Mina S Sedrak1, Supriya G Mohile2, Virginia Sun3, Can-Lan Sun4, Bihong T Chen5, Daneng Li6, Andrew R Wong6, Kevin George6, Simran Padam6, Jennifer Liu6, Vani Katheria6, William Dale4. 1. Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, United States of America. Electronic address: msedrak@coh.org. 2. Department of Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States of America. 3. Department of Population Science, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, United States of America. 4. Department of Supportive Care Medicine, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, United States of America. 5. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, United States of America. 6. Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte, CA, United States of America.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Oncologists can be one of the major barriers to older adult's participation in research. Multiple studies have described academic clinicians' concerns for not enrolling older adults onto trials. Although the majority of older adults receive their cancer care in the community, few studies have examined the unique challenges that community oncologists face and how they differ from oncologist-related barriers in academia. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone or face-to-face with 44 medical oncologists (24 academic-based and 20 community-based) at City of Hope from March to June 2018. Interviews explored oncologists' perceptions of barriers to clinical trial enrollment of older adults with cancer. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Of the 44 participants, 36% were women and 68% were in practice for >10 years. Among the entire sample, stringent eligibility criteria (n = 20) and oncologist concerns for treatment toxicities (n = 15) were the most commonly cited barriers. Compared to academic oncologists, community oncologists more often cited patient attitudes, beliefs, and understanding (n = 9 vs. n = 2) and caregiver burden (n = 6 vs. n = 0). In contrast, compared to community oncologists, academic oncologists more often cited oncologist bias (n = 10 vs. n = 3) and insufficient time/support (n = 4 vs. n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in perceptions among academic and community oncologists about trials suggest that barriers are multifaceted, complex, and vary by practice setting. Interventions to increase trial accrual among older adults with cancer may benefit from being tailored to address the unique barriers of different practice settings.
OBJECTIVES: Oncologists can be one of the major barriers to older adult's participation in research. Multiple studies have described academic clinicians' concerns for not enrolling older adults onto trials. Although the majority of older adults receive their cancer care in the community, few studies have examined the unique challenges that community oncologists face and how they differ from oncologist-related barriers in academia. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone or face-to-face with 44 medical oncologists (24 academic-based and 20 community-based) at City of Hope from March to June 2018. Interviews explored oncologists' perceptions of barriers to clinical trial enrollment of older adults with cancer. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Of the 44 participants, 36% were women and 68% were in practice for >10 years. Among the entire sample, stringent eligibility criteria (n = 20) and oncologist concerns for treatment toxicities (n = 15) were the most commonly cited barriers. Compared to academic oncologists, community oncologists more often cited patient attitudes, beliefs, and understanding (n = 9 vs. n = 2) and caregiver burden (n = 6 vs. n = 0). In contrast, compared to community oncologists, academic oncologists more often cited oncologist bias (n = 10 vs. n = 3) and insufficient time/support (n = 4 vs. n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in perceptions among academic and community oncologists about trials suggest that barriers are multifaceted, complex, and vary by practice setting. Interventions to increase trial accrual among older adults with cancer may benefit from being tailored to address the unique barriers of different practice settings.
Authors: Gretchen G Kimmick; Bercedis L Peterson; Alice B Kornblith; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Jeffrey L Johnson; Judith Wheeler; Robin Heinze; Harvey J Cohen; Hyman B Muss Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Supriya G Mohile; Arti Hurria; Harvey J Cohen; Julia H Rowland; Corinne R Leach; Neeraj K Arora; Beverly Canin; Hyman B Muss; Allison Magnuson; Marie Flannery; Lisa Lowenstein; Heather G Allore; Karen M Mustian; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Martine Extermann; Betty Ferrell; Sharon K Inouye; Stephanie A Studenski; William Dale Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Alice B Kornblith; Margaret Kemeny; Bercedis L Peterson; Judith Wheeler; Jeffrey Crawford; Nancy Bartlett; Gini Fleming; Stephen Graziano; Hyman Muss; Harvey Jay Cohen Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-09-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Arti Hurria; William Dale; Margaret Mooney; Julia H Rowland; Karla V Ballman; Harvey J Cohen; Hyman B Muss; Richard L Schilsky; Betty Ferrell; Martine Extermann; Kenneth E Schmader; Supriya G Mohile Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Carol A Townsley; Kelvin K Chan; Gregory R Pond; Christine Marquez; Lillian L Siu; Sharon E Straus Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2006-02-08 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: C Baldini; E Charton; E Schultz; L Auroy; A Italiano; M Robert; E Coquan; N Isambert; P Moreau; S Le Gouill; C Le Tourneau; Z Ghrieb; J J Kiladjian; J P Delord; C Gomez Roca; N Vey; F Barlesi; T Lesimple; N Penel; J C Soria; C Massard; S Besle Journal: ESMO Open Date: 2022-05-06
Authors: Maeve A Hennessy; Munzir Hamid; Niamh M Keegan; Lynda Corrigan; Caitriona Goggin; Nay Myo Oo; Marie Carrigan; David Mockler; Anita O'Donovan; Anne M Horgan Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Lindsay C Kobayashi; Ashly C Westrick; Aalap Doshi; Katrina R Ellis; Carly R Jones; Elizabeth LaPensee; Alison M Mondul; Megan A Mullins; Lauren P Wallner Journal: Cancer Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Mina S Sedrak; Rachel A Freedman; Harvey J Cohen; Hyman B Muss; Aminah Jatoi; Heidi D Klepin; Tanya M Wildes; Jennifer G Le-Rademacher; Gretchen G Kimmick; William P Tew; Kevin George; Simran Padam; Jennifer Liu; Andrew R Wong; Andrea Lynch; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Supriya G Mohile; William Dale Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Marie A Flannery; Eva Culakova; Beverly E Canin; Luke Peppone; Erika Ramsdale; Supriya G Mohile Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 44.544