PURPOSE: Cancer clinical trial accrual rates are low, and information about contributing factors is needed. We examined video-recorded clinical interactions to identify circumstances under which patients potentially eligible for a trial at a major cancer center were offered a trial. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative directed content analysis of 62 recorded interactions with physicians (n = 13) and patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer (n = 43). Patients were screened and potentially eligible for a trial. We observed and coded the interactions in 3 steps: (1) classification of all interactions as explicit offer, offer pending, trial discussed/not offered, or trial not discussed; (2) in interactions with no explicit offer, classification of whether the cancer had progressed; (3) in interactions classified as progression but no trial offered, identification of factors discussed that may explain the lack of an offer. RESULTS: Of the 62 interactions, 29% were classified as explicit offer, 12% as offer pending, 18% as trial discussed/not offered, and 39% as trial not discussed. Of those with no offer, 57% included information that the cancer had not progressed. In 68% of the remaining interactions with patients whose cancer had progressed but did not receive an offer, reasons for the lack of offer were identified, but in 32%, no explanation was provided. CONCLUSION: Even in optimal circumstances, few patients were offered a trial, often because their cancer had not progressed. Findings support professional recommendations to broaden trial inclusion criteria. Findings suggest accrual rates should reflect the proportion of eligible patients who enroll.
PURPOSE: Cancer clinical trial accrual rates are low, and information about contributing factors is needed. We examined video-recorded clinical interactions to identify circumstances under which patients potentially eligible for a trial at a major cancer center were offered a trial. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative directed content analysis of 62 recorded interactions with physicians (n = 13) and patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer (n = 43). Patients were screened and potentially eligible for a trial. We observed and coded the interactions in 3 steps: (1) classification of all interactions as explicit offer, offer pending, trial discussed/not offered, or trial not discussed; (2) in interactions with no explicit offer, classification of whether the cancer had progressed; (3) in interactions classified as progression but no trial offered, identification of factors discussed that may explain the lack of an offer. RESULTS: Of the 62 interactions, 29% were classified as explicit offer, 12% as offer pending, 18% as trial discussed/not offered, and 39% as trial not discussed. Of those with no offer, 57% included information that the cancer had not progressed. In 68% of the remaining interactions with patients whose cancer had progressed but did not receive an offer, reasons for the lack of offer were identified, but in 32%, no explanation was provided. CONCLUSION: Even in optimal circumstances, few patients were offered a trial, often because their cancer had not progressed. Findings support professional recommendations to broaden trial inclusion criteria. Findings suggest accrual rates should reflect the proportion of eligible patients who enroll.
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: Charles R Rogers; Michael J Rovito; Musse Hussein; Ogechi Jessica Obidike; Rebekah Pratt; Mark Alexander; Jerica M Berge; Marc Dall'Era; Jeffrey W Nix; Christopher Warlick Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Luther T Clark; Laurence Watkins; Ileana L Piña; Mary Elmer; Ola Akinboboye; Millicent Gorham; Brenda Jamerson; Cassandra McCullough; Christine Pierre; Adam B Polis; Gary Puckrein; Jeanne M Regnante Journal: Curr Probl Cardiol Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 5.200
Authors: Terrance L Albrecht; Susan S Eggly; Marci E J Gleason; Felicity W K Harper; Tanina S Foster; Amy M Peterson; Heather Orom; Louis A Penner; John C Ruckdeschel Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rahel G Ghebre; Lovell A Jones; Jennifer A Wenzel; Michelle Y Martin; Raegan W Durant; Jean G Ford Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David Wendler; Raynard Kington; Jennifer Madans; Gretchen Van Wye; Heidi Christ-Schmidt; Laura A Pratt; Otis W Brawley; Cary P Gross; Ezekiel Emanuel Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2005-12-06 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Joseph M Unger; Riha Vaidya; Dawn L Hershman; Lori M Minasian; Mark E Fleury Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Michael S Simon; Sreejata Raychaudhuri; Lauren M Hamel; Louis A Penner; Kendra L Schwartz; Felicity W K Harper; Hayley S Thompson; Jason C Booza; Michele Cote; Ann G Schwartz; Susan Eggly Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 6.244