Stephanie L Pugh1, Joseph P Rodgers2, Katherine A Yeager3, Ronald C Chen4, Benjamin Movsas5, Roseann Bonanni2, James Dignam6, Deborah W Bruner3. 1. NRG Oncology, Statistics and Data Management Center, American College of Radiology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: PughS@NRGOncology.org. 2. NRG Oncology, Statistics and Data Management Center, American College of Radiology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Emory University Hospital, Winship Cancer Institute, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. UNC Hospitals Radiation Oncology Clinic, NC Cancer Hospital, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 5. Henry Ford Cancer Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan. 6. NRG Oncology, Statistics and Data Management Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the reasons why patients do not consent to patient-reported outcome (PRO) and electronic PRO data capture components of clinical trials and potential selection bias by having a separate consent. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Selected NRG Oncology trials were included based on disease site and inclusion of PROs and electronic PRO data capture via VisionTree Optimal Care as separate consent questions. Reasons for not participating were assessed. Pretreatment characteristics between patients who did and did not consent were tested using χ2 and t tests for univariate comparisons and logistic regression for multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Ten trials were selected in head and neck, prostate, gynecologic, breast, lung, and gastrointestinal cancers, with 4 of these trials having electronic PRO data capture. Most patients consented to the PRO component (75.3%) but not electronic PRO data capture (37.8%). More white patients consented to PROs than nonwhite patients across all trials (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.63; P < .001), and more patients with education after high school consented compared with those with less education (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.46-2.02; P < .001). Patients who are younger (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.85; P = .002), white (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.44-0.82; P = .001), and a never or former smoker (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.78; P = .001) are more likely to participate in electronic PRO data capture. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a patient's race, age, and education can affect whether a patient chooses to consent or is offered to participate in PRO or electronic PRO data capture components. More investigation is needed, but this analysis provides support for making PROs integrated in the trial.
PURPOSE: To assess the reasons why patients do not consent to patient-reported outcome (PRO) and electronic PRO data capture components of clinical trials and potential selection bias by having a separate consent. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Selected NRG Oncology trials were included based on disease site and inclusion of PROs and electronic PRO data capture via VisionTree Optimal Care as separate consent questions. Reasons for not participating were assessed. Pretreatment characteristics between patients who did and did not consent were tested using χ2 and t tests for univariate comparisons and logistic regression for multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Ten trials were selected in head and neck, prostate, gynecologic, breast, lung, and gastrointestinal cancers, with 4 of these trials having electronic PRO data capture. Most patients consented to the PRO component (75.3%) but not electronic PRO data capture (37.8%). More white patients consented to PROs than nonwhite patients across all trials (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.63; P < .001), and more patients with education after high school consented compared with those with less education (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.46-2.02; P < .001). Patients who are younger (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.85; P = .002), white (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.44-0.82; P = .001), and a never or former smoker (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.78; P = .001) are more likely to participate in electronic PRO data capture. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that a patient's race, age, and education can affect whether a patient chooses to consent or is offered to participate in PRO or electronic PRO data capture components. More investigation is needed, but this analysis provides support for making PROs integrated in the trial.
Authors: Melissa K Yee; Susan M Sereika; Catherine M Bender; Adam M Brufsky; Mary C Connolly; Margaret Q Rosenzweig Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Himanshu R Lukka; Stephanie L Pugh; Deborah W Bruner; Jean-Paul Bahary; Colleen A F Lawton; Jason A Efstathiou; Rajat J Kudchadker; Lee E Ponsky; Samantha A Seaward; Ian S Dayes; Darindra D Gopaul; Jeff M Michalski; Guila Delouya; Irving D Kaplan; Eric M Horwitz; Mack Roach; Wayne H Pinover; David C Beyer; John O Amanie; Howard M Sandler; Lisa A Kachnic Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Libertad T Flores; Antonia V Bennett; Ethel B Law; Carla Hajj; Mindy P Griffith; Karyn A Goodman Journal: Gastrointest Cancer Res Date: 2012-07
Authors: Ethan Basch; Allison M Deal; Mark G Kris; Howard I Scher; Clifford A Hudis; Paul Sabbatini; Lauren Rogak; Antonia V Bennett; Amylou C Dueck; Thomas M Atkinson; Joanne F Chou; Dorothy Dulko; Laura Sit; Allison Barz; Paul Novotny; Michael Fruscione; Jeff A Sloan; Deborah Schrag Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kimberly M Davis; Scott P Kelly; George Luta; Catherine Tomko; Anthony B Miller; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: Urology Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: P K Møller; H Pappot; U Bernchou; T Schytte; Z V Mortensen; M F Á Brúnni; K B Dieperink Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-12-15
Authors: Kaitlyn Lapen; Christopher Sabol; Amy L Tin; Kathleen Lynch; Alyse Kassa; Xiaolin Mabli; John Ford; Elaine Cha; Michael B Bernstein; Lior Z Braunstein; Oren Cahlon; Bobby M Daly; Kiri Sandler; Susan A McCloskey; Andrew J Vickers; Atif J Khan; Erin F Gillespie Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-07-24 Impact factor: 7.038