PURPOSE: Low enrolment rates in clinical trials present a barrier to the development of novel cancer therapies. Currently, only 3% of patients with cancer participate, and many studies fail to achieve necessary enrolment. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a screening intervention to identify potentially eligible patients (PEPs) would increase accrual rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Over a 4-month intervention period, PEPs for 21 phase II-IV breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecology, and lung cancer trials were identified by a screening coordinator. This individual reviewed the electronic medical records of patients attending outpatient clinics and flagged PEPs for 10 medical oncologists at the BC Cancer Agency. Patients who were already documented to be trial eligible by physicians were not flagged. Oncologists were surveyed regarding the helpfulness and accuracy of the intervention. RESULTS: During the intervention period, 73 patients were enrolled, compared with 61 patients enrolled in the 4 months prior and 51 patients in the 4 months after. A total of 2,098 charts were reviewed, and 120 PEPs were identified during the intervention period, resulting in 19 PEPs who enrolled and four PEPs who declined a clinical trial. Relative accrual rates adjusted for oncologist appointments were 0.85 (P = .15) before and 0.70 (P < .005) after, relative to the intervention period. Oncologist-returned surveys indicated that 67% of flags were helpful, and 70% were accurate. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, manually screening patient records increased enrolment to specific clinical trials. A screening intervention process, involving a dedicated screening coordinator, should be considered to improve clinical trial accrual.
PURPOSE: Low enrolment rates in clinical trials present a barrier to the development of novel cancer therapies. Currently, only 3% of patients with cancer participate, and many studies fail to achieve necessary enrolment. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a screening intervention to identify potentially eligible patients (PEPs) would increase accrual rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Over a 4-month intervention period, PEPs for 21 phase II-IV breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecology, and lung cancer trials were identified by a screening coordinator. This individual reviewed the electronic medical records of patients attending outpatient clinics and flagged PEPs for 10 medical oncologists at the BC Cancer Agency. Patients who were already documented to be trial eligible by physicians were not flagged. Oncologists were surveyed regarding the helpfulness and accuracy of the intervention. RESULTS: During the intervention period, 73 patients were enrolled, compared with 61 patients enrolled in the 4 months prior and 51 patients in the 4 months after. A total of 2,098 charts were reviewed, and 120 PEPs were identified during the intervention period, resulting in 19 PEPs who enrolled and four PEPs who declined a clinical trial. Relative accrual rates adjusted for oncologist appointments were 0.85 (P = .15) before and 0.70 (P < .005) after, relative to the intervention period. Oncologist-returned surveys indicated that 67% of flags were helpful, and 70% were accurate. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, manually screening patient records increased enrolment to specific clinical trials. A screening intervention process, involving a dedicated screening coordinator, should be considered to improve clinical trial accrual.
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: Anneke T Schroen; Gina R Petroni; Hongkun Wang; Monika J Thielen; Robert Gray; Jacqueline Benedetti; Xiaofei F Wang; Daniel J Sargent; Donald L Wickerham; Walter Cronin; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Craig L Slingluff Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ari Umutyan; Christine Chiechi; Laurel A Beckett; Debora A Paterniti; Corinne Turrell; David R Gandara; Sharon W Davis; Ted Wun; Moon S Chen; Primo N Lara Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: V Jenkins; D Farewell; L Batt; T Maughan; L Branston; C Langridge; L Parlour; V Farewell; L Fallowfield Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Nancy J Preston; Morag C Farquhar; Catherine E Walshe; Clare Stevinson; Gail Ewing; Lynn A Calman; Sorrel Burden; Christine Brown Wilson; Jane B Hopkinson; Chris Todd Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-02-29
Authors: Jenny J Xiang; Alicia Roy; Christine Summers; Monica Delvy; Jessica O'Donovan; John Christensen; Christopher Dwy; Lydia Perry; Donna Connery; Michal G Rose; Kelsey Sheehan; Herta H Chao Journal: JTO Clin Res Rep Date: 2022-06-08
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: Tufia Haddad; Jane M Helgeson; Katharine E Pomerleau; Anita M Preininger; M Christopher Roebuck; Irene Dankwa-Mullan; Gretchen Purcell Jackson; Matthew P Goetz Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2021-03-26
Authors: Carma L Bylund; Margo Michaels; Elisa S Weiss; Shilpa Patel; Thomas A D'Agostino; Maria Christina Binz-Scharf; Diane McKee Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 1.771