Dataset Information

Referrals to a Phase I Clinic and Trial Enrollment in the Molecular Screening Era.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Enrichment of patients based on molecular biomarkers is increasingly used in early phase clinical trials. Molecular profiling of patients with advanced cancers can identify specific genomic alterations to inform decisions about investigational treatment(s). Our aim was to evaluate the outcomes of new patient referrals to a large academic solid tumor phase I clinical trial program after the implementation of molecular profiling. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Retrospective chart review of all new referrals to the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM) phase I clinic from May 2012 to December 2014. Molecular profiling using either MALDI-TOF hotspot mutation genotyping or targeted panel DNA sequencing was performed for patients at PM or community hospitals through the institutional IMPACT/COMPACT trials. RESULTS:A total of 971 new patient referrals were included for this analysis. Twenty-seven percent of referrals assessed in clinic were subsequently enrolled in phase I trials. Of all new referrals, 41% had prior molecular profiling, of whom 11% (n?=?42) were enrolled in genotype-matched trials. Patients with prior molecular profiling were younger, more heavily pretreated, and had more favorable Princess Margaret Hospital Index (PMHI) scores. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1 (p?=?.002), internal referrals within PM (p?=?.002), and PMHI (p???.001) were independently associated with successful trial enrollment in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION:Although nearly half of new patients referred to a phase I clinic had prior molecular profiling, the proportion subsequently enrolled into clinical trials was low. Prior molecular profiling was not an independent predictor of clinical trial enrollment. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:The landscape of oncology drug development is evolving alongside technological advancements. Recently, large academic medical centers have implemented clinical sequencing protocols to identify patients with actionable genomic alterations to enroll in therapeutic clinical trials. This study evaluates patient referral and enrollment patterns in a large academic phase I clinical trials program following the implementation of a molecular profiling program. Performance status and referral from a physician within the institution were associated with successful trial enrollment, whereas prior molecular profiling was not an independent predictor.

SUBMITTER: Tan T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6656436 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Referrals to a Phase I Clinic and Trial Enrollment in the Molecular Screening Era.

Tan Tira T Rheaume Michael M Wang Lisa L Chow Helen H Spreafico Anna A Hansen Aaron R AR Razak Albiruni R A ARA Siu Lillian L LL Bedard Philippe L PL

The oncologist 20190304 7

<h4>Background</h4>Enrichment of patients based on molecular biomarkers is increasingly used in early phase clinical trials. Molecular profiling of patients with advanced cancers can identify specific genomic alterations to inform decisions about investigational treatment(s). Our aim was to evaluate the outcomes of new patient referrals to a large academic solid tumor phase I clinical trial program after the implementation of molecular profiling.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Retrospective chart ...[more]

PMID: 30833487

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAllergy is a serious and apparently increasing public health problem yet relatively little is known about the types of allergy seen in routine tertiary practice, including their spatial distribution, co-occurrence or referral patterns. This study reviewed referrals over an eleven year period to a regional allergy clinic that had a well defined geographical boundary. For those patients confirmed as having an allergy we explored: (i) differences over time and by demographics, (ii) types of allergy, (iii) co-occurrence, and (iv) spatial distributions.MethodsData were extracted from consultant letters to GPs, from September 1998 to September 2009, for patients confirmed as having an allergy. Other data included referral statistics and population data by postcode. Simple descriptive analysis was used to describe types of allergy. We calculated 11 year standardised morbidity ratios for postcode districts and checked for spatial clustering. We present maps showing 11 year rates by postcode, and 'difference' maps which try to separate referral effect from possible environmental effect.ResultsOf 5778 referrals, 961 patients were diagnosed with an allergy. These were referred by a total of 672 different GPs. There were marked differences in referral patterns between GP practices and also individual GPs. The mean age of patients was 35 and there were considerably more females (65%) than males. Airborne allergies were the most frequent (623), and there were very high rates of co-occurrence of pollen, house dust mite, and animal hair allergies. Less than half (410) patients had a food allergy, with nuts, fruit, and seafood being the most common allergens. Fifteen percent (142) had both a food and a non-food allergy. Certain food allergies were more likely to co-occur, for example, patients allergic to dairy products were more likely to be allergic to egg.There were age differences by types of allergy; people referred with food allergies were on average 5 years younger than those with other allergies, and those allergic to nuts were much younger (26 Vs 38) than those with other food allergies.There was clear evidence for spatial clustering with marked clustering around the referral hospital. However, the geographical distribution varied between allergies; airborne (particularly pollen allergies) clustered in North Dartmoor and Exmoor, food allergies (particularly nut allergies) in the South Hams, and on small numbers, some indication of seafood allergy in the far south west of Cornwall and in the Padstow area.ConclusionsThis study shows marked geographical differences in allergy referrals which are likely to reflect a combination of environmental factors and GP referral patterns. The data suggest that GPs may benefit from education and ongoing decision support and be supported by public education on the nature of allergy. It suggests further research into what happens to patients with allergy where there has been low use of tertiary services and further research into cross-reactivity and co-occurrence, and spatial distribution of allergy.

Project description:Background/aimsFinancial compensation for research participation is a major focus of ethical concern regarding human subject recruitment. Phase I trials are sometimes considered to be a lucrative source of income for healthy volunteers, encouraging some people to become "professional guinea pigs." Yet, little is known about how much these clinical trials actually pay and how much healthy volunteers earn from them.MethodsAs part of a mixed-methods, longitudinal study of healthy volunteers, we required participants to complete clinical trial diaries, or surveys that captured detailed information about screening and enrollment in Phase I trials. Over a 3-year period, participants provided information online or via telephone about each clinical trial for which they screened (e.g. the clinic name, the study's therapeutic area, the length of the trial, the number of nights spent in the clinic, and the study compensation), and whether they qualified for trial inclusion. Clinical trial diaries generated data about whether participants continued to screen for and enroll in clinical trials and how much money they earned from their participation.Results131 participants routinely completed clinical trial diaries or confirmed that they had not screened for any new clinical trials. Together, these participants screened for 1001 clinical trials at 73 research facilities during a 3-year period. Overall, the median clinical trial compensation was US$3070 (range = US$150-US$13,000). Participants seeking new healthy volunteer trials tended to screen for three studies per year, participate in one or two studies, and earn roughly US$4000 annually. Participants who were unemployed earned the most income from clinical trials compared to those with full-time or part-time jobs, and those individuals whom we label "occupational" participants because of their persistent pursuit of clinical trials earned more than people who screened occasionally. Notably, the median annual trial compensation was well below US$10,000 for all employment groups, and most occupational healthy volunteers also earned less than US$10,000 each year. The 10% of participants who earned the most had a median annual income of US$18,885 from clinical trials, and there was significant volatility in these individuals' earnings from year to year.ConclusionDespite the perception that Phase I enrollment can generate significant earnings, it was exceedingly rare for anyone in this study to make more than US$20,000 in a single year, and unusual to earn even between US$10,000 and US$20,000. From an ethics perspective, individual trials might appear to unduly induce enrollment by offering significant sums of money, but given our findings, the larger problem for low-income participants may be the unrealistic perception that clinical trials alone could be a way of earning a living.

Dataset Information

Referrals to a Phase I Clinic and Trial Enrollment in the Molecular Screening Era.

Publications

Referrals to a Phase I Clinic and Trial Enrollment in the Molecular Screening Era.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets