PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of a screening tool to enhance clinical trial participation at a community radiation oncology center involved in a National Cancer Institute-funded disparities program but lacking on-site clinical trials personnel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The screening form was pasted to the front of the charts and filled out for all new patients over the 9-month period of the study, during which time five external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) trials and a patient perception study were open for accrual. Patient consent was obtained by assorted personnel at several different sites. Patients potentially eligible for a trial were identified and approached by one of the clinic staff. Patients who were under- or uninsured, age > 80 years, members of an racial/ethnic minority, or recipients of medical assistance were identified as at risk for health care disparities and were offered patient navigator services. RESULTS: Of 196 patients consulted during the study, 144 were treated with EBRT. Of the 24 patients eligible for EBRT trials, 23 were approached (one had an incomplete screening form), and 15 accepted. Of 77 patients eligible for a patient perception trial, 72 were approached (five had incomplete forms), and 45 accepted. The eligibility and acceptance rates for EBRT trials were similar for disparities and nondisparities patients. Screening was completed for 96 patients (67%). CONCLUSION: When completed, the screening tool ensured clinical trial accrual. The major factor limiting overall accrual was a shortage of available trials.
PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of a screening tool to enhance clinical trial participation at a community radiation oncology center involved in a National Cancer Institute-funded disparities program but lacking on-site clinical trials personnel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The screening form was pasted to the front of the charts and filled out for all new patients over the 9-month period of the study, during which time five external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) trials and a patient perception study were open for accrual. Patient consent was obtained by assorted personnel at several different sites. Patients potentially eligible for a trial were identified and approached by one of the clinic staff. Patients who were under- or uninsured, age > 80 years, members of an racial/ethnic minority, or recipients of medical assistance were identified as at risk for health care disparities and were offered patient navigator services. RESULTS: Of 196 patients consulted during the study, 144 were treated with EBRT. Of the 24 patients eligible for EBRT trials, 23 were approached (one had an incomplete screening form), and 15 accepted. Of 77 patients eligible for a patient perception trial, 72 were approached (five had incomplete forms), and 45 accepted. The eligibility and acceptance rates for EBRT trials were similar for disparities and nondisparities patients. Screening was completed for 96 patients (67%). CONCLUSION: When completed, the screening tool ensured clinical trial accrual. The major factor limiting overall accrual was a shortage of available trials.
Authors: P N Lara; R Higdon; N Lim; K Kwan; M Tanaka; D H Lau; T Wun; J Welborn; F J Meyers; S Christensen; R O'Donnell; C Richman; S A Scudder; J Tuscano; D R Gandara; K S Lam Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J J Dignam; L Colangelo; W Tian; J Jones; R Smith; D L Wickerham; N Wolmark Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-11-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ronald S Go; Kathleen A Frisby; Jennifer A Lee; Michelle A Mathiason; Christine M Meyer; Jodi L Ostern; Sara M Walther; Jonean E Schroeder; Lori A Meyer; Kathryn E Umberger Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Regiane S de Andrade; Julian W Proctor; Susan M Rakfal; E Day Werts; Larry L Schenken; Cheng B Saw; Michael Dougherty; David Stefanik Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Diane St Germain; Andrea M Denicoff; Eileen P Dimond; Angela Carrigan; Rebecca A Enos; Maria M Gonzalez; Kathy Wilkinson; Michelle A Mathiason; Brenda Duggan; Shaun Einolf; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Donna M Bryant; Michael A Thompson; Stephen S Grubbs; Ronald S Go Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-01-14 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Mona N Fouad; Aras Acemgil; Sejong Bae; Andres Forero; Nedra Lisovicz; Michelle Y Martin; Gabriela R Oates; Edward E Partridge; Selwyn M Vickers Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 3.840
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: Rahel G Ghebre; Lovell A Jones; Jennifer A Wenzel; Michelle Y Martin; Raegan W Durant; Jean G Ford Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Caroline Wilson; Leila Rooshenas; Sangeetha Paramasivan; Daisy Elliott; Marcus Jepson; Sean Strong; Alison Birtle; David J Beard; Alison Halliday; Freddie C Hamdy; Rebecca Lewis; Chris Metcalfe; Chris A Rogers; Robert C Stein; Jane M Blazeby; Jenny L Donovan Journal: Trials Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 2.279