Implementation Strategies to Increase Clinical Trial Enrollment in a Community-Academic Partnership and Impact on Hispanic Representation: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis

Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Keep It Up!, A Digital Health Intervention, in Community-Based Organizations

Despite ongoing investments in the development and testing of new digital interventions for HIV prevention, the widespread use of interventions with proven effectiveness remains limited. This study assessed real-world implementation of a digital HIV prevention intervention, Keep It Up!. The study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing Keep It Up! within community-based organizations (CBOs) serving racially diverse sexual and gender minoritized populations. The Keep It Up! trial is a type III effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial to compare two delivery approaches: direct-to-consumer and CBO-based implementation. This manuscript focuses on the CBO-based approach through interviews with CBO staff members before and during implementation (n = 37 and n = 25, respectively). Interviews were coded according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and thematically analyzed. Staff highlighted adaptability, leadership engagement, compatibility, and organizational culture as facilitators of Keep It Up! implementation. Identified barriers included self-efficacy, motivation, staff turnover, and partnerships and connections. CBO infrastructure, capacity, research experience, and processes influenced the relative importance of these barriers and facilitators. This study is one of the first to detail barriers and facilitators experienced by staff implementing a digital HIV prevention intervention in CBOs. Interviews illuminated the need for interventions like Keep It Up! for young men who have sex with men and detailed the need for additional strategies to assist CBOs unfamiliar with implementing digital health interventions. Trial Registration Number: NCT03896776.

Are community oncology practices with or without clinical research programs different? A comparison of patient and practice characteristics

BACKGROUND

Expanding access to clinical trials in community settings is a potential approach to addressing disparities in accrual of historically underrepresented populations. However, little is known about the characteristics of practices that do not participate in research. We investigated differences in patient and practice characteristics of US community oncology practices with high vs low engagement in clinical research.

METHODS

We included patients from a real-world, nationwide electronic health record-derived, de-identified database who received active treatment for cancer at community oncology practices between November 1, 2017, and October 31, 2022. We assessed patient and practice characteristics and their associations with high vs low research engagement using descriptive analyses and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of the 178 practices, 70 (39.3%) events had high research engagement, treated 57.8% of the overall 568 540 patient cohort, and enrolled 3.25% of their patients on cancer treatment trials during the 5-year observation period (vs 0.27% enrollment among low engagement practices). Practices with low vs high research engagement treated higher proportions of the following patient groups: ages 75 years and older (24.2% vs 21.8%), non-Latinx Black (12.6% vs 10.3%) or Latinx (11.6% vs 6.1%), were within the lowest socioeconomic status quintile (21.9% vs16.5%), and were uninsured or had no documented insurance (22.2% vs 13.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient groups historically underrepresented in oncology clinical trials are more likely to be treated at community practices with limited or no access to trials. These results suggest that investments to expand the clinical research footprint among practices with low research engagement could help address persistent inequities in trial representation.

Patient-Reported Outcomes as a Recruitment Strategy for Clinical Trial Enrollment

Importance

Clinical trials are critical for progress in oncology; however, only 5% of the adult cancer population participates. Harnessing data that are routinely collected (ie, electronic patient-reported outcomes [ePROs]) may serve as a method to promote trial enrollment.

Objective

To evaluate if an ePRO-prompted recruitment strategy is associated with increased clinical trial enrollment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A randomized substudy was conducted from September 2022 to March 2023 at a multisite tertiary cancer center as part of an ongoing clinical trial that was testing a symptom-intervention for cancer-related fatigue. Patients with breast cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy who completed at least 1 ePRO questionnaire during the study period were included. Physician-level cluster randomization assigned fatigue-eligible patients to either receive a portal message invitation to a symptom-intervention trial or standard of care (SOC; physician-based referral).

Exposure

ePRO questionnaires distributed in routine practice were queried weekly and screened for moderate or greater fatigue, the principle inclusion criterion for the primary trial. To assess the association of the portal message source with response and enrollment, every other patient received a message from the primary radiation oncology team or the referral service.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinical trial response/referral and enrollment.

Results

A total of 1041 patients completed ePRO questionnaires, of whom 394 (38%; 53 Asian [13.6%], 43 Black [11.0%], 29 Hispanic [7.4%], and 262 White individuals [66.5%]; median [IQR] age, 55 [47-65] years) endorsed moderate or greater fatigue while receiving treatment. A total of 210 patients (53.3%) were assigned to receive a portal message and 184 (46.7%) patients, SOC. In the portal message group, 73 patients (35%) responded and 41 (20%) enrolled compared with 1 patient (0.5%) referred and 0 enrolled in the SOC group (P < .001). The response rate to portal messages favored the referral service vs the primary radiation oncology service (44% vs 26%; P = .01), but there was no significant difference in enrollments.

Conclusions and Relevance

The study results suggest that use of routine care ePROs was associated with greater enrollment in a symptom-intervention trial compared with physician-based referral. Messaging directly from the referral service may support enrollment and help reduce oncology physician-level barriers to trial enrollment for studies testing symptom interventions.

Evaluating a Physician Audit and Feedback Intervention to Increase Clinical Trial Enrollment in Radiation Oncology in a Multisite Tertiary Cancer Center: A Randomized Study

PURPOSE

Clinical trial participation continues to be low, slowing new cancer therapy development. Few strategies have been prospectively tested to address barriers to enrollment. We investigated the effectiveness of a physician audit and feedback report to improve clinical trial enrollment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted a randomized quality improvement study among radiation oncologists at a multisite tertiary cancer network. Physicians in the intervention group received quarterly audit and feedback reports comparing the physician's trial enrollments with those of their peers. The primary outcome was trial enrollments.

RESULTS

Among physicians randomized to receive the feedback report (n = 30), the median proportion of patients enrolled during the study period increased to 6.1% (IQR, 2.6%-9.3%) from 3.2% (IQR, 1.1%-10%) at baseline. Among those not receiving the feedback report (n = 29), the median proportion of patients enrolled increased to 4.1% (IQR, 1.3%-7.6%) from 1.6% (IQR, 0%-4.1%) at baseline. There was a nonsignificant change in the proportion of enrollments associated with receiving the feedback report (-0.6%; 95% CI, -3.0% to 1.8%; P = .6). Notably, there was an interaction between baseline trial accrual and receipt of feedback reports (P = .005), with enrollment declining among high accruers. There was an increase in enrollment throughout the study, regardless of study group (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, a positive effect of physician audit and feedback on clinical trial enrollment was not observed. Future efforts should avoid disincentivizing high accruers and might consider pairing feedback with other patient- or physician-level strategies. The increase in trial enrollment in both groups over time highlights the importance of including a comparison group in quality improvement studies to reduce confounding from secular trends.

Implementation Strategies to Promote Short-Course Radiation for Bone Metastases

Importance

For patients with nonspine bone metastases, short-course radiotherapy (RT) can reduce patient burden without sacrificing clinical benefit. However, there is great variation in uptake of short-course RT across practice settings.

Objective

To evaluate whether a set of 3 implementation strategies facilitates increased adoption of a consensus recommendation to treat nonspine bone metastases with short-course RT (ie, ≤5 fractions).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized quality improvement study was conducted at 3 community-based cancer centers within an existing academic-community partnership. Rollout was initiated in 3-month increments between October 2021 and May 2022. Participants included treating physicians and patients receiving RT for nonspine bone metastases. Data analysis was performed from October 2022 to May 2023.

Exposures

Three implementation strategies-(1) dissemination of published consensus guidelines, (2) personalized audit-and-feedback reports, and (3) an email-based electronic consultation platform (eConsult)-were rolled out to physicians.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was adherence to the consensus recommendation of short-course RT for nonspine bone metastases. Mixed-effects logistic regression at the bone metastasis level was used to model associations between the exposure of physicians to the set of strategies (preimplementation vs postimplementation) and short-course RT, while accounting for patient and physician characteristics and calendar time, with a random effect for physician. Physician surveys were administered before implementation and after implementation to assess feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of each strategy.

Results

Forty-five physicians treated 714 patients (median [IQR] age at treatment start, 67 [59-75] years; 343 women [48%]) with 838 unique nonspine bone metastases during the study period. Implementing the set of strategies was not associated with use of short-course RT (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.45-1.34; P = .40), with unadjusted adherence rates of 53% (444 lesions) preimplementation vs 56% (469 lesions) postimplementation; however, the adjusted odds of adherence increased with calendar time (odds ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.20-2.36; P = .003). All 3 implementation strategies were perceived as being feasible, acceptable, and appropriate; only the perception of audit-and-feedback appropriateness changed before vs after implementation (19 of 29 physicians [66%] vs 27 of 30 physicians [90%]; P = .03, Fisher exact test), with 20 physicians (67%) preferring reports quarterly.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this quality improvement study, a multicomponent set of implementation strategies was not associated with increased use of short-course RT within an academic-community partnership. However, practice improved with time, perhaps owing to secular trends or physician awareness of the study. Audit-and-feedback was more appropriate than anticipated. Findings support the need to investigate optimal approaches for promoting evidence-based radiation practice across settings.

Predicting long‑term survival following involved site radiotherapy for oligometastases

The majority of cancer-associated mortalities are due to distant metastases, and systemic therapy alone is generally not curative. Patients with oligometastases are amenable to involved site radiotherapy with the possibility of long-term disease-free survival; however, prognostic factors remain poorly defined. The present retrospective, single institution study consisted of consecutive adult patients with oligometastases from solid tumor malignancy referred to a single high volume radiation oncologist between January 2014 and December 2021. Oligometastases were defined as ≤5 extracranial or intracranial metastatic lesions where all sites of active disease are treatable, including patients requiring treatment of the primary tumor and/or regional lymph nodes. The study population consisted of 130 patients with 207 treated distant metastases. Radical radiotherapy was administered to all areas of known residual disease and included stereotactic radiotherapy (median dose, 27 Gy in 3 fractions) or intensity modulated radiotherapy (median dose, 50 Gy in 15 fractions). At a median follow-up of 28.8 months, the median overall survival was 37.9 months with a 4-year overall survival of 41.1%. The median progression-free survival was 12.3 months and the 4-year progression-free survival was 22.6%. On multivariate an1alysis, the strongest predictors of overall survival were age, ECOG performance status, primary prostate, breast or kidney tumor and pre-radiation serum albumin (P≤0.01 for all). Overall, the present study demonstrated that long-term overall survival was possible after radical treatment for oligometastases and identified potential prognostic factors.

Prophylactic Radiotherapy Of MInimally Symptomatic Spinal Disease (PROMISSeD): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Early palliative/pre-emptive intervention improves clinical outcomes and quality of life for patients with metastatic cancer. A previous signal-seeking randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated that early upfront radiotherapy to asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic high-risk osseous metastases led to reduction in skeletal-related events (SREs), a benefit driven primarily by subgroup of high-risk spine metastasis. The current RCT aims to determine whether early palliative/pre-emptive radiotherapy in patients with high-risk, asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic spine metastases will lead to fewer SREs within 1 year.

METHODS

This is a single-center, parallel-arm, in-progress RCT in adults (≥ 18 years) with ECOG performance status 0-2 and asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic (not requiring opioids) high-risk spine metastases from histologically confirmed solid tumor malignancies with > 5 sites of metastatic disease on cross-sectional imaging. High-risk spine metastases are defined by the following: (a) bulkiest disease sites ≥ 2 cm; (b) junctional disease (occiput to C2, C7-T1, T12-L2, L5-S1); (c) posterior element involvement; or (d) vertebral body compression deformity > 50%. Patients are randomized 1:1 to receive either standard-of-care systemic therapy (arm 1) or upfront, early radiotherapy to ≤ 5 high-risk spine lesions plus standard-of-care systemic therapy (arm 2), in the form of 20-30 Gy of radiation in 2-10 fractions. The primary endpoint is SRE, a composite outcome including spinal fracture, spinal cord compression, need for palliative radiotherapy, interventional procedures, or spinal surgery. Secondary endpoints include (1) surrogates of health care cost, including the number and duration of SRE-related hospitalizations; (2) overall survival; (3) pain-free survival; and (4) quality of life. Study instruments will be captured pre-treatment, at baseline, during treatment, and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-treatment. The trial aims to accrue 74 patients over 2 years to achieve > 80% power in detecting difference using two-sample proportion test with alpha < 0.05.

DISCUSSION

The results of this RCT will demonstrate the value, if any, of early radiotherapy for high-risk spine metastases. The trial has received IRB approval, funding, and prospective registration (NCT05534321) and has been open to accrual since August 19, 2022. If positive, the trial will expand the scope and utility of spine radiotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT05534321 . Registered September 9, 2022.

TRIAL STATUS

Version 2.0 of the protocol (2021-KOT-002), revised last on September 2, 2022, was approved by the WCG institutional review board (Study Number 1337188, IRB tracking number 20223735). The trial was first posted on ClinicalTrials.Gov on September 9, 2022 (NCT05534321). Patient enrollment commenced on August 19, 2022, and is expected to be completed in 2 years, likely by August 2024.

Prophylactic Radiation Therapy Versus Standard of Care for Patients With High-Risk Asymptomatic Bone Metastases: A Multicenter, Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

External-beam radiation therapy (RT) is standard of care (SOC) for pain relief of symptomatic bone metastases. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of radiation to asymptomatic bone metastases in preventing skeletal-related events (SRE).

METHODS

In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, adult patients with widely metastatic solid tumor malignancies were stratified by histology and planned SOC (systemic therapy or observation) and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive RT to asymptomatic high-risk bone metastases or SOC alone. The primary outcome of the trial was SRE. Secondary outcomes included hospitalizations for SRE and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

A total of 78 patients with 122 high-risk bone metastases were enrolled between May 8, 2018, and August 9, 2021, at three institutions across an affiliated cancer network in the United States. Seventy-three patients were evaluable for the primary end point. The most common primary cancer types were lung (27%), breast (24%), and prostate (22%). At 1 year, SRE occurred in one of 62 bone metastases (1.6%) in the RT arm and 14 of 49 bone metastases (29%) in the SOC arm (P < .001). There were significantly fewer patients hospitalized for SRE in the RT arm compared with the SOC arm (0 v 4, P = .045). At a median follow-up of 2.5 years, OS was significantly longer in the RT arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.89; P = .018), which persisted on multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.85; P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Radiation delivered prophylactically to asymptomatic, high-risk bone metastases reduced SRE and hospitalizations. We also observed an improvement in OS with prophylactic radiation, although a confirmatory phase III trial is warranted.

Partnering with social service staff to implement pragmatic clinical trials: an interim analysis of implementation strategies

BACKGROUND

With recent growth in the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials, the reliance on frontline staff to contribute to trial-related activities has grown as well. Active partnerships with staff members are often critical to pragmatic trial implementation, but rarely do research teams track and evaluate the specific "implementation strategies" used to support staff's involvement in trial procedures (e.g., participant recruitment). Accordingly, we adapted implementation science methodologies and conducted an interim analysis of the strategies deployed with social service staff involved in one multi-site pragmatic clinical trial.

METHODS

We used a naturalistic, observational study design to characterize strategies our research team deployed with staff during monthly, virtual meetings. Data were drawn from meeting notes and recordings from the trial's 4-month Preparation phase and 8-month Implementation phase. Strategies were mapped to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy and categorized into nine implementation clusters. Survey data were also collected from staff to identify the most useful strategies the research team should deploy when onboarding new staff members in the trial's second year.

RESULTS

A total of 287 strategies were deployed. Strategies in the develop stakeholder interrelationships cluster predominated in both the Preparation (35%) and Implementation (31%) phases, followed by strategies in the use iterative and evaluative approaches cluster, though these were more prevalent during trial Preparation (24%) as compared to trial Implementation (18%). When surveyed on strategy usefulness, strategies in the provide interactive assistance, use financial approaches, and support staff clusters were most useful, per staff responses.

CONCLUSIONS

While strategies to develop stakeholder interrelationships were used most frequently during trial Preparation and Implementation, program staff perceived strategies that provided technical assistance, supported clinicians, and used financial approaches to be most useful and should be deployed when onboarding new staff members. Research teams are encouraged to adapt and apply implementation strategy tracking methods when partnering with social service staff and deploy practical strategies that support pragmatic trial success given staff needs and preferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05357261. May 2, 2022.

Rates of and Factors Associated With Patient Withdrawal of Consent in Cancer Clinical Trials

Importance

Patient withdrawal of consent from a cancer clinical trial is defined as a patient's volitional cessation of participation in all matters related to a trial. It can undermine the trial's purpose, make the original sample size and power calculations irrelevant, introduce bias between trial arms, and prolong the time to trial completion.

Objective

To report rates of and baseline factors associated with withdrawal of consent among patients in cancer clinical trials.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multisite observational cohort study was conducted through the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. Patient withdrawal was defined as a patient's voluntary termination of consent to participate anytime during trial conduct. Baseline patient- and trial-based factors were investigated for their associations with patient withdrawal within the first 2 years using logistic regression models. All patients who participated in cancer therapeutic clinical trials conducted within the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology from 2013 through 2019 were included. The data lock date was January 23, 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The percentage of patients who withdrew consent in 2 years and factors associated with withdrawal of consent.

Results

A total of 11 993 patients (median age, 62 years; 67% female) from 58 trials were included. Within 2 years, 1060 patients (9%) withdrew from their respective trials. Two-year rates of withdrawal were 5.7%, 7.6%, 8.5%, 7.8%, 8.4%, 9.5%, and 9.8% for each of the respective years from 2013 through 2019. In multivariable analyses, Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.30-2.15; P < .001), randomized design with placebo (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.38-1.94; P < .001), and patient age 75 years and older (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.72; P = .003) were associated with higher likelihood of withdrawal by 2 years. Use of radiation was associated with patient retention (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, rates of withdrawal of consent were less than 10% and appeared consistent over time. Factors that are associated with withdrawal of consent should be considered when designing trials and should be further studied to learn how they can be favorably modified.

Access Denied: Disparities in Thyroid Cancer Clinical Trials

For thyroid cancer clinical trials, the inclusion of participants from diverse patient populations is uniquely important given existing racial/ethnic disparities in thyroid cancer care. Since 2011, a paradigm shift has occurred in the treatment of advanced thyroid cancer with the approval of multiple systemic therapies by the US Food and Drug Administration based on their use in the clinical trials setting. Although these clinical trials recruited patients from up to 164 sites in 25 countries, the inclusion of racial/ethnic minority patients remained low. In this mini-review, we provide an overview of barriers to accessing cancer clinical trials, framed in the context of why patients with thyroid cancer may be uniquely vulnerable. Multilevel interventions and increased funding for thyroid cancer research are necessary to increase access to and recruitment of under-represented patient populations into thyroid cancer clinical trials.

Increasing Diversity of Patients in Radiation Oncology Clinical Trials

Radiation oncology clinical trials lack full representation of the ethnic and racial diversity present in the general United States and in the cancer patient population. There are low rates of both recruitment and enrollment of individuals from underrepresented ethnic and racial backgrounds, especially Black and Hispanic patients, people with disabilities, and patients from underrepresented sexual and gender groups. Even if approached for enrollment, barriers such as mistrust in medical research stemming from historical abuse and contemporary biased systems, low socioeconomic status, and lack of awareness prohibit historically marginalized populations from participating in clinical trials. In this review, we reflect on these specific barriers and detail approaches to increase diversity of the patient population in radiation oncology clinical trials to better reflect the communities we serve. We hope that implementation of these approaches will increase the diversity of clinical trials patient populations in not only radiation oncology but also other medical specialties.