Strategies to Maximize Patient Participation in Clinical Trials

Relevance of Bone Marrow Biopsies for Response Assessment in US National Cancer Institute National Clinical Trials Network Follicular Lymphoma Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

Bone marrow biopsies (BMB) are performed before/after therapy to confirm complete response (CR) in patients with lymphoma on clinical trials. We sought to establish whether BMB add value in assessing response or predict progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) outcomes in follicular lymphoma (FL) subjects in a large, multicenter, multitrial cohort.

METHODS

Data were pooled from seven trials of 580 subjects with previously untreated FL through Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) and SWOG Cancer Research Network (SWOG) completing enrollment from 2008 to 2016.

RESULTS

Only 5/580 (0.9%) had positive baseline BMB, CR on imaging, and subsequent positive BMB (P < .0001). Therefore, BMB were irrelevant to response in 99% of subjects. A sensitivity analysis of 385 FL subjects treated on an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study was included. In the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group cohort, 5/385 (1.3%) had BMB that affected response assessment. Since some subjects do not undergo confirmatory BMB, we performed a landmark survival analysis from first radiologic CR with data from 580 subjects from Alliance and SWOG. Of subjects with CR on imaging (n = 187), PFS and OS were not significantly different among those with negative BMB to confirm CR (n = 47) versus those without repeat BMB (n = 140; PFS: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10, 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.94, log-rank P = .686; OS: hazard ratio, 0.59, 95% CI, 0.23 to 1.53, log-rank P = .276).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that BMB add little value to response assessment in subjects with FL treated on clinical trials and we recommend eliminating BMB from clinical trial requirements. BMB should also be removed from diagnostic guidelines for FL except in scenarios in which it may change management including confirmation of limited stage and assessment of cytopenias. This would reduce cost, patient discomfort, resource utilization, and potentially remove a barrier to trial enrollment.

Challenges in Recruitment and Retention: Leveraging Health-Related Antecedents and Information Carrier Factors to Improve Patient Participation in Pancreatic Cancer Research-A Review Article

ABSTRACT

Advancements in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) prevention, diagnosis, and treatment rely on representative and robust clinical trial participation. Given the severity of PDAC, along with the lack of effective early detection approaches, the need for accessible screening tools and new treatments is dire. Unfortunately, enrollment barriers often result in low participant accrual rates for PDAC studies and illustrate the challenging terrain researchers are facing. Research participation along with access to preventative care has been further impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. In this review, we use the Comprehensive Model for Information Seeking to discuss underexplored factors that influence patient participation in clinical studies. Adequate staffing, flexible scheduling, effective patient and physician communication, and culturally responsive messaging, along with the use of telehealth, can support enrollment objectives. Clinical research studies are a key component of health care, informing medical advancements, and improving outcomes. By leveraging health-related antecedents and information carrier factors, researchers can more effectively address barriers to participation and implement potential evidence-based mitigating strategies. While this work focuses on the PDAC research context, the lessons delineated here are applicable to the wider cancer research setting.

Moving Beyond Patient-Level Drivers of Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Childhood Cancer

Racial/ethnic disparities in childhood cancer survival persist despite advances in cancer biology and treatment. Survival rates are consistently lower among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic children as compared with non-Hispanic White children across a range of hematologic cancers and solid tumors. We provide a framework for considering complex systems and social determinants of health in research examining the drivers of racial/ethnic disparities in childhood cancer survival, given that pediatric patients' interactions with the healthcare system are filtered through their caregiver, family, and societal structure. Dismantling the multi-level (patient, family, healthcare system, and structural) barriers into modifiable drivers is critical to developing policies and interventions toward equitable health outcomes. This commentary highlights areas at the family, healthcare system, and society levels that merit closer examination and proposes actions and interventions to support improvements across these levels. See recently published article in the November issue of CEBP, Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Childhood Cancer Survival in the United States p. 2010.

Cross-Border Access to Clinical Trials in the EU: Exploratory Study on Needs and Reality

Objectives: To analyze the current situation of cross-border access to clinical trials in the EU with an overview of stakeholders' real-life experience, and to identify the needs, challenges, and potential for facilitation of cross-border access.

Methods: We employed a mixed methods design. Semi-structured interviews and an online survey were conducted with a wide range of stakeholders: patient representatives, investigators/physicians, policy and regulatory experts, academic and commercial sponsor representatives, ethics committee members. Interviews underwent a framework analysis. The survey was analyzed descriptively.

Results: Three hundred ninety six individuals responded to the survey. The majority were investigators/physicians (46%) and patient representatives (33%). Thirty eight individuals were interviewed. The majority were investigators/physicians (29%) and patient representatives (29%). All European regions were represented in the study. The highest response rate was received from residents of Western European countries (38% of survey respondents, 45% of interviewees), the lowest from Eastern Europe (9% of survey respondents, 5% of interviewees). The study suggested that cross-border participation in clinical trials occurs in practice, however very rarely. Ninety two percentage of survey respondents and the majority of interviewees perceived as needed the possibility to access clinical trials abroad. However, most interviewees also opined that patients ideally should not have to travel in order to access experimental treatment. The lack of access to treatment in the home country of the patient was described as the main motivation to participate in a clinical trial in another country. The logistical and financial burden for patients was perceived as the biggest challenge. Different stakeholders expressed diverging opinions regarding the allocation of financial and organizational responsibility for enabling cross-border access to clinical trials. Participants provided a number of proposals for improving the current system, which were carefully evaluated by the research team and informed future recommendations.

Conclusions: Participation in clinical trials abroad is happening rarely but should be facilitated. There was a consensus on the need for reliable and accessible information regarding practical aspects, as well as multi-stakeholder, multi-national recommendations on existing options and best practice on cross-border access to clinical trials. Broader interdisciplinary research is recommended before discussing options in the EU legislative framework to enable clearly defined conditions for cross-border access to clinical trials.

Representation of obese participants in obesity-related cancer randomized trials

Background

Obesity is a risk factor for numerous cancer types, and may influence cancer treatment outcomes. Underrepresentation of obese patients in obesity-related cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may affect generalizability of results. We aimed to assess the reporting of information about eligibility and enrollment of obese participants in obesity-related cancer RCTs.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of RCTs of 10 obesity-related cancer types (esophagus, colon/rectum, liver, gallbladder, pancreas, postmenopausal breast, endometrium, ovary, kidney, and thyroid cancer). We selected RCTs published between 2013 and 2016 in five major journals. For each trial, we examined the article, the protocol, and the registration record. We assessed if eligibility criteria limiting the enrollment of obese participants were reported, the proportion of obese participants that were enrolled, and if a subgroup analysis according to obesity status was reported. We systematically contacted corresponding authors and asked for information about eligibility of obese participants and the proportion of obese participants.

Results

We included 76 RCTs. Colon/rectum (n = 20), postmenopausal breast (n = 11), and kidney (n = 11) cancers were the most frequent types. Based on publicly available sources, information on the eligibility of obese participants was available in 5 (7%) trials. The proportion of obese participants could be estimated in 9 (12%) trials only. We found a subgroup analysis in only one RCT. When considering unpublished information, the eligibility of obese participants was explicitly stated in 31 (41%) trials but it was unclear if the remaining 59% trials considered obese participants as eligible and what proportion of obese participants was included. Across 22 trials, the median proportion of obese participants included was 18% (Q1-Q3 11-23).

Conclusion

Information on the eligibility and enrollment of obese participants in cancer RCTs is dramatically underreported. More transparency is needed to understand the applicability of obesity-related cancer RCT results to obese patients with cancer.

Characterization of Comorbidities Limiting the Recruitment of Patients in Early Phase Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Early phase clinical trials evaluate the safety and efficacy of new treatments. The exclusion/inclusion criteria in these trials are usually rigorous and may exclude many patients seen in clinical practice. Our objective was to study the comorbidities limiting the participation of patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer in clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We queried ClinicalTrials.gov on December 31, 2016. We reviewed the eligibility criteria of 1,103 trials. Logistic regression analyses were completed, and exclusion was studied as a binary variable.

RESULTS

Out of 1,103 trials, 70 trials (6%) excluded patients >75 years of age, and 45% made no reference to age. Eighty-six percent of trials placed restrictions on patients with history of prior malignancies. Regarding central nervous system (CNS) metastasis, 416 trials (38%) excluded all patients with CNS metastasis, and 373 (34%) only allowed asymptomatic CNS metastasis. Regarding chronic viral infections, 347 trials (31%) excluded all patients with human immunodeficiency virus, and 228 trials (21%) excluded all patients with hepatitis B or C infection. On univariate analysis, chemotherapy trials were more likely to exclude patients with CNS metastasis and history of other malignancies than targeted therapy trials. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that industry-sponsored trials had higher odds of excluding patients with compromised liver function.

CONCLUSION

Many clinical trials excluded large segments of the population of patients with cancer. Frequent exclusion criteria included patients with CNS metastasis, history of prior malignancies, and chronic viral infections. The criteria for participation in some clinical trials may be overly restrictive and limit enrollment.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The results of this study revealed that most early phase clinic trials contain strict exclusion criteria, potentially excluding the patients who may be more likely to represent the population treated in clinical settings, leaving patients susceptible to unintended harm from inappropriate generalization of trial results. Careful liberalization of the inclusion/exclusion criteria in clinical trials will allow investigators to understand the benefits and drawbacks of the experimental drug for a broader population, and possibly improve recruitment of patients with cancer into clinical trials.