Consent timing and experience: modifiable factors that may influence interest in clinical research

Enhancing access to and diversity in cancer clinical trials through a financial reimbursement program: Protocol to evaluate a novel program

As clinical trials have become more complex, with increasing numbers of required procedures and clinic visits, gaining access to promising new treatments has become even more challenging for many individuals. To address these barriers, we implemented a financial reimbursement and outreach program designed to increase the number and diversity of participants in cancer clinical trials at centers in Dallas, Houston, and Philadelphia. As endorsed by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Texas and Pennsylvania State Legislatures, the program provides financial reimbursement for non-clinical costs (e.g., travel, lodging) to patients on cancer clinical trials with household income up to 700% the Federal poverty rate. The research study described here, centered at the Dallas site, evaluates program impact by assessing (1) numbers and diversity of patients enrolled to cancer clinical trials before and after program implementation; (2) characteristics of patients offered participation in the program who do versus do not enroll; (3) characteristics of patients enrolled in the program who do versus do not complete the reimbursement process. To evaluate perceived barriers and facilitators of program participation, we will conduct semi-structured interviews and administer the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity Patient Reported Outcome Measure (COST PROM) and the Short Assessment of Health Literacy (SAHL). This program will examine how reimbursement of non-clinical costs can improve access to cancer clinical trials, with the eventual goal of increasing trial enrollment, diversity, representativeness, and generalizability.

Clinician Variation in Ordering and Completion of Low-Dose Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening in a Safety-Net Medical System

BACKGROUND

Less than 5% of eligible individuals in the United States undergo lung cancer screening. Variation in clinicians' participation in lung cancer screening has not been determined.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We studied medical providers who ordered ≥ 1 low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening from February 2017 through February 2019 in an integrated safety-net healthcare system. We analyzed associations between provider characteristics and LDCT orders and completion using chi-square, Fisher exact, and Student t tests, as well as ANOVA and multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among an estimated 194 adult primary care physicians, 144 (74%) ordered at least 1 LDCT, as did 39 specialists. These 183 medical providers ordered 1594 LDCT (median, 4; interquartile range, 2-9). In univariate and multivariate models, family practice providers (P < .001) and providers aged ≥ 50 years (P = .03) ordered more LDCT than did other clinicians. Across providers, the median proportion of ordered LDCT that were completed was 67%. The total or preceding number of LDCT ordered by a clinician was not associated with the likelihood of LDCT completion.

CONCLUSION

In an integrated safety-net healthcare system, most adult primary care providers order LDCT. The number of LDCT ordered varies widely among clinicians, and a substantial proportion of ordered LDCT are not completed.

Recruiting breast cancer patients for mHealth research: Obstacles to clinic-based recruitment for a mobile phone app intervention study

BACKGROUND

Nearly half of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients will report clinically significant symptoms of depression and/or anxiety within the first year of diagnosis. Research on the trajectory of distress in cancer patients suggests that targeting patients early in the diagnostic pathway could be particularly impactful. Given the recent rise of smartphone adoption, apps are a convenient and accessible platform from which to deliver mental health support; however, little research has examined their potential impact among newly diagnosed cancer patients. One reason is likely due to the obstacles associated with in-clinic recruitment of newly diagnosed cancer patients for mHealth pilot studies.

METHODS

This article draws from our experiences of a recently completed pilot study to test a suite of mental health apps in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Recruitment strategies included in-clinic pamphlets, flyers, and direct communication with clinicians. Surgical oncologists and research staff members approached eligible patients after a medical appointment. Research team members met with patients to provide informed consent and review the study schedule.

RESULTS

Four domains of in-clinic recruitment challenges emerged: (a) coordination with clinic staff, (b) perceived burden among breast cancer patients, (c) limitations regarding the adoption and use of technology, and (d) availability of resources. Potential solutions are provided for each challenge.

CONCLUSION

Recruitment of newly diagnosed cancer patients is a major challenge to conducting mobile intervention studies for researchers on a pilot-study budget. To realize the impact of mobile interventions for the most vulnerable cancer patient populations, health researchers must address barriers to in-clinic recruitment to provide vital preliminary data in proposals of large-scale research projects.

Operational strategies in US cancer centers of excellence that support the successful accrual of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials

Background

Study populations in clinical research must reflect US changing demographics, especially with the rise of precision medicine. However, racial and ethnic minority groups (REMGs) have low rates of participation in cancer clinical trials.

Methods

Criteria were developed to identify cancer centers able to accrue a higher than average proportion of REMGs into clinical trials. Comprehensive interviews were conducted with leaders of these cancer centers to identify operational strategies contributing to enhanced accrual of REMGs.

Results

Eight US cancer centers reported a REMG accrual rate range in cancer research between 10 and 50% in a 12-month reporting period and met other criteria for inclusion. Fourteen leaders participated in this assessment. Key findings were that centers: had a metric collection and reporting approach; routinely captured race and ethnicity data within databases accessible to research staff; had operational standards to support access and inclusion; developed practices to facilitate sustained patient participation during clinical trials; had strategies to decrease recruitment time and optimize clinical study design; and identified low-resource strategies for REMG accrual. There was also a clear commitment to establish processes that support the patient's provider as the key influencer of patient recruitment into clinical trials.

Conclusion

We have identified operational practices that facilitate increased inclusion of REMGs in cancer trials. In order to establish a sustainable cancer center inclusion research strategy, it is valuable to include an operational framework that is informed by leading US cancer centers of excellence.

QTc Interval-Prolonging Medications Among Patients With Lung Cancer: Implications for Clinical Trial Eligibility and Clinical Care

BACKGROUND

Concomitant medication use, including agents that prolong the corrected QT (QTc) interval, can result in the exclusion of patients with cancer from clinical trials. To estimate the potential effects on accrual, we determined the prevalence of QTc-prolonging medication prescriptions in a national patient cohort.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified adult patients in the Veterans Affairs system with a diagnosis of lung cancer from 2003 to 2016. The use of QTc interval-prolonging medications and risk category were obtained from CredibleMeds. We calculated the prevalence of prescriptions for QTc-prolonging medications with a known or possible risk of torsade de pointes in the 3 months up to and including the date of cancer diagnosis. The rates across patient groups were compared using χ² test.

RESULTS

A total of 280,068 patients were included in the present study. The mean age was 70 years, 98% were male, and 72% were white. Overall, 28.4% had been prescribed a QTc-prolonging medication, and 7.3% had been prescribed ≥2 in the 3 months before the cancer diagnosis. The most commonly prescribed QTc-prolonging medications were antimicrobial agents (14.0%), psychiatric agents (10.2%), antiemetic agents (2.6%), and cardiac medications (1.7%). Excluding the antimicrobial agents, 18.4% of the patients had been prescribed a QTc-prolonging medication.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of individuals with lung cancer will be prescribed QTc-prolonging medications. These prescriptions can limit patients' eligibility for clinical trials and complicate the administration of standard cancer therapies. Further research into the actual clinical risks and optimal management of QTc-prolonging medications in cancer populations is warranted.

Thoracic Oncology Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria and Requirements Continue to Increase in Number and Complexity

INTRODUCTION

Eligibility criteria and screening procedures are designed to optimize the scientific yield and maximize the safety of clinical trials. However, they may also heighten trial complexity, hinder enrollment, decrease generalizability, and increase costs. We analyzed the types and number of eligibility criteria and screening procedures among thoracic oncology clinical trials sponsored or endorsed by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

METHODS

We identified trials and obtained protocols from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group website. Eligibility criteria were grouped and categorized as comorbidity (classified by organ system), administrative requirements, prior treatment, and measurable disease requirements. Associations between trial characteristics and eligibility criteria were analyzed by using the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests.

RESULTS

A total of 74 lung cancer trials activated in 1986-2016 were identified. The total number of eligibility criteria was associated with trial principal therapy (a median of nine for surgical, 18 for radiation, and 20 for medical therapy [p = 0.02]), trial primary end point (a median of 20 for overall survival, 28 for progression-free survival, and 17 for other [p = 0.001]), number of therapies (p = 0.05), and year of activation (a median of 16 for 1986-1995, 19 for 1996-2005, and 27 for 2006-2016 [P < 0.001]). The increase in trial eligibility requirements over time was limited to medical therapy trials. Over time, there was also an increase in blood test screening procedures (p = 0.05) but not in imaging, cardiac assessment, or pulmonary function screening procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of eligibility criteria and screening procedures in medical therapy lung cancer clinical trials continues to rise. Continued efforts to simplify protocol eligibility and procedures are warranted to promote trial adherence, enrollment, completion, and generalizability.

Time and Effort Required for Tissue Acquisition and Submission in Lung Cancer Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, analysis of tumor tissue samples for predictive and pharmacodynamic biomarkers is incorporated into lung cancer clinical trials. We determined the time and effort required for tissue acquisition and submission.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed data from patients enrolled from 2009 to 2016 at UT Southwestern onto lung cancer trials with mandatory or optional submission of tumor tissue. We collected dates of treatment-related events and staff communications; nature of tissue requirement and biomarker analysis; and location of archival tissue. Associations between case characteristics, clinical intervals, and number of staff communications were analyzed by Fisher's exact test, Wilcoxon 2-sample test, and Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

We identified 129 patients enrolled onto 19 clinical trials, of whom 108 (84%) ultimately received study therapy. For cases in which tissue submission was required if available or optional, 16% and 0%, respectively, had tissue sent. The median interval between consent and treatment was 28 (interquartile range, 11-43) days if tissue was requested and 7 (interquartile range, 6-13) days if tissue was not requested (P < .001). Among cases with requested tissue, the median number of related research staff communications was 3 (range, 0-10). Over time, the number of staff communications increased (P < .001). Location of archival tissue was not associated with number of staff communications or treatment intervals.

CONCLUSION

Lung cancer clinical trial requirements for tissue acquisition and submission affect the time to treatment initiation and require increasing staff effort. Improved systems to expedite these processes, as well as use of blood- or imaging-based biomarkers, may help address these issues.

Resolving Rivalries and Realigning Goals: Challenges of Clinical and Research Multiteam Systems

This article describes the care processes for a 64-year-old man with newly diagnosed advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who was enrolled in a first-line clinical trial of a new immunotherapy regimen. The case highlights the concept of multiteam systems in cancer clinical research and clinical care. Because clinical research represents a highly dynamic entity-with studies frequently opening, closing, and undergoing modifications-concerted efforts of multiple teams are needed to respond to these changes while continuing to provide consistent, high-level care and timely, accurate clinical data. The case illustrates typical challenges of multiteam care processes. Compared with clinical tasks that are routinely performed by single teams, multiple-team care greatly increases the demands for communication, collaboration, cohesion, and coordination among team members. As the case illustrates, the described research team and clinical team are separated, resulting in suboptimal function. Individual team members interact predominantly with members of their own team. A considerable number of team members lack regular interaction with anyone outside their team. Accompanying this separation, the teams enact rivalries that impede collaboration. The teams have misaligned goals and competing priorities that create competition. Collective identity and cohesion across the two teams are low. Research team and clinical team members have limited knowledge of the roles and work of individuals outside their team. Recommendations to increase trust and collaboration are provided. Clinical providers and researchers may incorporate these themes into development and evaluation of multiteam systems, multidisciplinary teams, and cross-functional teams within their own institutions.

Temporal Trends and Predictors for Cancer Clinical Trial Availability for Medically Underserved Populations

BACKGROUND

Lack of access to available cancer clinical trials has been cited as a key factor limiting trial accrual, particularly among medically underserved populations. We examined the trends and factors in clinical trial availability within a major U.S. safety-net hospital system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified cancer clinical trials activated at the Harold C. Simmons Cancer from 1991 to 2014 and recorded the characteristics of the trials that were and were not activated at the Parkland Health and Hospital System satellite site. We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression to determine the association between trial characteristics and nonactivation status, and chi-square analysis to determine the association between the trial characteristics and the reasons for nonactivation.

RESULTS

A total of 773 trials were identified, of which 152 (20%) were not activated at Parkland. In multivariable analysis, nonactivation at Parkland was associated with trial year, sponsor, and phase. Compared with the 1991-2006 period, clinical trials in the 2007-2014 period were almost eightfold more likely not to be activated at Parkland. The most common reasons for nonactivation at Parkland were an inability to perform the study procedures (27%) and the startup costs (15%).

CONCLUSION

Over time, in this single-center setting, a decreasing proportion of cancer clinical trials were available to underserved populations. Trial complexity and costs appeared to account for much of this trend. Efforts to overcome these barriers will be key to equitable access to clinical trials, efficient accrual, and the generalizability of the results.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Despite numerous calls to increase and diversify cancer clinical trial accrual, the present study found that cancer clinical trial activation rates in a safety-net setting for medically underserved populations have decreased substantially in recent years. The principal reasons for study nonactivation were expenses and an inability to perform the study-related procedures, reflecting the increasing costs and complexity of cancer clinical trials. Future efforts need to focus on strategies to mitigate the increasing disparity in access to clinical research and cutting-edge therapies, which also threatens to hinder study accrual, completion rates, and generalizability.

Effect of prior cancer on outcomes in advanced lung cancer: implications for clinical trial eligibility and accrual

BACKGROUND

Prior cancer is a common exclusion criterion in lung cancer trials. This practice reflects concerns that prior cancer may affect trial conduct or outcomes. However, the impact of prior cancer on survival in lung cancer is not known.

METHODS

We identified patients older than age 65 years with stage IV lung cancer diagnosed between 1992 and 2009 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked registry. Prior cancer was characterized by type, stage, and timing. All-cause and lung cancer-specific survival were compared between patients with and without prior cancer using propensity score-adjusted Cox regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 102 929 patients with stage IV lung cancer were identified, of whom 14.7% had a history of prior cancer. More than two-thirds (76.0%) of prior cancers were localized or regional stage; most were diagnosed five or fewer years prior to the lung cancer diagnosis. In propensity score-adjusted analysis, patients with prior cancer had better all-cause (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.91 to 0.94) and lung cancer-specific (HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.82) survival. In a simulated clinical trial-eligible population (age <75 years, no comorbidity, treated with chemotherapy), similar trends were noted. In subset analyses according to stage, type, and timing of prior cancer, no group of patients with prior cancer had inferior survival compared with patients without prior cancer.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with stage IV lung cancer, prior cancer does not convey an adverse effect on clinical outcomes, regardless of prior cancer stage, type, or timing. Broader inclusion in clinical trials of advanced lung cancer patients with a history of prior cancer should be considered.

Cancer patient perceptions about biobanking and preferred timing of consent

Little is known about how cancer patients feel about donating their tissue, especially in a multiethnic population. Structured interviews were conducted with 30 patients recently diagnosed with cancer, referred to the study by six cancer surgeons and oncologists and by other patients in the study. The participants reported a variety of cancers, and the sample reflected the racial distribution of Hawai`i, including Caucasians (23%), Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (27%), Asians (37%), Hispanics (7%), Native Americans (3%), and African Americans (3%). The interview questions and analysis were guided by the Framework Approach, with interview questions based on pre-set aims. Findings suggest that most cancer patients would donate cancer tissue to science, especially if informed that doing so could help researchers find causes of and cures for cancer. Patients varied on when in their cancer journey they would be most receptive to being asked for a donation, however two-thirds thought they would be more receptive if approached after surgery. Only three of the 30 patients said they would want to be re-consented each time their tissue is requested for research. They identified their physician as the preferred messenger regarding tissue donation. No obvious differences were seen by race. Findings confirm those of other researchers who have reported broad support for biobank participation if informed consent and confidentiality could be assured. Given that the physician was seen as the key messenger about biobanking, more education is needed around cancer tissue collection for physicians, as well as for cancer patients.

Impact of prior cancer on eligibility for lung cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

In oncology clinical trials, the assumption that a prior cancer diagnosis could interfere with study conduct or outcomes results in frequent exclusion of such patients. We determined the prevalence and characteristics of this practice in lung cancer clinical trials and estimated impact on trial accrual.

METHODS

We reviewed lung cancer clinical trials sponsored or endorsed by the Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group for exclusion criteria related to a prior cancer diagnosis. We estimated prevalence of prior primary cancer diagnoses among lung cancer patients using Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data. We assessed the association between trial characteristics and prior cancer exclusion using chi-square analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Fifty-one clinical trials (target enrollment 13072 patients) were included. Forty-one (80%) excluded patients with a prior cancer diagnosis as follows: any prior (14%), within five years (43%), within two or three years (7%), or active cancer (16%). In SEER-Medicare data (n = 210509), 56% of prior cancers were diagnosed within five years before the lung cancer diagnosis. Across trials, the estimated number and proportion of patients excluded because of prior cancer ranged from 0-207 and 0%-18%. Prior cancer was excluded in 94% of trials with survival primary endpoints and 73% of trials with nonsurvival primary endpoints (P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of patients are reflexively excluded from lung cancer clinical trials because of prior cancer. This inclusion criterion is applied widely across studies, including more than two-thirds of trials with nonsurvival endpoints. More research is needed to understand the basis and ramifications of this exclusion policy.

Nurse leaders' perceptions of the ethical recruitment of study subjects in clinical research

AIM

The aim of this study was to describe nurse leaders' perceptions of ethical recruitment in clinical research.

BACKGROUND

Nurse leaders are expected to get involved in clinical research, but there are few studies that focus on their role, particularly the ethical issues.

METHOD

Qualitative data were collected from ten nurse leaders using thematic one-to-one interviews and analysed with content analysis.

RESULTS

Nurse leaders considered clinical research at their workplace in relation to the key issues that enabled ethical recruitment of study subjects in clinical research. These were: early information and collaboration for incorporating clinical research in everyday work, an opportune and peaceful recruitment moment and positive research culture.

CONCLUSION

Getting involved in clinical research is part of the nurse leader's professional responsibility in current health care. They have an essential role to play in ensuring that recruitment is ethical and that the dignity of study subjects is maintained.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

The duty of nurse leaders is to maintain good contact with other collaborators and to ensure good conditions for implementing clinical research at their site. This requires a comprehensive understanding of the overall situation on their wards. Implementing clinical research requires careful planning, together with educating, supporting and motivating nursing staff.

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.