OBJECTIVE: The Tumor Board (TB) allows for an interdisciplinary approach to cancer treatment designed to encourage evidence-based treatment. However, its role in facilitating clinical trial participation has not been reported. We aimed to determine whether a prospective TB is an effective strategy for trial recruitment and to identify steps within the TB process that facilitate discussion of trial eligibility and optimize accrual. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of women presented to Gynecologic Oncology TB between March and December 2008. Patient demographics, TB recommendations, and post-TB patient discussions were abstracted. These were compared to data derived from the Department of Oncology Research to determine research team awareness of eligible patients and confirm trial enrollment(s). Data analysis was completed with Chi-square test; risk ratios and confidence intervals were calculated as summary measures. RESULTS: We reviewed 1213 case presentations involving 916 women. Overall, 358 TB recommendations (30%) identified eligible patients, of which enrollment consisted of 87 (24%) trials (6% therapeutic trials and 18% non-therapeutic trials). Compared to other types of TB recommendations, those involving trials were discussed less frequently at post-TB patient visits (79% vs. 44%). Documentation of trial discussion at the post-TB visit was more likely to result in trial participation, versus solely relying on the research staff to communicate enrollment eligibility with the treating team (RR 2.5, p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified by the TB were 2.5-times as likely to enroll in a clinical trial, but trials were mentioned only 44% of the time. Interventions that facilitate trial discussions during post-TB meetings are needed to improve trial participation.
OBJECTIVE: The Tumor Board (TB) allows for an interdisciplinary approach to cancer treatment designed to encourage evidence-based treatment. However, its role in facilitating clinical trial participation has not been reported. We aimed to determine whether a prospective TB is an effective strategy for trial recruitment and to identify steps within the TB process that facilitate discussion of trial eligibility and optimize accrual. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of women presented to Gynecologic Oncology TB between March and December 2008. Patient demographics, TB recommendations, and post-TBpatient discussions were abstracted. These were compared to data derived from the Department of Oncology Research to determine research team awareness of eligible patients and confirm trial enrollment(s). Data analysis was completed with Chi-square test; risk ratios and confidence intervals were calculated as summary measures. RESULTS: We reviewed 1213 case presentations involving 916 women. Overall, 358 TB recommendations (30%) identified eligible patients, of which enrollment consisted of 87 (24%) trials (6% therapeutic trials and 18% non-therapeutic trials). Compared to other types of TB recommendations, those involving trials were discussed less frequently at post-TBpatient visits (79% vs. 44%). Documentation of trial discussion at the post-TB visit was more likely to result in trial participation, versus solely relying on the research staff to communicate enrollment eligibility with the treating team (RR 2.5, p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS:Patients identified by the TB were 2.5-times as likely to enroll in a clinical trial, but trials were mentioned only 44% of the time. Interventions that facilitate trial discussions during post-TB meetings are needed to improve trial participation.
Authors: Warren B Sateren; Edward L Trimble; Jeffrey Abrams; Otis Brawley; Nancy Breen; Leslie Ford; Mary McCabe; Richard Kaplan; Malcolm Smith; Richard Ungerleider; Michaele C Christian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-04-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R Chekerov; C Denkert; D Boehmer; A Suesse; A Widing; B Ruhmland; A Giese; A Mustea; W Lichtenegger; J Sehouli Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2007-04-27 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: H A Tejeda; S B Green; E L Trimble; L Ford; J L High; R S Ungerleider; M A Friedman; O W Brawley Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1996-06-19 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Xanthoula Kostaras; Melissa A Shea-Budgell; Emily Malcolm; Jacob C Easaw; Wilson Roa; Neil A Hagen Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: David G Brauer; Matthew S Strand; Dominic E Sanford; Vladimir M Kushnir; Kian-Huat Lim; Daniel K Mullady; Benjamin R Tan; Andrea Wang-Gillam; Ashley E Morton; Marianna B Ruzinova; Parag J Parikh; Vamsi R Narra; Kathryn J Fowler; Majella B Doyle; William C Chapman; Steven S Strasberg; William G Hawkins; Ryan C Fields Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: A Arnaout; I Kuchuk; N Bouganim; G Pond; S Verma; R Segal; S Dent; S Gertler; X Song; F Kanji; M Clemons Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Andrea M Denicoff; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Stephen S Grubbs; Suanna S Bruinooge; Robert L Comis; Peggy Devine; David M Dilts; Michelle E Duff; Jean G Ford; Steven Joffe; Lidia Schapira; Kevin P Weinfurt; Margo Michaels; Derek Raghavan; Ellen S Richmond; Robin Zon; Terrance L Albrecht; Michael A Bookman; Afshin Dowlati; Rebecca A Enos; Mona N Fouad; Marjorie Good; William J Hicks; Patrick J Loehrer; Alan P Lyss; Steven N Wolff; Debra M Wujcik; Neal J Meropol Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Eileen P Dimond; Diane St Germain; Lianne M Nacpil; Howard A Zaren; Sandra M Swanson; Christopher Minnick; Angela Carrigan; Andrea M Denicoff; Kathleen E Igo; Jared D Acoba; Maria M Gonzalez; Worta McCaskill-Stevens Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 2.486