Ongoing Use of Data and Specimens From National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials in the Community Clinical Oncology Program.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Minasian LM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4593316 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Ongoing Use of Data and Specimens From National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials in the Community Clinical Oncology Program.
Minasian Lori M LM Tangen Catherine M CM Wickerham D Lawrence DL
Seminars in oncology 20150710 5
Large cancer prevention trials provide opportunities to collect a wide array of data and biospecimens at study entry and longitudinally, for a healthy, aging population without cancer. This provides an opportunity to use pre-diagnostic data and specimens to evaluate hypotheses about the initial development of cancer. We report on strides made by, and future possibilities for, the use of accessible biorepositories developed from precisely annotated samples obtained through large-scale National Ca ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesAmid a rapid increase in cancer care costs, we examined the extent to which economic evaluations (EEs) were conducted for new treatments evaluated in clinical trials at SWOG, a large National Cancer Institute-sponsored cancer research network.MethodsWe investigated phase III cancer treatment clinical trials activated from 1980 onward with primary articles reporting the protocol-designated endpoints published in scientific journals by 2017. Using PubMed, Web of Science, and EconLit, we searched for EEs using trial name, cancer type, information on the comparison arms, and refined keywords for EE designs. We reported the overall proportion of trials with associated EEs and trends of this proportion over time. We synthesized and analyzed information on funding sources, health outcomes, and sources of quality-of-life and cost data from the EEs.ResultsAmong 182 examined trials, 15 EEs were associated with 13 (7.1%) trials. Among the EEs, almost half (7 of 15) were either unfunded or did not report funding information, whereas nearly half (7 of 15) were funded by pharmaceutical companies and 2 (2 of 15, 13.3%) were supported by federal funding. All EEs reported a healthcare payer perspective. The proportion of trials with an associated EE increased from 1980 to 1989 and 2000 to 2009, but never exceeded 11%. Sources for cost and quality-of-life data for the EEs primarily came from outside the clinical trials.ConclusionsFew economic studies of treatments evaluated in National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials have been conducted. Policymakers, payers, and patients lack economic evidence to consider newly evaluated cancer treatments, despite an urgent need to control healthcare costs.
| S-EPMC8262264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:Breast cancer (BC) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death among women. Given the availability of approved therapies and abundance of phase II and III clinical trials, historically few BC patients have been referred for consideration of participation on a phase I trial. We were interested in determining whether clinical benefit rates differed in patients with BC from other patients enrolled in phase I trials. METHODS:We performed a retrospective analysis of all Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) sponsored phase I trials from 1993 to 2012. We report an analysis of demographic variables, rates of response to treatment, grade 4 toxicities, and treatment-related deaths. RESULTS:De-identified data from 8087 patients were analyzed, with 1,376 having a diagnosis of BC. The median time from initial cancer diagnosis to enrollment in a CTEP-sponsored phase I clinical trial was 614 days for all patients. Breast cancer patients were enrolled on average 790 days after initial diagnosis, while non-BC patients had a median enrollment time of 582 days (p < 0.001). Breast cancer patients had more clinical responses than non-BC patients (18.3% vs. 4.3%, respectively). Along with the higher rate of response, BC patients remained on phase I trials longer than non-BC patients with a median of 70 days while the latter were on trial for a median of 57 days. The overall rate of death related to the treatment drugs was 0.47%. CONCLUSIONS:Our data confirm our hypothesis that when compared to a general population of patients with cancer enrolled on phase I clinical trials, BC patients tend to derive clinical benefit from these therapies with similar toxicity profile. This evidence further supports enrollment of BC patients on phase I trials.
| S-EPMC5940334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer have not seen the same improvements in survival as younger (pediatric) patients and older patients (adults 40 years old or older). This may be related to their lower participation in clinical trials.MethodsThis study examined AYA patient accrual to SWOG Cancer Research Network phase 1 to 3 clinical treatment trials for 29 cancers over 25 years (January 1996 to December 2020). Trial enrollments for AYA patients (15-39 years old) were compared with trial enrollments for older patients (40 years old or older) in SWOG and with US AYA cancer population rates derived from US Census and National Cancer Institute/Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data.ResultsIn total, 84,219 patients were enrolled in SWOG treatment trials, including 7109 AYA patients (8.4%); in contrast, AYAs constituted 3.8% of the US cancer population. By histology, the highest proportions of AYA patients were in trials for Hodgkin disease (825 of 1220; 67.6%) and acute lymphocytic leukemia (350 of 678; 51.6%), whereas breast cancer trials had the greatest number of AYA patients (3032 of 32,693; 9.3%). SWOG AYA patients were more often female (68.8% vs 58.7%; P < .001), Black (10.1% vs 8.2%; P < .001), and Hispanic (10.6% vs 5.6%; P < .001) than SWOG patients who were 40 years old or older, and they were more often female (68.8% vs 65.1%; P < .001) but less often Black (10.1% vs 11.8%; P < .001) or Hispanic (10.6% vs 12.8%; P < .001) than AYA patients in the US cancer population.ConclusionsAYA patients with cancer were well represented in SWOG clinical trials in comparison with US cancer population patients with the same cancers. The SWOG AYA population was more racially/ethnically diverse than older SWOG patients, although it was less diverse than the US AYA cancer population.Lay summaryAdolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer (aged 15-39 years) have not seen the same improvements in survival as younger (pediatric) patients and older patients (adults 40 years old or older). This may be related to their lower participation in clinical trials. This study evaluated the extent to which AYA patients were enrolled in a large, National Cancer Institute-sponsored network group over 25 years (1996-2020). Overall, 8.4% of the enrolled patients (7109 of 84,219) were AYAs; this was twice the corresponding rate of 3.8% in the US cancer population. AYA patients were also more racially/ethnically diverse than older trial patients, although they were less racially/ethnically diverse than the US AYA cancer population.
| S-EPMC8665001 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:National Cancer Institute Clinical Trial Network (NCTN) groups serve a vital role in identifying effective new antineoplastic regimens. However, the downstream clinical effect of their trials has not been systematically examined. Objective:To examine the association of NCTN trials with guideline care and new drug indications. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort study evaluated phase 3 SWOG Cancer Research Network clinical trials from January 1, 1980, through June 30, 2017. Only completed trials with published results were included. To be considered practice influential (PI), a trial must have been associated with guideline care through its inclusion in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical guidelines or US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) new drug approvals in favor of a recommended treatment. Data were analyzed from June 15, 2018, through March 29, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:Estimated overall rate of PI trials, as well as trends over time. The total federal investment supporting the set of trials was also determined. Results:In total, 182 trials consisting of 148 028 patients were studied. Eighty-two studies (45.1%; 95% CI, 37.7%-52.6%) were PI, of which 70 (38.5%) influenced NCCN guidelines, 6 (3.3%) influenced FDA new drug approvals, and 6 (3.3%) influenced both. The number of PI trials was 47 of 65 (72.3%) among those with positive findings and 35 of 117 (29.9%) among those with negative findings. Thus, 35 of 82 PI trials (42.7%) were based on studies with negative findings, with nearly half of these studies (17 of 35 [48.6%]) reaffirming standard of care compared with experimental therapy. The total federal investment spent in conducting the trials was $1.36 billion (2017 US dollars), a rate of $7.5 million per study or $16.6 million per PI trial. Conclusions and Relevance:Nearly half of all phase 3 trials by one of the NCTN's largest groups were associated with guideline care or new drug indications, including those with positive and negative findings. Compared with the costs of a new drug approval in pharmaceutical companies, typically estimated at more than $1 billion, the amount of federal funds invested to provide this valuable evidence was modest. These results suggest that the NCTN program contributes clinically meaningful, cost-efficient evidence to guide patient care.
| S-EPMC6727679 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceOlder patients with cancer and their caregivers worry about the effects of cancer treatment on aging-related domains (eg, function and cognition). Quality conversations with oncologists about aging-related concerns could improve patient-centered outcomes. A geriatric assessment (GA) can capture evidence-based aging-related conditions associated with poor clinical outcomes (eg, toxic effects) for older patients with cancer.ObjectiveTo determine whether providing a GA summary and GA-guided recommendations to oncologists can improve communication about aging-related concerns.Design, setting, and participantsThis cluster-randomized clinical trial enrolled 541 participants from 31 community oncology practices within the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program from October 29, 2014, to April 28, 2017. Patients were aged 70 years or older with an advanced solid malignant tumor or lymphoma who had at least 1 impaired GA domain; patients chose 1 caregiver to participate. The primary outcome was assessed on an intent-to-treat basis.InterventionsOncology practices were randomized to receive either a tailored GA summary with recommendations for each enrolled patient (intervention) or alerts only for patients meeting criteria for depression or cognitive impairment (usual care).Main outcomes and measuresThe predetermined primary outcome was patient satisfaction with communication about aging-related concerns (modified Health Care Climate Questionnaire [score range, 0-28; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction]), measured after the first oncology visit after the GA. Secondary outcomes included the number of aging-related concerns discussed during the visit (from content analysis of audiorecordings), quality of life (measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale for patients and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey for caregivers), and caregiver satisfaction with communication about aging-related patient concerns.ResultsA total of 541 eligible patients (264 women, 276 men, and 1 patient did not provide data; mean [SD] age, 76.6 [5.2] years) and 414 caregivers (310 women, 101 men, and 3 caregivers did not provide data; mean age, 66.5 [12.5] years) were enrolled. Patients in the intervention group were more satisfied after the visit with communication about aging-related concerns (difference in mean score, 1.09 points; 95% CI, 0.05-2.13 points; P = .04); satisfaction with communication about aging-related concerns remained higher in the intervention group over 6 months (difference in mean score, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.04-2.16; P = .04). There were more aging-related conversations in the intervention group's visits (difference, 3.59; 95% CI, 2.22-4.95; P < .001). Caregivers in the intervention group were more satisfied with communication after the visit (difference, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.12-1.98; P = .03). Quality of life outcomes did not differ between groups.Conclusions and relevanceIncluding GA in oncology clinical visits for older adults with advanced cancer improves patient-centered and caregiver-centered communication about aging-related concerns.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107443.
| S-EPMC6865234 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We recently reported, in a prospective randomized trial, that ultra-staging of patients with colon cancer is associated with significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) compared with conventional staging. That trial did not control for lymph node (LN) number or adjuvant chemotherapy use.The current international prospective multicenter cooperative group trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00949312; "Ultra-staging in Early Colon Cancer") evaluates the 12-LN quality measure and nodal ultra-staging impact on DFS in patients not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Eligibility criteria included biopsy-proven colon adenocarcinoma; absence of metastatic disease; >12 LNs staged pathologically; pan-cytokeratin immunohistochemistry (IHC) of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-negative LNs; and no adjuvant chemotherapy.Of 445 patients screened, 203 patients were eligible. The majority of patients had intermediate grade (57.7%) and T3 tumors (64.9%). At a mean follow-up of 36.8 ± 22.1 months (range 0 to 97 months), 94.3% remain disease free. Recurrence was least likely in patients with ?12 LNs, H&E-negative LNs, and IHC-negative LNs (pN0i-): 2.6% vs 16.7% in the pN0i+ group (p < 0.0001).This is the first prospective report to demonstrate that patients with optimally staged node-negative colon cancer (?12 LNs, pN0i-) are unlikely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy; 97% remain disease free after primary tumor resection. Both surgical and pathologic quality measures are imperative in planning clinical trials in nonmetastatic colon cancer.
| S-EPMC4657939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeSubstantial evidence suggests that tobacco use has adverse effects on cancer treatment outcomes; however, routine assessment of tobacco use has not been fully incorporated into standard clinical oncology practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate tobacco use assessment in patients enrolled onto actively accruing cancer clinical trials.MethodsProtocols and forms for 155 actively accruing trials in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Clinical Trials Cooperative Group Program were evaluated for tobacco use assessment at enrollment and follow-up by using a structured coding instrument.ResultsOf the 155 clinical trials reviewed, 45 (29%) assessed any form of tobacco use at enrollment, but only 34 (21.9%) assessed current cigarette use. Only seven trials (4.5%) assessed any form of tobacco use during follow-up. Secondhand smoke exposure was captured in 2.6% of trials at enrollment and 0.6% during follow-up. None of the trials assessed nicotine dependence or interest in quitting at any point during enrollment or treatment. Tobacco status assessment was higher in lung/head and neck trials as well as phase III trials, but there was no difference according to year of starting accrual or cooperative group.ConclusionMost actively accruing cooperative group clinical trials do not assess tobacco use, and there is no observable trend in improvement over the past 8 years. Failure to incorporate standardized tobacco assessments into NCI-funded Cooperative Group Clinical Trials will limit the ability to provide evidence-based cessation support and will limit the ability to accurately understand the precise effect of tobacco use on cancer treatment outcomes.
| S-EPMC3410402 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMany challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions.MethodsThe National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature.ResultsFew rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations.ConclusionsA combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.
| S-EPMC3825288 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Through the R25 Cancer Education Grants Program (CEGP), the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has been supporting the broad educational needs of the cancer research and cancer healthcare communities since 1974. NCI sponsored a workshop on September 13, 2016 in Bethesda, Maryland, with the objectives of sharing best practices in cancer education, communicating R25 CEGP programmatic information, and gathering ideas to strengthen the R25 CEGP to better meet the emerging needs in cancer education in the face of a rapidly changing landscape in cancer research and cancer care. With 53 leaders in cancer education in attendance, the workshop featured an overview of the R25 CEGP by NCI Program Staff, a showcase of several types of CEGP programs by current R25 grantees, and in-depth discussions on a broad range of questions critical for the continued success of the R25 CEGP. The workshop afforded an opportunity, for the first time, for cancer researchers and clinicians conducting different forms of cancer education activities to gather in one place as leaders of a community of increasing importance. The discussion resulted in a set of suggestions that will benefit the R25 CEGP and cancer education in general. There was a general consensus among the participants that bringing the cancer education community together is a significant achievement of the workshop that will have a long-lasting impact on cancer education.
| S-EPMC5290060 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cardio-oncology is a multidisciplinary field focusing on the management and prevention of cardiovascular complications in cancer patients and survivors. While the initial focus of this specialty was on heart failure associated with anthracycline use, novel anticancer agents are increasingly utilized and are associated with many other cardiotoxicities including hypertension, arrhythmias and vascular disease. Since its inception, the field has developed at a rapid pace with the establishment of programs at many major academic institutions and community practices. Given the complexities of this patient population, it is important for providers to possess knowledge of not only cardiovascular disease but also cancer subtypes and their specific therapeutics. Developing a cardio-oncology program at a stand-alone cancer center can present unique opportunities and challenges when compared to those affiliated with other institutions including resource allocation, cardiovascular testing availability and provider education. In this review, we present our experiences establishing the cardio-oncology program at Moffitt Cancer Center and provide guidance to those individuals interested in developing a program at a similar independent cancer institution.
| S-EPMC5523022 | biostudies-other