Stefanie M Thomas1,2, Jemily Malvar1, Henry Tran3, Jared Shows4, David R Freyer1,2,5. 1. Children's Center for Cancer and Blood Diseases, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Pathology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 4. Department of Pathology, Long Beach Memorial/Miller Children's Hospital, Long Beach, California. 5. Department of Medicine and the University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Poor enrollment of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) (ages 15-39 years) onto cancer clinical trials (CCTs) may contribute to inferior survival gains compared with children. In this study, the authors assessed whether differences in CCT availability would explain lower CCT enrollment for early AYAs (eAYAs) (ages 15-21 years). METHODS: This prospective, observational cohort study was conducted at a single academic children's hospital. For consecutive patients who were newly diagnosed with cancer over a 13-month period, it was determined whether an appropriate CCT existed nationally or was available locally and whether enrollment on that CCT occurred. The proportions of eAYAs versus children in each category were compared using the chi-square test. The impact of age and other factors on enrollment status was assessed using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 216 patients, 58 were eAYAs, and 158 were children. There was no difference in the proportion of eAYAs versus children who had an existing CCT (28 of 58 eAYAs [48.3%] vs 85 of 158 children [53.8%]; P = .47) or an available CCT (23 of 58 eAYAs [39.7%] vs 75 of 158 children [47.5%]; P = .31). However, significantly fewer eAYAs were enrolled when a CCT was available (7 of 23 eAYAs [30.4%] vs 50 of 75 children [67.7%]; P = .002). In multivariable analysis, eAYAs were significantly less likely than children to be enrolled in an available CCT (adjusted odds ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Equal proportions of children and eAYAs had CCTs available, but significantly fewer eAYAs were enrolled. These findings suggest that, for eAYAs, factors other than CCT availability are important enrollment barriers and should be addressed. Cancer 2018;124:983-90.
BACKGROUND: Poor enrollment of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) (ages 15-39 years) onto cancer clinical trials (CCTs) may contribute to inferior survival gains compared with children. In this study, the authors assessed whether differences in CCT availability would explain lower CCT enrollment for early AYAs (eAYAs) (ages 15-21 years). METHODS: This prospective, observational cohort study was conducted at a single academic children's hospital. For consecutive patients who were newly diagnosed with cancer over a 13-month period, it was determined whether an appropriate CCT existed nationally or was available locally and whether enrollment on that CCT occurred. The proportions of eAYAs versus children in each category were compared using the chi-square test. The impact of age and other factors on enrollment status was assessed using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 216 patients, 58 were eAYAs, and 158 were children. There was no difference in the proportion of eAYAs versus children who had an existing CCT (28 of 58 eAYAs [48.3%] vs 85 of 158 children [53.8%]; P = .47) or an available CCT (23 of 58 eAYAs [39.7%] vs 75 of 158 children [47.5%]; P = .31). However, significantly fewer eAYAs were enrolled when a CCT was available (7 of 23 eAYAs [30.4%] vs 50 of 75 children [67.7%]; P = .002). In multivariable analysis, eAYAs were significantly less likely than children to be enrolled in an available CCT (adjusted odds ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Equal proportions of children and eAYAs had CCTs available, but significantly fewer eAYAs were enrolled. These findings suggest that, for eAYAs, factors other than CCT availability are important enrollment barriers and should be addressed. Cancer 2018;124:983-90.
Authors: Helen M Parsons; Linda C Harlan; Susanne Schmidt; Theresa H M Keegan; Charles F Lynch; Erin E Kent; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Stephen M Schwartz; Roland L Chu; Gretchen Keel; Ashley Wilder Smith Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.223
Authors: Jason Canner; Todd A Alonzo; Janet Franklin; David R Freyer; Alan Gamis; Robert B Gerbing; Beverly J Lange; Soheil Meshinchi; William G Woods; John Perentesis; John Horan Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lamia P Barakat; Lisa A Schwartz; Anne Reilly; Janet A Deatrick; Frank Balis Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 2.223
Authors: Lena E Winestone; Kelly D Getz; Pooja Rao; Yimei Li; Matt Hall; Yuan-Shung V Huang; Alix E Seif; Brian T Fisher; Richard Aplenc Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2019-02-07
Authors: Kee Kiat Yeo; Darcy E Burgers; Katelynn Brodigan; Karen Fasciano; A Lindsay Frazier; Katherine E Warren; David A Reardon Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2021-02-18
Authors: Michael E Roth; Joseph M Unger; Ann M O'Mara; Mark A Lewis; Troy Budd; Rebecca H Johnson; Brad H Pollock; Charles Blanke; David R Freyer Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Elizabeth J Siembida; Holli A Loomans-Kropp; Irene Tami-Maury; David R Freyer; Lillian Sung; Howland E Crosswell; Brad H Pollock; Michael E Roth Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2021-03-22
Authors: Elizabeth J Siembida; Holli A Loomans-Kropp; Neha Trivedi; Ann O'Mara; Lillian Sung; Irene Tami-Maury; David R Freyer; Michael Roth Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Helen M Parsons; Dolly C Penn; Qian Li; Rosemary D Cress; Brad H Pollock; Marcio H Malogolowkin; Ted Wun; Theresa H M Keegan Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 3.838