Carmen Radecki Breitkopf1, Jennifer L Ridgeway2, Gladys B Asiedu2, Katherine Carroll2, Meaghan Tenney3, Aminah Jatoi4. 1. Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA radeckibreitkopf.carmen@mayo.edu. 2. Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Section of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Some of the most promising avenues of cancer clinical investigation center on immunotherapeutic approaches. These approaches have provided notable gains in cancer therapeutics with recent Food and Drug Administration approvals of agents of this class in several types of cancers, although gains for ovarian cancer lag behind. This study examined perceptions of therapeutic trials including immunotherapy and virotherapy among ovarian cancer patients and their family members. METHODS: A total of 72 semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 33 patients and 39 family members at two National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers. Eligible patients were diagnosed with epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma and had experience with clinical trial conversations; family members were nominated by patients and interviewed separately. Applied thematic analysis was used to understand and interpret the data. RESULTS: More participants were aware of vaccine trials than virus trials, although more than half had heard of at least one of them. Initial reactions to vaccine trials were generally favorable. For many, childhood experience with vaccines lent a familiar frame of reference. Virus trials elicited more negative initial reactions, including the use of adjectives such as "scary" and "dreadful." Viruses seemed contagious or difficult to control. Increased receptivity to these trials occurred in the context of limited therapeutic options and cancer recurrence. Most participants, including those not immediately drawn to these types of trials, indicated openness to learning more. CONCLUSION: Although vaccine and viral trials are both immunologically based therapeutic approaches, patients who are offered these trials may perceive their potential benefit and safety quite differently. There is a need to consider terminology, solicit and address "gut reactions," and provide information that enables patients and their family members to better understand the science behind these trials.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Some of the most promising avenues of cancer clinical investigation center on immunotherapeutic approaches. These approaches have provided notable gains in cancer therapeutics with recent Food and Drug Administration approvals of agents of this class in several types of cancers, although gains for ovarian cancer lag behind. This study examined perceptions of therapeutic trials including immunotherapy and virotherapy among ovarian cancerpatients and their family members. METHODS: A total of 72 semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 33 patients and 39 family members at two National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers. Eligible patients were diagnosed with epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma and had experience with clinical trial conversations; family members were nominated by patients and interviewed separately. Applied thematic analysis was used to understand and interpret the data. RESULTS: More participants were aware of vaccine trials than virus trials, although more than half had heard of at least one of them. Initial reactions to vaccine trials were generally favorable. For many, childhood experience with vaccines lent a familiar frame of reference. Virus trials elicited more negative initial reactions, including the use of adjectives such as "scary" and "dreadful." Viruses seemed contagious or difficult to control. Increased receptivity to these trials occurred in the context of limited therapeutic options and cancer recurrence. Most participants, including those not immediately drawn to these types of trials, indicated openness to learning more. CONCLUSION: Although vaccine and viral trials are both immunologically based therapeutic approaches, patients who are offered these trials may perceive their potential benefit and safety quite differently. There is a need to consider terminology, solicit and address "gut reactions," and provide information that enables patients and their family members to better understand the science behind these 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: Stephen M Ansell; Alexander M Lesokhin; Ivan Borrello; Ahmad Halwani; Emma C Scott; Martin Gutierrez; Stephen J Schuster; Michael M Millenson; Deepika Cattry; Gordon J Freeman; Scott J Rodig; Bjoern Chapuy; Azra H Ligon; Lili Zhu; Joseph F Grosso; Su Young Kim; John M Timmerman; Margaret A Shipp; Philippe Armand Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Hossein Borghaei; Luis Paz-Ares; Leora Horn; David R Spigel; Martin Steins; Neal E Ready; Laura Q Chow; Everett E Vokes; Enriqueta Felip; Esther Holgado; Fabrice Barlesi; Martin Kohlhäufl; Oscar Arrieta; Marco Angelo Burgio; Jérôme Fayette; Hervé Lena; Elena Poddubskaya; David E Gerber; Scott N Gettinger; Charles M Rudin; Naiyer Rizvi; Lucio Crinò; George R Blumenschein; Scott J Antonia; Cécile Dorange; Christopher T Harbison; Friedrich Graf Finckenstein; Julie R Brahmer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lucile L Adams-Campbell; Chiledum Ahaghotu; Melvin Gaskins; Fitzroy W Dawkins; Duane Smoot; Octavius D Polk; Robert Gooding; Robert L DeWitty Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marlene Zichi Cohen; Jacquelyn Slomka; Rebecca D Pentz; Anne L Flamm; David Gold; Roy S Herbst; James L Abbruzzese Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Louisa Wall; Zachary Luke Farmer; Margaret White Webb; Margie D Dixon; Ajay Nooka; Rebecca D Pentz Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Gladys B Asiedu; Jennifer L Ridgeway; Katherine Carroll; Aminah Jatoi; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf Journal: Health Expect Date: 2018-04-14 Impact factor: 3.377