Clinical Trials and the Role of the Oncology Clinical Trials Nurse.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ness EA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5321629 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Clinical Trials and the Role of the Oncology Clinical Trials Nurse.
Ness Elizabeth A EA Royce Cheryl C
The Nursing clinics of North America 20170301 1
Clinical trials are paramount to improving human health. New trial designs and informed consent issues are emerging as a result of genomic profiling and the development of molecularly targeted agents. Many groups and individuals are responsible for ensuring the protection of research participants and the quality of the data produced. The specialty role of the clinical trials nurse (CTN) is critical to clinical trials. Oncology CTNs have competencies that can help guide their practice; however, n ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is extensive evidence that the role of nurse coordinators is beneficial for patients. Nurse coordinators are more available to patients compared to general registered nurses, know better to control symptoms and work as team players with multiple care providers. Despite its significance, there is a dearth of literature on the subject in Israel and a lack of clarity regarding the definitions of the role in terms of responsibilities and authorities. The aim of the study is to: To examine how the role of nurse oncology coordinator is implemented in various fields of oncology and to describe the actual performance of different kinds of oncology nurse coordinators and staff perceptions regarding this role in one tertiary hospital in Jerusalem. METHODS:A phenomenological approach was used to explore the participants' experiences and views of nurse coordinators' performance. We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth semi-structured interviews. Interviewees included 30 employees from different levels of the hospitals, and leading figures associated with oncology medicine outside of the hospital: Nurses and physicians of the Sharett Oncology Institute of Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in Jerusalem, the administrative staff of Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital, head nurses of the Israel Cancer Association, the chairperson of the Non-Profit Organization of Oncology Nurses, nurse directors at the Ministry of Health Nursing Division, and seven nurse coordinators at Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in diverse fields of oncology. RESULTS:The nurse coordinator is perceived as an important staff member providing care to cancer patients. Several key elements were found to be common features in the work of all nurse coordinators: emotional support, guidance to patients, and coordination of patients' care. CONCLUSIONS:The nurse coordinator plays a noteworthy role in the health care system. In view of the variety of roles that the nurse coordinator assumes in different units, performance standards must be adapted to the performance areas for each unit, as well as nurses' professional development requirements. Changes in a service organization and careful attention to the continuum of care highlight the need to develop and to strengthen the role of a nurse who coordinates treatment over the entire continuum of care, both in the hospital and in the community.
| S-EPMC5707790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical outcome assessments (COAs) are key to patient-centered evaluation of novel interventions and supportive care. COAs are particularly informative in oncology where a focus on how patients feel and function is paramount, but their incorporation in trial outcomes have lagged that of traditional survival and tumor responses. To understand the trends of COA use in oncology and the impact of landmark efforts to promote COA use, we computationally surveyed oncology clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov comparing them to the rest of the clinical research landscape.MethodsOncology trials were identified using medical subject heading neoplasm terms. Trials were searched for COA instrument names obtained from PROQOLID. Regression analyses assessed chronological and design-related trends.ResultsEighteen percent of oncology interventional trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 35,415) reported using one or more of 655 COA instruments. Eighty-four percent of the COA-using trials utilized patient-reported outcomes, with other COA categories used in 4-27% of these trials. Likelihood of COA use increased with progressing trial phase (OR = 1.30, p < 0.001), randomization (OR = 2.32, p < 0.001), use of data monitoring committees (OR = 1.26, p < 0.001), study of non-FDA-regulated interventions (OR = 1.23, p = 0.001), and in supportive care versus treatment-focused trials (OR = 2.94, p < 0.001). Twenty-six percent of non-oncology trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 244,440) reported COA use; they had similar COA-use predictive factors as oncology trials. COA use increased linearly over time (R = 0.98, p < 0.001), with significant increases following several individual regulatory events.ConclusionWhile COA use across clinical research has increased over time, there remains a need to further promote COA use particularly in early phase and treatment-focused oncology trials.
| S-EPMC10501237 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Historically, subject matter experts and healthcare professionals have played a pivotal role in driving oncology clinical trials. Although patients have been key participants, their deliberate and active contribution to the design and decision-making process has been limited. This scoping review aimed to examine the existing literature to scope the extent of active patient engagement in the design of oncology clinical trials and its corresponding influence on trial outcomes. We conducted a systematic search using two databases, namely MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE, to identify relevant studies exploring patient engagement in cancer-related clinical research design. We identified seven studies that met the eligibility criteria. The studies highlighted the benefits of active patient involvement, such as improved recruitment strategies, and the attainment of more patient-centered trial outcomes. The influence of patient involvement varied from tangible developments like patient-friendly resources to indirect impacts like improved patient experiences and potentially higher adherence to trial intervention. The future of clinical trials should prioritize patients' values and perspectives, with regulatory bodies fostering these practices through clear guidelines. As the concept of patient centricity takes root in oncology research, the involvement of patients should evolve beyond mere participation.
| S-EPMC10527717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The progress made over the past 50 years in disease-directed clinical trials has significantly increased cure rates for children and adolescents with cancer. The Children's Oncology Group (COG) is now conducting more studies that emphasize improving quality of life for young people with cancer. These types of clinical trials are classified as cancer control (CCL) studies by the National Cancer Institute and require different resources and approaches to facilitate adequate accrual and implementation at COG institutions. Several COG institutions that had previously experienced problems with low accruals to CCL trials have successfully implemented local nursing leadership for these types of studies. Successful models of nurses as institutional leaders and "champions" of CCL trials are described.
| S-EPMC5013656 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The role and use of independent data monitoring committees (IDMCs) has evolved over the past decades. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency have issued guidelines on the role and functioning of such committees. In general, data monitoring committees are recommended for large, often randomised clinical trials involving life-threatening diseases, studies performed in vulnerable populations or where the experimental intervention can potentially harm the trial participant. Such committees play an important role in trials evaluating treatments with the potential to prolong life or reduce the risk of major adverse health outcomes.Typically, oncology clinical trials fall within these recommendations, as they are often large, randomised, multicentric protocols aiming at improving survival outcomes by exploring the use of study treatments that may be associated with a significant risk of serious, even life-threatening adverse events. IDMCs are required for National Cancer Institute phase III randomised trials, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase II/III trials with formal interim analyses, early-stopping rules or adaptive studies. The primary role of an IDMC of ensuring the safety of study participants and maintaining clinical trial integrity is particularly important in oncology trials, due to the nature of the disease, the potential for treatment toxicity and for instilling confidence that the clinical trial data are reliable. A clear understanding by IDMC members of the natural course of the disease, treatment landscape, importance and relevance of certain adverse events in trial participants, clinical trial methodology in general and stopping rules for oncology trials in particular, is crucial for the functioning of an IDMC.It is recommended that IDMC members should be experienced trialists, have a track record of strong clinical, statistical and/or methodological expertise and the required level of independence, as they play a highly important role in the protection of study participants, and in commercially and strategically important go/no decisions. Ideally, IDMC members should have relevant experience or have some training, mentorship or guidelines.
| S-EPMC8547363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDrug-drug interactions (DDIs) in subjects enrolling in clinical trials can impact not only safety of the patient but also study drug outcomes and data validity. This makes it critical to adequately screen and manage DDIs. The study objective was to determine the prevalence of DDIs involving study medications in subjects enrolling in National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) clinical trials at a single institution. DDIs were evaluated based on study protocol recommendations for concomitant medication use (i.e. exclude, avoid or use caution), screening via DDI tool, and pharmacist review.MethodsSubjects enrolled in NCTN trials of commercially available agents between January 2013 and August 2017 were included if a complete medication list was available. Complete medication lists were collected from the date of enrollment or the next available date then screened utilizing protocol guidance and the DDI screening tool, Lexicomp® Drug Interactions (Wolters Kluwer, Hudson, OH). Interactions were reviewed for clinical relevance: defined as a DDI that would require a medication change to ensure study agent safety and efficacy at enrollment.ResultsOne hundred and twenty-eight subjects enrolled in 35 clinical trials were included. Protocol guidance detected 15 unique DDI pairs that should be avoided or used with caution in 10.2% (13/128) of subjects. The majority of these subjects did not have a clinically relevant DDI (69.2%, 9/13) based on pharmacist review. Lexicomp® detected moderate to major DDIs in 24.2% (31/128) of subjects, with 9.4% (12/128) having a clinically relevant DDI.ConclusionsThis study confirms a high prevalence of DDIs present in subjects enrolling in oncology clinical trials. Further efforts should be made to improve methods to detect and manage DDIs in patients enrolling on clinical trials to ensure patient safety and trial data validity.
| S-EPMC6249716 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aims of Phase 1 trials in oncology have broadened considerably from simply demonstrating that the agent/regimen of interest is well tolerated in a relatively heterogeneous patient population to addressing multiple objectives under the heading of early-phase trials and, if possible, obtaining reliable evidence regarding clinical activity to lead to drug approvals via the Accelerated Approval approach or Breakthrough Therapy designation in cases where the tumours are rare, prognosis is poor or where there might be an unmet therapeutic need. Constructing a Phase 1 design that can address multiple objectives within the context of a single trial is not simple. Randomisation can play an important role, but carrying out such randomisation according to the principles of equipoise is a significant challenge in the Phase 1 setting. If the emerging data are not sufficient to definitively address the aims early on, then a proper design can reduce biases, enhance interpretability, and maximise information so that the Phase 1 data can be more compelling. This article outlines objectives and design considerations that need to be adhered to in order to respect ethical and scientific principles required for research in human subjects in early phase clinical trials.
| S-EPMC8476627 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Traditionally, site of disease and anatomic staging have been used to define patient populations to be studied in individual cancer clinical trials. In the past decade, however, oncology has become increasingly understood on a cellular and molecular level, with many cancer subtypes being described as a function of biomarkers or tumor genetic mutations. With these changes in the science of oncology have come changes to the way we design and perform clinical trials. Increasingly common are trials tailored to detect enhanced efficacy in a patient subpopulation, e.g. patients with a known biomarker value or whose tumors harbor a specific genetic mutation. Here, we provide an overview of traditional and newer biomarker-based trial designs, and highlight lessons learned through implementation of several ongoing and recently completed trials.
| S-EPMC5023449 | biostudies-other
Project description:Advances in molecular technologies and targeted therapeutics have accelerated the implementation of precision oncology, resulting in improved clinical outcomes in selected patients. The use of next-generation sequencing and assessments of immune and other biomarkers helps optimize patient treatment selection. In this review, selected precision oncology trials including the IMPACT, SHIVA, IMPACT2, NCI-MPACT, TAPUR, DRUP, and NCI-MATCH studies are summarized, and their challenges and opportunities are discussed. Brief summaries of the new ComboMATCH, MyeloMATCH, and iMATCH studies, which follow the example of NCI-MATCH, are also included. Despite the progress made, precision oncology is inaccessible to many patients with cancer. Some patients' tumors may not respond to these treatments, owing to the complexity of carcinogenesis, the use of ineffective therapies, or unknown mechanisms of tumor resistance to treatment. The implementation of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and bioinformatic analyses of complex multi-omic data may improve the accuracy of tumor characterization, and if used strategically with caution, may accelerate the implementation of precision medicine. Clinical trials in precision oncology continue to evolve, improving outcomes and expediting the identification of curative strategies for patients with cancer. Despite the existing challenges, significant progress has been made in the past twenty years, demonstrating the benefit of precision oncology in many patients with advanced cancer.
| S-EPMC10093499 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It has been widely reported that women are underrepresented in leadership positions within academic medicine. This study aimed to assess trends in women representation as principal investigators (PIs) in oncology clinical trials and to characterize trends in women’s leadership in such trials conducted between 1999 and 2019. The gender of 39,240 PIs leading clinical trials was determined using the gender prediction software Genderize.io. In total, 11,516 (27.7%) women served as PIs. Over the past 20 years, an annual increase of 0.65% in women PIs was observed. Analysis by geographic distribution revealed higher women representation among PIs in North America and Europe compared to Asia. Industry-funded trials were associated with lower women PI representation than academic-funded trials (31.4% vs. 18.8%, p<0.001). Also, women PIs were found to be underrepresented in late-phase as compared to early-phase studies (27.9%, 25.7%, 21.6%, and 22.4% in phase I, II, III, and IV, respectively; Cochran-Armitage test for trend, p<0.001). Furthermore, an association was found between the PI’s gender and enrolment of female subjects (50% vs. 43% female participants led by women vs men PIs, respectively, p<0.001). Taken together, while the gender gap in women’s leadership in oncology trials has been steadily closing, prominent inequalities remain in non-Western countries, advanced study phases, industry-funded trials and appear to be linked to a gender gap in patient accrual. These observations can serve for the development of strategies to increase women’s representation and to monitor progress toward gender equality in PIs of cancer clinical trials.
| S-EPMC9215172 | biostudies-literature