Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Magnitude of Structural, Clinical, and Physician and Patient Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Barriers to cancer clinical trial participation have been the subject of frequent study, but the rate of trial participation has not changed substantially over time. Studies often emphasize patient-related barriers, but other types of barriers may have greater impact on trial participation. Our goal was to examine the magnitude of different domains of trial barriers by synthesizing prior research.Methods
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that examined the trial decision-making pathway using a uniform framework to characterize and quantify structural (trial availability), clinical (eligibility), and patient/physician barrier domains. The systematic review utilized the PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Ovid Medline search engines. We used random effects to estimate rates of different domains across studies, adjusting for academic vs community care settings.Results
We identified 13 studies (nine in academic and four in community settings) with 8883 patients. A trial was unavailable for patients at their institution 55.6% of the time (95% confidence interval [CI] = 43.7% to 67.3%). Further, 21.5% (95% CI = 10.9% to 34.6%) of patients were ineligible for an available trial, 14.8% (95% CI = 9.0% to 21.7%) did not enroll, and 8.1% (95% CI = 6.3% to 10.0%) enrolled. Rates of trial enrollment in academic (15.9% [95% CI = 13.8% to 18.2%]) vs community (7.0% [95% CI = 5.1% to 9.1%]) settings differed, but not rates of trial unavailability, ineligibility, or non-enrollment.Conclusions
These findings emphasize the enormous need to address structural and clinical barriers to trial participation, which combined make trial participation unachievable for more than three of four cancer patients.
SUBMITTER: Unger JM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6410951 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Fewer than one in 20 adult patients with cancer enroll in cancer clinical trials. Although barriers to trial participation have been the subject of frequent study, the rate of trial participation has not changed substantially over time. Barriers to trial participation are structural, clinical, and attitudinal, and they differ according to demographic and socioeconomic factors. In this article, we characterize the nature of cancer clinical trial barriers, and we consider global and local strategies for reducing barriers. We also consider the specific case of adolescents with cancer and show that the low rate of trial enrollment in this age group strongly correlates with limited improvements in cancer population outcomes compared with other age groups. Our analysis suggests that a clinical trial system that enrolls patients at a higher rate produces treatment advances at a faster rate and corresponding improvements in cancer population outcomes. Viewed in this light, the issue of clinical trial enrollment is foundational, lying at the heart of the cancer clinical trial endeavor. Fewer barriers to trial participation would enable trials to be completed more quickly and would improve the generalizability of trial results. Moreover, increased accrual to trials is important for patients, because trials provide patients the opportunity to receive the newest treatments. In an era of increasing emphasis on a treatment decision-making process that incorporates the patient perspective, the opportunity for patients to choose trial participation for their care is vital.
| S-EPMC5495113 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposeStudies have shown an association between socioeconomic status (SES) and quality of oncology care, but less is known about the impact of patient SES on clinical trial participation.Patients and methodsWe assessed clinical trial participation patterns according to important SES (income, education) and demographic factors in a large sample of patients surveyed via an Internet-based treatment decision tool. Logistic regression, conditioning on type of cancer, was used. Attitudes toward clinical trials were assessed using prespecified items about treatment, treatment tolerability, convenience, and cost.ResultsFrom 2007 to 2011, 5,499 patients were successfully surveyed. Forty percent discussed clinical trials with their physician, 45% of discussions led to physician offers of clinical trial participation, and 51% of offers led to clinical trial participation. The overall clinical trial participation rate was 9%. In univariate models, older patients (P = .002) and patients with lower income (P = .001) and education (P = .02) were less likely to participate in clinical trials. In a multivariable model, income remained a statistically significant predictor of clinical trial participation (odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94; P = .01). Even in patients age ? 65 years, who have universal access to Medicare, lower income predicted lower trial participation. Cost concerns were much more evident among lower-income patients (P < .001).ConclusionLower-income patients were less likely to participate in clinical trials, even when considering age group. A better understanding of why income is a barrier may help identify ways to make clinical trials better available to all patients and would increase the generalizability of clinical trial results across all income levels.
| S-EPMC3565180 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo our knowledge, no published studies utilizing a randomized controlled design have examined the efficacy of patient navigation for improving clinical trial enrollment.MethodsThis patient navigation and clinical trial participation study is a randomized controlled trial to assess the effect of a patient navigator on enrollment into therapeutic cancer clinical trials. Participants are randomly assigned to high intensity, patient navigator-delivered patient educational materials (PEM) and needs assessment vs. low intensity patient navigation (patient navigator-delivered patient educational materials [PEM] alone). Discussion: Effective enrollment strategies may include utilization of patient navigators as away to meet individual needs, barriers, and concerns of participants enrolled in clinical trials.
| S-EPMC6197623 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe National Clinical Trials Network program conducts phase 2 or phase 3 treatment trials across all National Cancer Institute's designated cancer centers. Participant accrual across these clinical trials is a critical factor in deciding their success. Cancer centers that cater to rural populations, such as The University of Kansas Cancer Center, have an additional responsibility to ensure rural residents have access and are well represented across these studies.ObjectiveThere are scant data available regarding the factors that act as barriers to the accrual of rural residents in these clinical trials. This study aims to use electronic screening logs that were used to gather patient data at several participating sites in The Kansas University of Cancer Center's Catchment area.MethodsScreening log data were used to assess what clinical trial participation barriers are faced by these patients. Additionally, the differences in clinical trial participation barriers were compared between rural and urban participating sites.ResultsAnalysis revealed that the hospital location rural urban category, defined as whether the hospital was in an urban or rural setting, had a medium effect on enrolment of patients in breast cancer and lung cancer trials (Cohen d=0.7). Additionally, the hospital location category had a medium effect on the proportion of recurrent lung cancer cases at the time of screening (d=0.6).ConclusionsIn consideration of the financially hostile nature of cancer treatment as well as geographical and transportation barriers, clinical trials extended to rural communities are uniquely positioned to alleviate the burden of nonmedical costs in trial participation. However, these options can be far less feasible for patients in rural settings. Since the number of patients with cancer who are eligible for a clinical trial is already limited by the stringent eligibility criteria required of such a complex disease, improving accessibility for rural patients should be a greater focus in health policy.
| S-EPMC9073606 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionBlack Americans are disproportionately burdened by Alzheimer's disease (AD) relative to other racial groups in the United States and continue to be underrepresented in AD clinical trials. This review explores the primary barriers for participation in clinical trials among Black Americans and provides literature-based recommendations to improve the inclusion of Black Americans in AD clinical trials.MethodsWe searched electronic databases and gray literature for articles published in the United States through January 1, 2023, ultimately identifying 26 key articles for inclusion.ResultsBarriers to participation in clinical trials for Black Americans are rooted in social determinants of health, including access to quality education and information, access to health care, economic stability, built environment, and community context. Best practices to improve the inclusion of Black Americans in clinical trials require pharmaceutical companies to adopt a multifaceted approach, investing in innovative strategies for site selection, development of local partnerships, outreach, and education.DiscussionWhile multisectoral action must occur to effectively address the disproportionate burden of AD on Black Americans, the pharmaceutical industry has an important part to play in this space due to their central role in product development and clinical trials.
| S-EPMC10318422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecruitment of patients into randomised clinical trials (RCTs) is essential for treatment evaluation. Appreciation of the barriers and drivers towards participation is important for trial design, communication and information provision.MethodAs part of an intervention to facilitate effective multidisciplinary team communication about RCTs, cancer patients completed two study-specific questionnaires following trial discussions. One questionnaire examined reasons why patients accepted or declined trial entry, the other perceptions about their health-care professionals' (HCPs) information giving.ResultsQuestionnaires were completed by 74% (358/486) of patients approached; of these 81% (291/358) had joined an RCT, 16% (56/358) had declined and 3% (11/358) were undecided. Trial participation status of the 128 patients not returning questionnaires is unknown. Trial acceptance was not dependent on disease stage, tumour type, sex or age. Satisfaction with trial information and HCPs' communication was generally very good, irrespective of participation decisions. The primary reason given for trial acceptance was altruism (40%; 110/275), and for declining, trust in the doctor (28%; 12/43). Decliners preferred doctors to choose their treatment rather than be randomised (54% vs 39%; P<0.027). Acceptors were more likely to perceive doctors as wanting them to join trials (54% vs 30%; P<0.001). Trial type, that is, standard treatment vs novel or different durations of treatment, also influenced acceptance rates.ConclusionThe drivers and barriers to trial participation are partly related to trial design. Unease about randomisation and impact of duration on treatment efficacy are barriers for some. Altruism and HCPs' perceived attitudes are powerful influencing factors.
| S-EPMC3629425 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Friends of Cancer Research, and the US Food and Drug Administration recently recommended modernizing criteria related to comorbidities routinely used to exclude patients from cancer clinical trials. The goal was to design clinical trial eligibility such that trial results better reflect real-world cancer patient populations, to improve clinical trial participation, and to increase patient access to new treatments in trials. Yet despite the assumed influence of comorbidities on trial participation, the relationship between patients' comorbidity profile at diagnosis and trial participation has not been explicitly examined using patient-level data.ObjectivesTo investigate the association between comorbidities, clinical trial decision-making, and clinical trial participation; and to estimate the potential impact of reducing comorbidity exclusion criteria on trial participation, to provide a benchmark for changing criteria.Design, setting, and participantsA national survey was embedded within a web-based cancer treatment-decision tool accessible on multiple cancer-oriented websites. Participants must have received a diagnosis of breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer. In total, 5499 surveyed patients who made a treatment decision within the past 3 months were analyzed using logistic regression analysis and simulations.ExposuresCancer diagnosis and 1 or more of 18 comorbidities.Main outcomes and measuresPatient discussion of a clinical trial with their physician (yes vs no); if a trial was discussed, the offer of trial participation (yes vs no); and, if trial participation was offered, trial participation (yes vs no).ResultsOf the 5499 patients who participated in the survey, 3420 (62.6%) were women and 2079 (37.8%) were men (mean [SD] age, 56.63 [10.05] years). Most patients (65.6%; n = 3610) had 1 or more comorbidities. The most common comorbid condition was hypertension (35.0%; n = 1924). Compared with the absence of comorbidities, the presence of 1 or more comorbidities was associated with a decreased risk of trial discussions (44.1% vs 37.2%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.97; P = .02), trial offers (21.7% vs 15.7%; OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96; P = .02), and trial participation (11.3% vs 7.8%; OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.94; P = .01). The removal of the ASCO-recommended comorbidity restrictions could generate up to 6317 additional patient trial registrations every year.Conclusions and relevanceIndependent of sociodemographic variables, the presence of comorbidities is adversely associated with trial discussions, trial offers, and trial participation itself. Updating trial eligibility criteria could provide an opportunity for several thousand more patients with well-managed comorbidities to participate in clinical trials each year.
| S-EPMC6439841 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIncreasing participation in fecal screening tests is a major challenge in countries that have implemented colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs.ObjectiveTo determine whether providing general practitioners (GPs) a list of patients who are nonadherent to CRC screening enhances patient participation in fecal immunochemical testing (FIT).Design, setting, and participantsA 3-group, cluster-randomized study was conducted from July 14, 2015, to July 14, 2016, on the west coast of France, with GPs in 801 practices participating and involving adult patients (50-74 years) who were at average risk of CRC and not up-to-date with CRC screening. The final follow-up date was July 14, 2016.InterventionsGeneral practitioners were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 496 received a list of patients who had not undergone CRC screening (patient-specific reminders group, 10 476 patients), 495 received a letter describing region-specific CRC screening adherence rates (generic reminders group, 10 606 patients), and 455 did not receive any reminders (usual care group, 10 147 patients).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was patient participation in CRC screening 1 year after the intervention.ResultsAmong 1482 randomized GPs (mean age, 53.4 years; 576 women [38.9%]), 1446 participated; of the 33 044 patients of these GPs (mean age, 59.7 years; 17 949 women [54.3%]), follow-up at 1 year was available for 31 229 (94.5%). At 1 year, 24.8% (95% CI, 23.4%-26.2%) of patients in the specific reminders group, 21.7% (95% CI, 20.5%-22.8%) in the generic reminders group, and 20.6% (95% CI, 19.3%-21.8%) in the usual care group participated in the FIT screening. The between-group differences were 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3%-5.0%) for the patient-specific reminders group vs the generic reminders group, 4.2% (95% CI, 2.3%-6.2%) for the patient-specific reminders group vs the usual care group, and 1.1% (95% CI, -0.6% to 2.8%) for generic reminders group vs the usual care group.Conclusions and relevanceProviding French GPs caring for adults at average risk of CRC with a list of their patients who were not up-to-date with their CRC screening resulted in a small but significant increase in patient participation in FIT screening at 1 year compared with patients who received usual care. Providing GPs with generic reminders about regional rates of CRC screening did not increase screening rates compared with usual care.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02515344.
| S-EPMC5817465 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cancer is a disease of aging and, as the world's population ages, the number of older persons with cancer is increasing and will make up a growing share of the oncology population in virtually every country. Despite this, older patients remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments. Consequently, most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients, and effective strategies to improve clinical trial participation of older adults with cancer remain sparse. For this systematic review, the authors evaluated published studies regarding barriers to participation and interventions to improve participation of older adults in cancer trials. The quality of the available evidence was low and, despite a literature describing multifaceted barriers, only one intervention study aimed to increase enrollment of older adults in trials. The findings starkly amplify the paucity of evidence-based, effective strategies to improve participation of this underrepresented population in cancer trials. Within these limitations, the authors provide their opinion on how the current cancer research infrastructure must be modified to accommodate the needs of older patients. Several underused solutions are offered to expand clinical trials to include older adults with cancer. However, as currently constructed, these recommendations alone will not solve the evidence gap in geriatric oncology, and efforts are needed to meet older and frail adults where they are by expanding clinical trials designed specifically for this population and leveraging real-world data.
| S-EPMC7854940 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesEarly phase cell therapy trials face many barriers to successful, timely completion. To optimise the conduct of a planned clinical trial of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy for chronic stroke, we sought patient and physician views on possible barriers and enablers that may influence their participation.DesignSemistructured interview study.SettingPatients were recruited from three rehabilitation centres in Ontario, Canada; physicians were recruited from across Canada through snowball sampling.ParticipantsThirteen chronic stroke patients (patients who had experienced a stroke at least 3 months prior; 10 male, 3 female) and 15 physicians (stroke physiatrists; 9 male, 6 female) participated in our interview study. Data adequacy was reached after 13 patient interviews and 13 physician interviews.MethodsInterview guides and directed content analysis were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Interviews were coded, and relevant themes were identified.ResultsMost patients were optimistic about participating in an MSC therapy clinical trial, and many expressed interest in participating, even if it was a randomised controlled trial with the possibility of being allocated to a placebo group. However, the method of administration of cells (intravascular preferred to intracerebral) and goal of the trial (efficacy preferred to safety) may influence their intention to participate. All physicians expressed interest in screening for the trial, though many stated they were less motivated to contribute to a safety trial. Physicians also identified several time-related barriers and the need for resources to ensure feasibility.ConclusionsThis novel application of the TDF helped identify key potential barriers and enablers prior to conducting a clinical trial of MSC therapy for stroke. This will be used to refine the design and conduct of our trial. A similar approach may be adopted by other investigators considering early phase cell therapy trials.
| S-EPMC7103795 | biostudies-literature