Literature DB >> 12829680

Perceptions of patients and physicians regarding phase I cancer clinical trials: implications for physician-patient communication.

Neal J Meropol1, Kevin P Weinfurt, Caroline B Burnett, Andrew Balshem, Al B Benson, Liana Castel, Sandra Corbett, Michael Diefenbach, Darrell Gaskin, Yun Li, Sharon Manne, John Marshall, Julia H Rowland, Elyse Slater, Daniel P Sulmasy, David Van Echo, Shakira Washington, Kevin A Schulman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To describe and compare the perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians regarding phase I clinical trials.
METHODS: Eligible patients had been offered phase I trial participation and had decided to participate but had not yet begun treatment. Each patient's physician also served as a study subject. Patients and physicians completed questionnaires with domains including perceptions of potential benefit and harm from treatment (experimental and standard), relative value of quality and length of life, and perceived content of patient-physician consultations.
RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-eight patients and 48 physicians completed surveys. Patients had high expectations regarding treatment outcomes (eg, median 60% benefit from experimental therapy), with those choosing to participate in a phase I trial being more optimistic than those declining phase I participation. Patients predicted a higher likelihood of both benefit and adverse reactions from treatment (experimental and standard) than their physicians (P <.0001 for all comparisons). Although 95% of patients reported that quality of life was at least as important as length of life, only 28% reported that changes in quality of life with treatment were discussed with their physicians. In contrast, 73% of physicians reported that this topic was discussed (P <.0001).
CONCLUSION: Cancer patients offered phase I trial participation have expectations for treatment benefit that exceed those of their physicians. The discordant perceptions of patients and physicians may possibly be explained by patient optimism and confidence; however, the discrepancies in reports of consultation content, particularly given patients' stated values regarding quality of life, raise the possibility that communication in this context is suboptimal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12829680     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.10.072

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  78 in total

Review 1.  Communication and informed consent in phase 1 trials: a review of the literature.

Authors:  A C Cox; L J Fallowfield; V A Jenkins
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2006-01-28       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Communicating about phase I trials: objective disclosures are only a first step.

Authors:  Anne Lederman Flamm; Rebecca D Pentz
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2012-04-04

3.  Subjects' expectations in neuroimaging research.

Authors:  Matthew P Kirschen; Agnieszka Jaworska; Judy Illes
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  Mentoring in the ethics of clinical research: an ongoing need.

Authors:  Maurie Markman
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 5.075

5.  Patient-Reported Quality-of-Life Outcome Measures in the Thyroid Cancer Population.

Authors:  Eve M Roth; Carrie C Lubitz; John Shannon Swan; Benjamin C James
Journal:  Thyroid       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 6.568

6.  Research participants' high expectations of benefit in early-phase oncology trials: are we asking the right question?

Authors:  Kevin P Weinfurt; Damon M Seils; Li Lin; Daniel P Sulmasy; Alan B Astrow; Herbert I Hurwitz; Roger B Cohen; Neal J Meropol
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Application of best practice approaches for designing decision support tools: the preparatory education about clinical trials (PRE-ACT) study.

Authors:  Linda Fleisher; Dominique G Ruggieri; Suzanne M Miller; Sharon Manne; Terrance Albrecht; Joanne Buzaglo; Michael A Collins; Michael Katz; Tyler G Kinzy; Tasnuva Liu; Cheri Manning; Ellen Specker Charap; Jennifer Millard; Dawn M Miller; David Poole; Stephanie Raivitch; Nancy Roach; Eric A Ross; Neal J Meropol
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2014-04-21

8.  Clinical trial participation as part of end-of-life cancer care: associations with medical care and quality of life near death.

Authors:  Andrea C Enzinger; Baohui Zhang; Jane C Weeks; Holly G Prigerson
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2013-10-05       Impact factor: 3.612

9.  Evaluation of patient enrollment in oncology phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  Diane A J van der Biessen; Merlijn A Cranendonk; Gaia Schiavon; Bronno van der Holt; Erik A C Wiemer; Ferry A L M Eskens; Jaap Verweij; Maja J A de Jonge; Ron H J Mathijssen
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2013-02-21

10.  Attitudinal barriers to participation in oncology clinical trials: factor analysis and correlates of barriers.

Authors:  S Manne; D Kashy; T Albrecht; Y-N Wong; A Lederman Flamm; A B Benson; S M Miller; Linda Fleisher; J Buzaglo; N Roach; M Katz; E Ross; M Collins; D Poole; S Raivitch; D M Miller; T G Kinzy; T Liu; N J Meropol
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 2.520

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.