Rapidly adapting the clinical research environment at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center to the COVID-19 pandemic

e13534

Background: In March 2020, responding to COVID-19, the Columbia University Institutional Review Board (IRB) mandated all research pause in-person activities except studies “offering the potential for direct benefit” to patients. New enrollment was also paused. Columbia University Irving Medical Center concurrently mandated all non-essential employees work remotely, and all feasible patient visits transition to telehealth. The clinical research infrastructure at the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center (HICCC) was required to adapt its operations in response. Methods: The HICCC convened an executive committee (EC), consisting of multi-disciplinary leadership, canvassed peer institutions, and engaged the IRB Executive Director (ED), Chief of Infectious Disease, a bioethicist, and others ad hoc. Results: The IRB ED agreed with the EC that all approved interventional therapeutic clinical trials for cancer (n = 554) offered the potential for direct benefit to patients. The EC established an “Emergency Preparedness” standard operating procedure (SOP) with input from the IRB and HICCC Protocol Review & Monitoring and Data & Safety Monitoring Committees. This SOP required assessment of each protocol for risks/benefit, transition to remote processes when possible, and referenced the Code of Federal Regulations allowing changes to a research plan without prospective IRB-approval if “necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazard”. For new subjects, the EC created a process for enrollment as exceptions to the research pause requiring written justification by the PI that included risk-mitigation strategies and approval by the EC. 116 patients were accrued under this process. All external monitoring and auditing was transitioned to remote. Finally, 25% of research nurses and 10% of coordinators were redeployed to other short-staffed areas of the medical center. After 3 months, the IRB lifted the research pause in tranches, and the EC charged its Disease Based Teams with prioritizing trials to reopen. Accrual nadired at 30% of pre-pandemic levels in June 2020, which fully recovered by March 2021. Conclusions: A centralized research infrastructure working closely with established institutional committees was critical for the unprecedented yet effective and rapid ramp down/up of clinical trials. After 1-year, accrual recovered to pre-pandemic levels, leveraging new processes such as electronic consent, telehealth, and remote work for staff.

Discordant attitudes and beliefs about cancer clinical trial participation between physicians, research staff, and cancer patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Essential to bringing innovative cancer treatments to patients is voluntary participation in clinical trials but approximately 8% of American cancer patients are enrolled onto a trial. We used a domain-oriented framework to assess barriers to cancer clinical trial enrollment.

METHODS

Physicians (MD, DO, fellows, residents) and research staff (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, staff and research nurses, clinical assistants, and program coordinators) involved in clinical research at a comprehensive cancer center completed an online survey in 2017; adult cancer patients not currently enrolled in a trial were interviewed in 2018. To inform the construct of our physician/staff and patient surveys and to assess barriers to clinical trial enrollment, we first conducted in-depth interviews among 14 key informants representing medical, hematologic, gynecologic, neurologic, radiation oncology, as well as members of the clinical research team (one clinical research coordinator, one research nurse practitioner). Perceived structural, provider- and patient-level barriers to clinical trial enrollment were assessed. Differences in perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs toward clinical trial enrollment between (1) physicians and staff, (2) patients by ethnicity, and (3) physicians/staff and patients were examined.

RESULTS

In total, 120 physicians/staff involved in clinical research (39.2% physicians, 60.8% staff; 48.0% overall response rate) and 150 cancer patients completed surveys. Nearly three-quarters of physician/staff respondents reported difficulty in keeping track of the eligibility criteria for open studies but was more often cited by physicians than staff (84.4% vs 64.3%, p = 0.02). Physicians more often reported lack of time to present clinical trial information than did staff(p < 0.001); 44.0% of staff versus 18.2% of physicians reported patient family interaction as a clinical trial enrollment barrier (p = 0.007). Hispanic patients more often stated they would join a trial, even if standard therapy was an option compared to non-Hispanic patients (47.7% vs 20.8%, p = 0.002). Comparing the beliefs and perceptions of physicians/staff to those of patients, patients more often reported negative beliefs about clinical trial enrollment (e.g. being in a trial does not help patients personally, 32.9% vs 1.8%, p < 0.001) but less often felt they had no other options when agreeing to join (38.1% vs 85.6%, p < 0.001), and less often refused clinical trial enrollment due to lack of understanding (9.1% vs 63.3%, p = 0.001) than reported by physicians/staff.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate a wide gap between physician/staff and patient attitudes and beliefs about clinical trial enrollment and highlight the importance of focusing future initiatives to raise awareness of this incongruency. Reconciling these differences will require tailored education to reduce implicit biases and dispel misperceptions. Strategies to improve the quality of patient-provider communication and address infrastructure and resource issues are also needed to improve patient enrollment onto cancer clinical trials.

Readability of Cancer Clinical Trials Websites

Clinical trials are critically important for the development of new cancer treatments. According to recent estimates, however, clinical trial enrollment is only about 8%. Lack of patient understanding or awareness of clinical trials is one reason for the low rate of participation. The purpose of this observational study was to evaluate the readability of cancer clinical trial websites designed to educate the general public and patients about clinical trials. Nearly 90% of Americans use Google to search for health-related information. We conducted a Google Chrome Incognito search in 2018 using the keywords “cancer clinical trial” and “cancer clinical trials.” Content of the 100 cancer clinical trial websites was analyzed using an online readability panel consisting of Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning-Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook scales. Reading level difficulty was assessed and compared between commercial versus non-commercial URL extensions. Content readability was found to be “difficult” (10.7 grade level). No significant difference in readability, overall, and between commercial and non-commercial URL extensions was found using 4/5 measures of readability; 90.9% of commercial versus 49.4% of non-commercial websites were written at a >10th grade (P = .013) using Gunning-Fog Index. Written cancer clinical trials content on the Internet is written at a reading level beyond the literacy capabilities of the average American reader. Improving readability to accommodate readers with basic literacy skills will provide an opportunity for greater comprehension that could potentially result in higher rates of clinical trial enrollment.

Comparison of attitudes and beliefs about cancer clinical trial enrollment between physicians, research staff, and cancer patients

170

Background: Essential to bringing innovative cancer treatments to patients is voluntary participation in clinical trials but fewer than 10% of cancer patients are enrolled onto a trial. We used a domain-oriented framework to assess barriers to cancer clinical trial enrollment (CTE). Methods: Physicians and research staff completed an online survey in 2017; adult cancer patients not currently enrolled in a trial were interviewed in 2018. Perceived structural, provider- and patient-level barriers to CTE were assessed. Differences in perceptions, attitudes and beliefs toward CTE between physicians and staff, patients by ethnicity, and physicians/staff and patients were examined. Results: In total, 120 physician/staff (64.4% response rate) and 150 cancer patient completed surveys. Interacting with the patients’ family was seen as a CTE barrier by nearly one-third of physicians/staff overall, however, staff much more often stated this barrier than did physicians (44.0% vs. 18.2%, p= 0.007). Hispanic patients more often stated they would join a trial, even if standard therapy was an option compared to non-Hispanic patients ( p= 0.004). Overall, patients, more often than physicians/staff, believed that clinical trials are only offered to people whose disease is hopeless (27.3% vs. 8.7%, p < 0.001) and that CTE does not help patients personally (32.9% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001). More often physicians/staff believed that patients decline CTE due to language or cultural barriers (57.5% vs. 27.3%, p < 0.001), lack of understanding about clinical trials (63.3% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.001), and mistrust of the medical system (69.2% vs. 36.4%, p= 0.043) than was reported by patients. Patients less often reported declining CTE because of concerns about invasive procedures (9.1% vs. 41.7%, p = 0.02), toxicity (18.2% vs. 60.0%, p= 0.006) or reluctance to be randomized/receive a placebo (27.3% vs. 70.8%, p= 0.005). Conclusions: Our findings indicate a wide gap between provider and patient attitudes and beliefs about CTE. Reconciling these differences will require tailored education to dispel misperceptions and strategies to improve the quality of patient-provider communication.

YouTube Videos as a Source of Information About Clinical Trials: Observational Study

Background

Clinical trials are essential to the advancement of cancer treatment but fewer than 5% of adult cancer patients enroll in a trial. A commonly cited barrier to participation is the lack of understanding about clinical trials.

Objective

Since the internet is a popular source of health-related information and YouTube is the second most visited website in the world, we examined the content of the top 115 YouTube videos about clinical trials to evaluate clinical trial information available through this medium.

Methods

YouTube videos posted prior to March 2017 were searched using selected keywords. A snowballing technique was used to identify videos wherein sequential screening of the autofill search results for each set of keywords was conducted. Video characteristics (eg, number of views and video length) were recorded. The content was broadly grouped as related to purpose, phases, design, safety and ethics, and participant considerations. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess associations between video type (cancer vs noncancer) and video characteristics and content.

Results

In total, 115 videos were reviewed. Of these, 46/115 (40.0%) were cancer clinical trials videos and 69/115 (60.0%) were noncancer/general clinical trial videos. Most videos were created by health care organizations/cancer centers (34/115, 29.6%), were oriented toward patients (67/115, 58.3%) and the general public (68/115, 59.1%), and were informational (79/115, 68.7%); altruism was a common theme (31/115, 27.0%). Compared with noncancer videos, cancer clinical trials videos more frequently used an affective communication style and mentioned the benefits of participation. Cancer clinical trial videos were also much more likely to raise the issue of costs associated with participation (odds ratio [OR] 5.93, 95% CI 1.15-29.46) and advise patients to communicate with their physician about cancer clinical trials (OR 4.94, 95% CI 1.39-17.56).

Conclusions

Collectively, YouTube clinical trial videos provided information on many aspects of trials; however, individual videos tended to focus on selected topics with varying levels of detail. Cancer clinical trial videos were more emotional in style and positive in tone and provided information on the important topics of cost and communication. Patients are encouraged to verify and supplement YouTube video information in consultations with their health care professionals to obtain a full and accurate picture of cancer clinical trials to make an adequately informed decision about participation.

Lung-volume reduction surgery for pulmonary emphysema: Improvement in body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity index after 1 year

OBJECTIVES

We hypothesized that lung-volume reduction surgery for pulmonary emphysema would improve body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity (BODE) index, a multidimensional predictor of survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We also aimed to identify preoperative predictors of improvement in the BODE index.

METHODS

In a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing lung-volume reduction surgery at our center, with the methodology of the National Emphysema Treatment Trial, we compared clinical characteristics before and 1 year after surgery with the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Changes in the BODE index were correlated with preoperative variables with the Spearman correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients with predominantly upper-lobe pulmonary emphysema underwent lung-volume reduction surgery (14 by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, 9 by median sternotomy). There were no postoperative or follow-up deaths. The BODE index improved from a median of 5 (interquartile range 4-5) before surgery to 3 (interquartile range 2-4) 1 year after surgery (P < .0001). Improvements were seen in the lung function and dyspnea components of the BODE index. Lower preoperative 6-minute walk distance and lower postwalk Borg fatigue scores were each associated with greater improvement in the BODE index after 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Lung-volume reduction surgery for pulmonary emphysema improved the BODE index in patients with predominantly upper-lobe disease. Lower preoperative 6-minute walk distance correlated with greater improvement in the BODE index.