PURPOSE: Patients with advanced cancer and oncologists deliberate about early-phase (EP) trials as they consider whether to pursue EP trial enrollment. We have limited information about those deliberations and how they may facilitate or impede trial initiation. This study describes these deliberations and their relationship to trial initiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected longitudinal, ethnographic data on deliberations of patients with advanced cancer at two academic medical centers. We used constant comparative and framework analyses to characterize the deliberative process and its relationship to trial initiation. RESULTS: Of 96 patients with advanced cancer, 26% initiated EP enrollment and 19% joined a trial. Constant comparative analysis revealed two foci of deliberation. Setting the stage focused on patient and physician support for EP trial involvement, including patients' interest in research and oncologists' awareness of trials and assessment of patient fit. Securing a seat focused on eligibility for and entrance to a specific trial and involved trial availability, treatment history, disease progression, and enrollment timing. Patients enrolled in a trial only when both stages could be successfully navigated. CONCLUSION: Ethnographic data revealed two foci of deliberation about EP trial enrollment among patients with advanced cancer. Physician support played a consequential role in both stages, but enrollment also reflected factors beyond the control of any specific individual. Insights from this study, combined with other recent studies of trial enrollment, advance our understanding of the complex process of EP trial accrual and may help identify strategies to improve rates of participation.
PURPOSE:Patients with advanced cancer and oncologists deliberate about early-phase (EP) trials as they consider whether to pursue EP trial enrollment. We have limited information about those deliberations and how they may facilitate or impede trial initiation. This study describes these deliberations and their relationship to trial initiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected longitudinal, ethnographic data on deliberations of patients with advanced cancer at two academic medical centers. We used constant comparative and framework analyses to characterize the deliberative process and its relationship to trial initiation. RESULTS: Of 96 patients with advanced cancer, 26% initiated EP enrollment and 19% joined a trial. Constant comparative analysis revealed two foci of deliberation. Setting the stage focused on patient and physician support for EP trial involvement, including patients' interest in research and oncologists' awareness of trials and assessment of patient fit. Securing a seat focused on eligibility for and entrance to a specific trial and involved trial availability, treatment history, disease progression, and enrollment timing. Patients enrolled in a trial only when both stages could be successfully navigated. CONCLUSION: Ethnographic data revealed two foci of deliberation about EP trial enrollment among patients with advanced cancer. Physician support played a consequential role in both stages, but enrollment also reflected factors beyond the control of any specific individual. Insights from this study, combined with other recent studies of trial enrollment, advance our understanding of the complex process of EP trial accrual and may help identify strategies to improve rates of participation.
Authors: Laura B Dunn; Jim Wiley; Sarah Garrett; Fay Hlubocky; Christopher Daugherty; Laura Trupin; Pamela Munster; Daniel Dohan Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Howard A Zaren; Suresh Nair; Ronald S Go; Rebecca A Enos; Keith S Lanier; Michael A Thompson; Jinxiu Zhao; Deborah L Fleming; John C Leighton; Thomas E Gribbin; Donna M Bryant; Angela Carrigan; Jennifer C Corpening; Kimberly A Csapo; Eileen P Dimond; Christie Ellison; Maria M Gonzalez; Jodi L Harr; Kathy Wilkinson; Andrea M Denicoff Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Edward S Kim; Suanna S Bruinooge; Samantha Roberts; Gwynn Ison; Nancy U Lin; Lia Gore; Thomas S Uldrick; Stuart M Lichtman; Nancy Roach; Julia A Beaver; Rajeshwari Sridhara; Paul J Hesketh; Andrea M Denicoff; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Eric Rubin; Pratik Multani; Tatiana M Prowell; Caroline Schenkel; Marina Kozak; Jeff Allen; Ellen Sigal; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeremy Ho; Gregory R Pond; Colin Newman; Martha Maclean; Eric X Chen; Amit M Oza; Lillian L Siu Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2006-11-08 Impact factor: 4.430