Dataset Information

Which Obstacles Prevent Us from Recruiting into Clinical Trials: A Survey about the Environment for Clinical Studies at a German University Hospital in a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prospective clinical studies are the most important tool in modern medicine. The standard in good clinical practice in clinical trials has constantly improved leading to more sophisticated protocols. Moreover, translational questions are increasingly addressed in clinical trials. Such trials must follow elaborate rules and regulations. This is accompanied by a significant increase in documentation issues which require substantial manpower. Furthermore, university-based clinical centers are interested in increasing the amount of patients treated within clinical trials, and this number has evolved to be a key quality criterion. The present study was initiated to elucidate the obstacles that limit clinical scientists in screening and recruiting for clinical trials.

Methods

A specific questionnaire with 28 questions was developed focusing on all aspects of clinical trial design as well as trial management. This included questions on organizational issues, medical topics as well as potential patients' preferences and physician's goals. The questionnaire was established to collect data anonymously on a web-based platform. The survey was conducted within the Klinikum rechts der Isar, Faculty of Medicine, Technical University of Munich; physicians of all levels (Department Chairs, attending physicians, residents, as well as study nurses, and other study-related staff) were addressed. The answers were analyzed using the Survio analyzing tool (http://www.survio.com/de/).

Results

We collected 42 complete sets of answers; in total 28 physicians, 11 study nurses, and 3 persons with positions in administration answered our survey. The study centers reported to participate in a range of 3-160 clinical trials with a recruitment rate of 1-80%. Main obstacles were determined: 31/42 (74%) complained about limited human resources and 22/42 (52%) reported to have a lack on technical resources, too. 30/42 (71%) consented to the answer, that the documentation effort of clinical trials is too large. A possible increase of the patients' study participation rate up to over 20% was deemed to be possible if the described limitations could be overcome.

Discussion

The increasing documentation effort in clinical trials has led to a strong increase in the work load of scientific personnel. Recruiting of patients into clinical trials therefore is not only limited by patient issues, but also by the infrastructure of the centers. Especially the lack of study nurses is likely to be a major limitation. Furthermore, technical resources for time efficient and safe documentation within clinical routine as well as in clinical trials are required. By optimization of these factors, a significant increase in the amount of patients treated in clinical trials seems to be possible.

SUBMITTER: Straube C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5581318 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Which Obstacles Prevent Us from Recruiting into Clinical Trials: A Survey about the Environment for Clinical Studies at a German University Hospital in a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Straube Christoph C Herschbach Peter P Combs Stephanie E SE

Frontiers in oncology 20170828

<h4>Background</h4>Prospective clinical studies are the most important tool in modern medicine. The standard in good clinical practice in clinical trials has constantly improved leading to more sophisticated protocols. Moreover, translational questions are increasingly addressed in clinical trials. Such trials must follow elaborate rules and regulations. This is accompanied by a significant increase in documentation issues which require substantial manpower. Furthermore, university-based clinica ...[more]

PMID: 28894695

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionProspective clinical trials are essential to translate new therapy concepts or rather any scientific development into the medical routine. Besides a sophisticated trial protocol, the success of clinical trials depends on patient recruitment and participation. Patient recruitment remains a challenge and depends on several factors. To get a current picture of the patients' attitude, we conducted the present survey.MethodsWe designed a survey with seven questions, which was given to all oncological patients treated within a timeframe of three months between Mai and July 2017. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. The questionnaire mainly inquires patients' participation in clinical trials in a university-based setting, their attitude towards clinical trials regarding risks and benefits, and their source of information in this context.Results771 patients (1:1 male/female) participated with a median age of 61 years (range 18-91 years) with a response rate of 71.5%. Of all, 17.8% (137/771) were participating in a clinical trial. The most mentioned reason was to serve medical progress and cancer research. Out of the patients not currently participating in a trial, 79 (12.7%, 79/623) refusers named the following main reasons: extensive travel time to the clinic, no therapeutic advantage, and too time-consuming. Out of the patients not offered to take part in a trial, 265 (51.0%, 265/520) would participate if offered. Of all patients, 8.3% (64/771) used the clinics' homepage as a source of information, of those 79.7% (51/64) were satisfied with its content. To enhance patient recruitment strategies, we asked how patients wish to be informed about possible trials: More than half (52.0%) of the questioned patients preferred an individual medical consultation with their physician.We further analyzed the trial participation depending on age, gender, unit, and tumor entity. We could show a significant influence of age (p < 0.001) but not for gender (p = 0.724). The trial participation was also significantly associated with the treating unit (p < 0.001) and tumor entity (p = 0.001).ConclusionPatients are willing to participate in clinical trials. Better information strategies need to be implemented. Physicians need to be aware of running trials within their department and must counseling counsel patients effectively to improve recruitment. Trial concepts should keep in mind patients' needs including an adequate number of appointments, positive risk-benefit profiles, and information material.

Project description:BACKGROUND/AIMS:In our 2009 article, we showed that Bayesian methods had established a foothold in developing therapies in our institutional oncology trials. In this article, we will document what has happened since that time. In addition, we will describe barriers to implementing Bayesian clinical trials, as well as our experience overcoming them. METHODS:We reviewed MD Anderson Cancer Center clinical trials submitted to the institutional protocol office for scientific and ethical review between January 2009 and December 2013, the same length time period as the previous article. We tabulated Bayesian methods implemented for design or analyses for each trial and then compared these to our previous findings. RESULTS:Overall, we identified 1020 trials and found that 283 (28%) had Bayesian components so we designated them as Bayesian trials. Among MD Anderson-only and multicenter trials, 56% and 14%, respectively, were Bayesian, higher rates than our previous study. Bayesian trials were more common in phase I/II trials (34%) than in phase III/IV (6%) trials. Among Bayesian trials, the most commonly used features were for toxicity monitoring (65%), efficacy monitoring (36%), and dose finding (22%). The majority (86%) of Bayesian trials used non-informative priors. A total of 75 (27%) trials applied Bayesian methods for trial design and primary endpoint analysis. Among this latter group, the most commonly used methods were the Bayesian logistic regression model (N?=?22), the continual reassessment method (N?=?20), and adaptive randomization (N?=?16). Median institutional review board approval time from protocol submission was the same 1.4?months for Bayesian and non-Bayesian trials. Since the previous publication, the Biomarker-Integrated Approaches of Targeted Therapy for Lung Cancer Elimination (BATTLE) trial was the first large-scale decision trial combining multiple treatments in a single trial. Since then, two regimens in breast cancer therapy have been identified and published from the cooperative Investigation of Serial Studies to Predict Your Therapeutic Response with Imaging and Molecular Analysis (I-SPY 2), enhancing cooperation among investigators and drug developers across the nation, as well as advancing information needed for personalized medicine. Many software programs and Shiny applications for Bayesian trial design and calculations are available from our website which has had more than 21,000 downloads worldwide since 2004. CONCLUSION:Bayesian trials have the increased flexibility in trial design needed for personalized medicine, resulting in more cooperation among researchers working to fight against cancer. Some disadvantages of Bayesian trials remain, but new methods and software are available to improve their function and incorporation into cancer clinical research.

Project description:Background: Validated markers to predict outcome in rectal cancer patients treated with multimodal therapy remain elusive. Identifying molecular profiles for disease prognosis would be required for the design of clinical trials aimed at optimizing risk-adapted therapies. We have therefore used whole genome expression profiling of tumors of a large cohort of patients enrolled in the multicenter trials of the German Rectal Cancer Study Group (GRCSG) to identify molecular profiles for individualized therapy. Methods: We prospectively collected pretherapeutic biopsies from patients (n=300) treated according to the GRCSG trial guidelines from seven different German surgical departments using rigid quality controls. These samples were profiled by global gene expression analysis and a classifier developed to predict postoperative lymph node status and Disease Free Survival (DFS). The performance of the classifier was validated with an independent, prospectively collected set of samples. Findings: The final training and test set included 198 patients. Analyzes for postoperative nodal status and DFS revealed 69 and 674 differentially regulated genes, respectively. Depending on the classifier the accuracy to predict lymph node status ranged from 64% to 69% with negative predictive values between 72% and 74%. Stratification according to DFS resulted in a good (n=99), bad (n=96) and a small very bad prognosis group (n=3). Based on linear discriminant analysis the classifier for positive lymph node status was validated in 47 independent patients and revealed an accuracy of 72% and a positive predictive value of 100%. Thereby, prediction based on molecular profiling is superior to prediction based on conventional clinical markers. Interpretation: Whole genome expression analysis of pretherapeutical biopsies resulted in a molecular classifier of disease prognosis. This classifier was successfully validated. The high positive predictive value for post therapeutic lymph node status allows identification of patients requiring alternative or intensified treatment protocols. These data are currently validated for their clinical applicability and should be taken as basis for future molecular driven clinical trials to develop risk-adapted treatments.

Project description:BackgroundInformed consent is an essential element of clinical research. Obtaining consent, however, may be challenging. The use of the telephone for giving information and obtaining consent may be practical but little formal research has been done.MethodsWe examined the use of the telephone for the purpose of informing expectant mothers about The Danish Calmette Study; a randomized clinical trial assessing neonatal Bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccination. Expectant mothers received an invitation letter with a Participant Information Sheet about The Danish Calmette Study, the present trial, and a Consent Form. Two to 4 weeks later we contacted the mothers to discuss potential participation in the present trial. At this initial telephone contact, and after consent from the mothers, we randomized expectant mothers to receive the verbal information about The Danish Calmette Study by telephone, or at a face-to-face consultation. The primary outcome was a communication score, consisting of comprehension of information about The Danish Calmette Study and satisfaction with the information process. The outcome was measured using a questionnaire 2 days after the information was provided, and 2.5 months after the birth of the child.ResultsThe communication score obtained 2 days after information was given was significantly reduced in the telephone group, effect size -0.74 (95% confidence interval (CI), -1.11 to -0.36). The effect sizes of the subscores were -0.87 (95% CI, -1.25 to -0.49) for satisfaction and -0.22 (95% CI, -0.58 to 0.14) for comprehension. The effect sizes were slightly reduced when assessed 2.5 months after the birth.ConclusionThe communication score was reduced in the telephone group. This was due to a reduction in satisfaction, while no difference in the comprehension could be found in comparison to the control group. This may be ethically acceptable as both groups had high satisfaction scores.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, registered on 5 October 2015 with trial registration number NCT02570061 .

Project description:To determine the spectrum of infections with multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) and the clinical impact of the newly available betalactam/betalactamase inhibitor combinations ceftolozane/tazobactam and ceftazidime/avibactam in a German academic tertiary care center.Retrospective analysis.Between September 1, 2015 and August 31, 2016, 119 individual patients (0.22% of all hospital admissions) were colonized or infected with carbapenem-resistant MDR-GNB. The species distribution was Pseudomonas aeruginosa, n = 66; Enterobacteriaceae spp., n = 44; and Acinetobacter baumannii, n = 18. In 9 patients, carbapenem-resistant isolates belonging to more than one species were detected. Infection was diagnosed in 50 patients (total: 42.0%; nosocomial pneumonia: n = 23, 19.3%; bloodstream infection: n = 11, 9.2%). Antimicrobial treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics prior to detection of a carbapenem-resistant isolate was documented in 105 patients (88.2%, prior administration of carbapenems: 62.2%). Nosocomial transmission was documented in 29 patients (24.4%). In 26 patients (21.8%), at least one carbapenem-susceptible, third-generation cephalosporin non-susceptible isolate was documented prior to detection of a carbapenem-resistant isolate belonging to the same species (median 38 days, IQR 23-78). 12 patients (10.1%) had documented previous contact to the healthcare system in a country with high burden of carbapenemase-producing strains. Genes encoding carbapenemases were detected in 60/102 patient isolates (58.8%; VIM-2, n = 25; OXA-48, n = 21; OXA-23-like, n = 10). Susceptibility to colistin was 94.3%. Ceftolozane/tazobactam and ceftazidime/avibactam were administered to 3 and 5 patients, respectively (in-hospital mortality: 66% and 100%). Development of drug-resistance under therapy was observed for both antimicrobials.i) The major predisposing factors for acquisition of carbapenem-resistant MDR-GNB were selective pressure due to preceding antimicrobial therapy and nosocomial transmission. ii) Colistin remains the backbone of antimicrobial chemotherapy for infections caused by carbapenem-resistant MDR-GNB. iii) Novel β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations are of limited usefulness in our setting because of the high prevalence of Ambler class B carbapenemases and the emergence of nonsusceptibility under therapy.

Dataset Information

Which Obstacles Prevent Us from Recruiting into Clinical Trials: A Survey about the Environment for Clinical Studies at a German University Hospital in a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

Which Obstacles Prevent Us from Recruiting into Clinical Trials: A Survey about the Environment for Clinical Studies at a German University Hospital in a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets