BACKGROUND: Uptake of cancer trials and in particular prevention trials has been disappointing globally. METHODS: Uptake to three randomised chemotherapy breast cancer prevention trials and two dietary prevention trials in women at increased familial risk were assessed and compared with uptake of screening trials across a range of risk categories. RESULTS: Uptake of drug prevention trials remains low at 5.3-13.6%, but is significantly higher in the high (12%) compared to very high risk group (8.4%) for IBIS1 and IBIS2 combined (p=0.004). Recruitment to two dietary prevention studies via mail shot was also disappointingly low at 6.2% and 12.5%. In contrast uptake to two mammography screening trials was >90% in all risk categories. CONCLUSIONS: More work must be done to improve recruitment to prevention trials if they are to be seen as viable alternatives to risk reducing surgery. IMPACT: Trial designs and decision aids need to be developed to improve recruitment.
BACKGROUND: Uptake of cancer trials and in particular prevention trials has been disappointing globally. METHODS: Uptake to three randomised chemotherapy breast cancer prevention trials and two dietary prevention trials in women at increased familial risk were assessed and compared with uptake of screening trials across a range of risk categories. RESULTS: Uptake of drug prevention trials remains low at 5.3-13.6%, but is significantly higher in the high (12%) compared to very high risk group (8.4%) for IBIS1 and IBIS2 combined (p=0.004). Recruitment to two dietary prevention studies via mail shot was also disappointingly low at 6.2% and 12.5%. In contrast uptake to two mammography screening trials was >90% in all risk categories. CONCLUSIONS: More work must be done to improve recruitment to prevention trials if they are to be seen as viable alternatives to risk reducing surgery. IMPACT: Trial designs and decision aids need to be developed to improve recruitment.
Authors: Nagi Kumar; Theresa Crocker; Tiffany Smith; Julio Pow-Sang; Philippe E Spiess; Kathleen Egan; Gwen Quinn; Michael Schell; Said Sebti; Aslam Kazi; Tian Chuang; Raoul Salup; Mohamed Helal; Gregory Zagaja; Edouard Trabulsi; Jerry McLarty; Tajammul Fazili; Christopher R Williams; Fred Schreiber; Joel Slaton; J Kyle Anderson Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Richard G Roetzheim; Ji-Hyun Lee; William Fulp; Elizabeth Matos Gomez; Elissa Clayton; Sharon Tollin; Nazanin Khakpour; Christine Laronga; Marie Catherine Lee; John V Kiluk Journal: Breast Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Mary Pegington; Judith E Adams; Nigel J Bundred; Anna M Campbell; Anthony Howell; Sacha J Howell; Shaun Speed; Jane Wolstenholme; Michelle N Harvie Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2017-01-23 Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Holly Keane; Yash S Huilgol; Yiwey Shieh; Jeffrey A Tice; Jeff Belkora; Karen Sepucha; W Patrick Shibley; Tianyi Wang; Mandy Che; Deborah Goodman; Elissa Ozanne; Allison Stover Fiscalini; Laura J Esserman Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2021-06-17
Authors: Yash S Huilgol; Holly Keane; Yiwey Shieh; Robert A Hiatt; Jeffrey A Tice; Lisa Madlensky; Leah Sabacan; Allison Stover Fiscalini; Elad Ziv; Irene Acerbi; Mandy Che; Hoda Anton-Culver; Alexander D Borowsky; Sharon Hunt; Arash Naeim; Barbara A Parker; Laura J van 't Veer; Laura J Esserman Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2021-08-03
Authors: L S Donnelly; D G Evans; J Wiseman; J Fox; R Greenhalgh; J Affen; I Juraskova; P Stavrinos; S Dawe; J Cuzick; A Howell Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: S G Smith; I Sestak; A Forster; A Partridge; L Side; M S Wolf; R Horne; J Wardle; J Cuzick Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-12-08 Impact factor: 32.976