Literature DB >> 16943531

Impact of a multi-disciplinary patient education session on accrual to a difficult clinical trial: the Toronto experience with the surgical prostatectomy versus interstitial radiation intervention trial.

Kris Wallace1, Neil Fleshner, Michael Jewett, Joan Basiuk, Juanita Crook.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Random assignment to clinical trials involving different treatment modalities can be difficult. We describe our experience with the Surgical Prostatectomy Versus Interstitial Radiation Intervention Trial (SPIRIT; ACOSOG Z0070 NCIC PR10), a randomized trial for early-stage prostate cancer comparing radical prostatectomy (RP), and brachytherapy (BT). A multidisciplinary educational session was developed to improve patient understanding of treatment options and to facilitate accrual. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prostate cancer referrals were screened and men who met favorable risk criteria (T1c/T2a, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] < 10 ng/mL, Gleason < or = 6) were invited to a structured education session before a specialty consultation. Men and their partners viewed the SPIRIT informed-consent video and heard from a cancer patient who described his participation in a randomized trial. Then, a urologist and radiation oncologist together compared and contrasted RP and BT to establish the rationale for the trial.
RESULTS: In May 2002, SPIRIT opened for accrual and was endorsed by the University Health Network urologists and radiation oncologists. The first 27 eligible patients were approached about SPIRIT, consulted both specialties, and viewed an educational video. No patients consented. The multidisciplinary education session was then introduced. Forty-seven education sessions with 263 patients resulted in 34 consents. Of 203 patients who were suitable for the study but declined random assignment, 62 chose surgery, 94 chose brachytherapy, three patients chose external radiotherapy, and 11 chose no treatment. Consent rates for eligible and suitable patients were one in six.
CONCLUSION: Men who understand their treatment options and trial rationale as presented jointly by representative specialists from competing treatment modalities may be better equipped to make an informed decision and are more likely to consent to random assignment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16943531     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.3875

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


  28 in total

1.  Knife or needles? A cohort analysis of outcomes after radical prostatectomy or brachytherapy for men with low- or intermediate-risk adenocarcinoma of the prostate.

Authors:  Christine M Fisher; Patricia Troncoso; David A Swanson; Mark F Munsell; Deborah A Kuban; Andrew K Lee; Shih-Fan Yeh; Steven J Frank
Journal:  Brachytherapy       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 2.362

2.  Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy and surgery: two gold standards for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer?

Authors:  Hanbo Chen; Alexander V Louie
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2015-06

3.  A comparative study of radical prostatectomy and permanent seed brachytherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Daniel Taussky; Véronique Ouellet; Guila Delouya; Fred Saad
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.862

4.  Primary treatments for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comprehensive lifetime cost-utility analysis.

Authors:  Matthew R Cooperberg; Naren R Ramakrishna; Steven B Duff; Kathleen E Hughes; Sara Sadownik; Joseph A Smith; Ashutosh K Tewari
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Analysis of Factors Affecting Successful Clinical Trial Enrollment in the Context of Three Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Jennifer K Logan; Chad Tang; Zhongxing Liao; J Jack Lee; John V Heymach; Stephen G Swisher; James W Welsh; Jianjun Zhang; Steven H Lin; Daniel R Gomez
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2016-11-27       Impact factor: 7.038

6.  What leads Indians to participate in clinical trials? A meta-analysis of qualitative studies.

Authors:  Jatin Y Shah; Amruta Phadtare; Dimple Rajgor; Meenakshi Vaghasia; Shreyasee Pradhan; Hilary Zelko; Ricardo Pietrobon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-05-20       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Impact of a clinical trial initiative on clinical trial enrollment in a multidisciplinary prostate cancer clinic.

Authors:  Lydia T Madsen; Deborah A Kuban; Seungtaek Choi; John W Davis; Jeri Kim; Andrew K Lee; Delora Domain; Larry Levy; Louis L Pisters; Curtis A Pettaway; John F Ward; Christopher Logothetis; Karen E Hoffman
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 11.908

Review 8.  The comparative oncologic effectiveness of available management strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Mark D Tyson; David F Penson; Matthew J Resnick
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 3.498

9.  Using a population-based observational cohort study to address difficult comparative effectiveness research questions: the CEASAR study.

Authors:  Daniel A Barocas; Vivien Chen; Matthew Cooperberg; Michael Goodman; John J Graff; Sheldon Greenfield; Ann Hamilton; Karen Hoffman; Sherrie Kaplan; Tatsuki Koyama; Alicia Morgans; Lisa E Paddock; Sharon Phillips; Matthew J Resnick; Antoinette Stroup; Xiao-Cheng Wu; David F Penson
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.744

10.  The relationships among knowledge, self-efficacy, preparedness, decisional conflict, and decisions to participate in a cancer clinical trial.

Authors:  S M Miller; S V Hudson; B L Egleston; S Manne; J S Buzaglo; K Devarajan; L Fleisher; J Millard; N Solarino; J Trinastic; N J Meropol
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2012-02-14       Impact factor: 3.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.