Literature DB >> 12833469

The correlation between patient characteristics and expectations of benefit from Phase I clinical trials.

Kevin P Weinfurt1, Liana D Castel, Yun Li, Daniel P Sulmasy, Andrew M Balshem, Al B Benson, Caroline B Burnett, Darrell J Gaskin, John L Marshall, Elyse F Slater, Kevin A Schulman, Neal J Meropol.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients in Phase I clinical trials sometimes report high expectations regarding the benefit of treatment. The authors examined a range of patient characteristics to determine which factors were associated with greater expectations of benefit from Phase I trials.
METHODS: Participants were adult patients with cancer who had been offered participation in Phase I studies and had decided to participate. Patients completed interviewer-administered surveys before initiation of treatment. Physicians assessed Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status for each patient. Statistical analyses (Pearson product moment correlation and t tests) used multiple imputation to account for missing data.
RESULTS: Overall, 593 patients who were offered participation in Phase I trials were contacted, and 328 patients agreed to participate in a study of decision making by cancer patients. Of these, 260 patients (79%) enrolled in a Phase I trial. Patients' expectations regarding the chance that their disease would be controlled with experimental therapy were unrelated to age, gender, living situation, education level, or functional status. Expectations were correlated positively with beliefs about the benefit of standard therapy and the maximum benefit patients may experience from experimental therapy. Greater expectations of benefit were associated with better health-related quality of life, stronger religious faith, optimism, relative health stock, monetary risk seeking, and poorer numeracy.
CONCLUSIONS: Expectations expressed as beliefs in personal outcomes may be related more to quality of life and personality variables than to patients' knowledge or functional status. Whether such expectations are accurate reflections of knowledge has important implications for evaluating the informed consent process. Copyright 2003 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.11483

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12833469     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.11483

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  44 in total

Review 1.  Emerging empirical evidence on the ethics of schizophrenia research.

Authors:  Laura B Dunn; Philip J Candilis; Laura Weiss Roberts
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 9.306

Review 2.  Decision making and quality of life in the treatment of cancer: a review.

Authors:  S Yousuf Zafar; Stewart C Alexander; Kevin P Weinfurt; Kevin A Schulman; Amy P Abernethy
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2008-09-19       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 3.  Decision making and cancer.

Authors:  Valerie F Reyna; Wendy L Nelson; Paul K Han; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  Am Psychol       Date:  2015 Feb-Mar

4.  Adolescent perspectives on phase I cancer research.

Authors:  Victoria A Miller; Justin N Baker; Angela C Leek; Sabahat Hizlan; Susan R Rheingold; Amy D Yamokoski; Dennis Drotar; Eric Kodish
Journal:  Pediatr Blood Cancer       Date:  2012-10-03       Impact factor: 3.167

5.  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

6.  A framework for health numeracy: how patients use quantitative skills in health care.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Mary Ann Gilligan; Toni K King; Purushottam W Laud; B Alexendra Matthews; Joan M Neuner; Elisabeth Hayes
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Cancer patient preferences for quality and length of life.

Authors:  Neal J Meropol; Brian L Egleston; Joanne S Buzaglo; Al B Benson; Donald J Cegala; Michael A Diefenbach; Linda Fleisher; Suzanne M Miller; Daniel P Sulmasy; Kevin P Weinfurt
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Why is recruitment to trials difficult? An investigation into recruitment difficulties in an RCT of supported employment in patients with severe mental illness.

Authors:  Louise Howard; Isabel de Salis; Zelda Tomlin; Graham Thornicroft; Jenny Donovan
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2008-07-31       Impact factor: 2.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.