Dataset Information

Cancer clinical trials - Survey evaluating patient participation and acceptance in a university-based Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC).

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Prospective 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

771 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).

Conclusion

Patients 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.

SUBMITTER: Kessel KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6192009 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProspective 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.MethodsA 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/).ResultsWe 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.DiscussionThe 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.

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:ImportanceGenotype-matched trials, which are becoming increasingly important in the precision oncology era, require referrals from institutions providing comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) testing to those conducting these trials, and the travel burden for trial participation is significant. However, it remains unknown whether travel time or distance are associated with genotype-matched trial participation.ObjectiveTo assess whether travel time or distance are associated with disparities in genotype-matched trial participation following CGP testing.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study from June 2020 to June 2022 included patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors referred to the National Cancer Center Hospital for participation in genotype-matched trials following CGP testing and discussion by molecular tumor boards. Data were analyzed from June to October 2022.ExposuresTravel time and distance.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary and secondary outcomes were enrollment in genotype-matched trials and all-cancer clinical trials, respectively.ResultsOf 1127 patients (mean [range] age, 62 [16-85] years; 584 women [52%]; all residents of Japan), 127 (11%) and 241 (21%) were enrolled in genotype-matched trials and all-cancer clinical trials, respectively. The overall median (IQR) travel distance and time were 38 (21-107) km and 55 (35-110) minutes, respectively. On multivariable regression with 23 covariates, travel distance (≥100 km vs <100 km) was not associated with the likelihood of genotype-matched trial participation (26 of 310 patients [8%] vs 101 of 807 patients [12%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40-1.02), whereas in patients with travel time of 120 minutes or more, the likelihood of genotype-matched trial participation was significantly lower than those with travel time less than 120 minutes (19 of 276 patients [7%] vs 108 of 851 patients [13%]; OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.84). The likelihood of genotype-matched trial participation decreased as travel time increased from less than 40 (38 of 283 patients [13%]) to 40 to 120 (70 of 568 patients [12%]) and 120 or more (19 of 276 patients [7%]) minutes (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.48-1.17; OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.74, respectively). Neither travel time nor distance were associated with the likelihood of all-cancer clinical trial participation.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of patients undergoing CGP testing, an increased travel time was associated with a decreased likelihood of genotype-matched trial participation. This warrants further research on interventions, such as decentralization of clinical trials to mitigate travel burden.

Project description:The workload for shielding purposes of modern linear accelerators (linacs) consists of primary and scatter radiation which depends on the dose delivered to isocenter (cGy) and leakage radiation which depends on the monitor units (MUs). In this study, we report on the workload for 10 treatment vaults in terms of dose to isocenter (cGy), monitor units delivered (MUs), number of treatment sessions (Txs), as well as, use factors (U) and modulation factors (CI) for different treatment techniques. The survey was performed for the years between 2006 and 2015 and included 16 treatment machines which represent different generations of Varian linear accelerators (6EX, 600C, 2100C, 2100EX, and TrueBeam) operating at different electron and x-ray energies (6, 9, 12, 16 and 20 MeV electrons and, 6 and 15 MV x-rays). An institutional review board (IRB) approval was acquired to perform this study. Data regarding patient workload, dose to isocenter, number of monitor units delivered, beam energies, gantry angles, and treatment techniques were exported from an ARIA treatment management system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, Ca.) into Excel spreadsheets and data analysis was performed in Matlab. The average (± std-dev) number of treatment sessions, dose to isocenter, and number of monitor units delivered per week per machine in 2006 was 119 ± 39 Txs, (300 ± 116) × 102 cGys, and (78 ± 28) × 103 MUs respectively. In contrast, the workload in 2015 was 112 ± 40 Txs, (337 ± 124) × 102 cGys, and (111 ± 46) × 103 MUs. 60% of the workload (cGy) was delivered using 6 MV and 30% using 15 MV while the remaining 10% was delivered using electron beams. The modulation factors (MU/cGy) for IMRT and VMAT were 5.0 (± 3.4) and 4.6 (± 1.6) respectively. Use factors using 90° gantry angle intervals were equally distributed (~0.25) but varied considerably among different treatment techniques. The workload, in terms of dose to isocenter (cGy) and subsequently monitor units (MUs), has been steadily increasing over the past decade. This increase can be attributed to increased use of high dose hypo-fractionated regimens (SBRT, SRS) and the increase in use of IMRT and VMAT, which require higher MUs per cGy as compared to more conventional treatment (3DCRT). Meanwhile, the patient workload in terms of treatment sessions per week remained relatively constant. The findings of this report show that variables used for shielding purposes still fall within the recommendation of NCRP Report 151.

Project description:BackgroundBreast cancer is the most frequent and fatal cancer type globally. The fatality rate of breast cancer is mostly due to disease complications like hematological alterations. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the hematological abnormalities before, during, and after the initiation of cancer treatment in breast cancer patients at the University of Gondar comprehensive specialized hospital.MethodologyHematological profiles were collected from 267 breast cancer patients who attended the cancer treatment center from September 2017 to August 2021. A data extraction sheet was used to extract data from the patient's medical chart, including sociodemography, clinical, and hematological profiles. EPI info version 3.5.1 and SPSS Version 25 softwares were used for data entrance and analysis, respectively. Descriptive statistics were summarized using frequency and percentage. The Friedman test followed by a Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the mean difference between the hematological profiles at zero and after the 4th and 8th cycles of treatment.ResultOf the total participants, 91% were females, and the median age of the study participants was 45 (IQR = 36, 55) years. Red blood cell, white blood cell, and lymphocyte counts, as well as hematocrit and hemoglobin values, were significantly reduced after the initiation of cancer treatment, while the platelet count and red cell distribution width were significantly increased. The prevalence of anemia was 21.7% (95% CI: 16.6, 26.8), 22.7% (95% CI: 17.6, 27.8), and 26.4% (95% CI: 21.3, 31.5) before, during, and after the initiation of cancer treatment, respectively. The prevalence of leukopenia before, during, and after treatment was 9.7%, 18.8%, and 15.1%, respectively. Finally the prevalence of thrombocytopenia was 6.3%, 3.4%, and 8% at before, during, and after treatment, respectively.ConclusionThis study concluded that many hematological parameters were significantly affected by the breast cancer treatment. Therefore, proper patient follow-up and provide appropriate interventions related to their hematological abnormalities is crucial. It is also important to conduct further prospective studies to confirm the findings of this study.