PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To examine differences in opportunity and eligibility for cancer clinical trial (CCT) participation based on sociodemographic and disease characteristics. . DESIGN: A matched cross-sectional study including a prospective oral questionnaire and retrospective electronic medical record (EMR) review. . SETTING: A single hospital in a large academic National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. . SAMPLE: 44 Black or Hispanic and 44 Non-Hispanic White newly diagnosed individuals matched on cancer type and age (plus or minus five years). . METHODS: Participants answered a questionnaire to capture self-reported opportunity for CCT participation, sociodemographic information, and cancer type. With consent, the authors completed a retrospective review of the EMR to assess eligibility and collect cancer stage and performance status. . MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Opportunity and eligibility for CCT participation. . FINDINGS: Most participants (78%) had no opportunity for participation and were ineligible for all available trials. No differences were noted in opportunity for participation or eligibility based on race or ethnicity. Participants with late-stage disease were more likely to have opportunity and be eligible for CCT participation (p = 0.001). Those with private insurance were less likely to have opportunity for participation (p = 0.05). . CONCLUSIONS: Limited trial availability and ineligibility negatively influenced opportunity for CCT participation for all populations. Levels of under-representation for CCT participation likely vary within and across sociodemographic and disease characteristics, as well as across healthcare settings. . IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: The unique roles of nurse navigators and advanced practice nurses can be leveraged to increase opportunities for CCT participation for all populations.
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To examine differences in opportunity and eligibility for cancer clinical trial (CCT) participation based on sociodemographic and disease characteristics. . DESIGN: A matched cross-sectional study including a prospective oral questionnaire and retrospective electronic medical record (EMR) review. . SETTING: A single hospital in a large academic National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. . SAMPLE: 44 Black or Hispanic and 44 Non-Hispanic White newly diagnosed individuals matched on cancer type and age (plus or minus five years). . METHODS: Participants answered a questionnaire to capture self-reported opportunity for CCT participation, sociodemographic information, and cancer type. With consent, the authors completed a retrospective review of the EMR to assess eligibility and collect cancer stage and performance status. . MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Opportunity and eligibility for CCT participation. . FINDINGS: Most participants (78%) had no opportunity for participation and were ineligible for all available trials. No differences were noted in opportunity for participation or eligibility based on race or ethnicity. Participants with late-stage disease were more likely to have opportunity and be eligible for CCT participation (p = 0.001). Those with private insurance were less likely to have opportunity for participation (p = 0.05). . CONCLUSIONS: Limited trial availability and ineligibility negatively influenced opportunity for CCT participation for all populations. Levels of under-representation for CCT participation likely vary within and across sociodemographic and disease characteristics, as well as across healthcare settings. . IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: The unique roles of nurse navigators and advanced practice nurses can be leveraged to increase opportunities for CCT participation for all populations.
Authors: J G Ford; M W Howerton; S Bolen; T L Gary; G Y Lai; J Tilburt; M C Gibbons; C Baffi; R F Wilson; C J Feuerstein; P Tanpitukpongse; N R Powe; E B Bass Journal: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) Date: 2005-06
Authors: Jean G Ford; Mollie W Howerton; Gabriel Y Lai; Tiffany L Gary; Shari Bolen; M Chris Gibbons; Jon Tilburt; Charles Baffi; Teerath Peter Tanpitukpongse; Renee F Wilson; Neil R Powe; Eric B Bass Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Beth A Virnig; Nancy N Baxter; Elizabeth B Habermann; Roger D Feldman; Cathy J Bradley Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2009 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Justin F Klamerus; Suanna S Bruinooge; Xiaobu Ye; Mandi L Klamerus; Dorothy Damron; Dina Lansey; John C Lowery; Luis A Diaz; Jean G Ford; Norma Kanarek; Charles M Rudin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 12.531
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: Michael S Simon; Wei Du; Lawrence Flaherty; Philip A Philip; Patricia Lorusso; Cheryl Miree; Daryn Smith; Diane R Brown Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-04-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Margaret M Byrne; Stacey L Tannenbaum; Stefan Glück; Judith Hurley; Michael Antoni Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Luis E Gonzalez; Steven K Sutton; Christie Pratt; Matthew Gilbertson; Scott Antonia; Gwendolyn P Quinn Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Sarah B Garrett; Thea M Matthews; Corey M Abramson; Christopher J Koenig; Fay J Hlubocky; Christopher K Daugherty; Pamela N Munster; Daniel Dohan Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2019-10-11
Authors: Yan-Ting Chen; Erik T Valent; Erik H van Beers; Rowan Kuiper; Stefania Oliva; Torsten Haferlach; Wee-Joo Chng; Martin H van Vliet; Pieter Sonneveld; Alessandra Larocca Journal: Int J Lab Hematol Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 3.450
Authors: Andrea N Riner; Selamawit Girma; Vignesh Vudatha; Nitai Mukhopadhyay; Nevena Skoro; Tamas S Gal; Devon C Freudenberger; Kelly M Herremans; Thomas J George; Jose G Trevino Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 50.717