Literature DB >> 6702720

Accrual of patients into a multihospital cancer clinical trial and its implications on planning future studies.

J F Martin, W G Henderson, L R Zacharski, F R Rickles, W B Forman, C J Cornell, R J Forcier, R L Edwards, E Headley, S H Kim.   

Abstract

Little information exists on the population of cancer patients from which individual patients are selected for admission to a clinical trial. In fact, most reports of clinical trials of cancer chemotherapeutic agents begin by describing samples of treated patients but neglect to collect data and describe the population from which the samples were taken. In a multi-institutional VA Cooperative Study in which two different cancer treatments were compared, an attempt was made to screen all lung, colorectal, prostate, and head and neck patients seen at participating hospitals prior to randomization to a therapeutic regimen. Of a total of 2687 patients screened, 437 (16.3%) were randomized and 2250 (83.7%) were excluded for 2981 reasons. Protocol reasons were the basis for 68.6% of all exclusions, 21.3% were physician refusals, and 10.1% were patient refusals. The number of patients randomized did not correlate well with number of patients screened across participating centers. Patients admitted to the study tended to be younger and in better health than excluded patients. Overestimates of randomization rates projected initially from published information point to the need for improved screening data in the planning of future studies. Factors such as screening methods, physician acceptance of the experimental approach, number of competing protocols within each center, and cooperation among medical center departments and personnel all are important ingredients in any screening effort.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6702720     DOI: 10.1097/00000421-198404000-00011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0277-3732            Impact factor:   2.339


  5 in total

1.  Subject eligibility criteria can substantially influence the results of alcohol-treatment outcome research.

Authors:  Keith Humphreys; Alex H S Harris; Kenneth R Weingardt
Journal:  J Stud Alcohol Drugs       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.582

2.  Attitude of African-Americans regarding prostate cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  S B Robinson; M Ashley; M A Haynes
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  1996-04

3.  Enhancing decision making about participation in cancer clinical trials: development of a question prompt list.

Authors:  Richard F Brown; Elyse Shuk; Natasha Leighl; Phyllis Butow; Jamie Ostroff; Shawna Edgerson; Martin Tattersall
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  Barriers to therapeutic clinical trials enrollment: differences between African-American and white cancer patients identified at the time of eligibility assessment.

Authors:  Lynne Penberthy; Richard Brown; Maureen Wilson-Genderson; Bassam Dahman; Gordon Ginder; Laura A Siminoff
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2012-10-02       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  Effects of patient selection on the applicability of results from a randomised clinical trial (EORTC 10853) investigating breast-conserving therapy for DCIS.

Authors:  N Bijker; J L Peterse; I S Fentiman; J-P Julien; A A M Hart; A Avril; L Cataliotti; E J T Rutgers
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2002-09-09       Impact factor: 7.640

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.