triage stages. The remaining four stages rely on respect for persons. An example is given where reasons for nonparticipation or barriers to participation in prostate cancer clinical trials are examined within the framework. In addition, medical oncology patients with an initial six month consultation are tracked from one stage to the next by race using the framework to assess participation comparability.

RESULTS

We illustrated seven transitions from being a patient to enrollment in a clinical trial in a small study of prostate cancer cases who consulted SKCCC Medical Oncology Department in early 2010. Pilot data suggest transition probabilities as follows: 65% availability, 84% eligibility, 92% patient triage, 89% trials discussed, 45% patient interested, 63% patient consented, and 92% patient enrolled. The average transition probability was 77.7%. The average transition probability, patient-trial-fit was 50%; opportunity was 51%, and acceptance was 66.7%. Trial availability, patient interest and patient consented were three transitions that were below the average; none were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The framework may serve to streamline comprehensive reporting of clinical trial participation to the benefit of patients and the ethical conduct of clinical trials.