Primary care physicians and laypersons' perceptions of multicancer detection clinical trial designs.

IF 3.4 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Goli Samimi, Sarah M Temkin, Carol J Weil, Paul K Han, Elyse LeeVan, Wendy S Rubinstein, Tessa Swigart, Sarah Caban, Katherine Dent, Lori M Minasian
{"title":"Primary care physicians and laypersons' perceptions of multicancer detection clinical trial designs.","authors":"Goli Samimi, Sarah M Temkin, Carol J Weil, Paul K Han, Elyse LeeVan, Wendy S Rubinstein, Tessa Swigart, Sarah Caban, Katherine Dent, Lori M Minasian","doi":"10.1093/jncics/pkae084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The National Cancer Institute Cancer Screening Research Network is launching a pilot study (Vanguard) to determine feasibility of successful completion of a clinical trial of multicancer detection tests. This focus group study reports perceptions of primary care physicians and laypersons of different clinical trial designs and willingness to participate in a multicancer detection clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We undertook 14 focus groups with 88 laypersons and 6 focus groups with 45 primary care physicians. Participants were shown graphics of clinical trial designs and asked for their reactions. Focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis of the transcripts were conducted to identify emergent themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Primary care physician and layperson participants recognized the importance of conducting clinical trials to determine the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests. Primary care physicians expressed reluctance to participate in trials because of workload burden, and laypersons expressed hesitancy about enrolling in the control group. Primary care physicians and laypersons expressed concern about a study design in which multicancer detection test results would not be returned to the control group (intended effect), but they respectively indicated a willingness to refer patients to, or participate in, a multicancer detection test clinical trial given transparent and clear communication on collection and use of biospecimens and data, particularly if a multicancer detection test would eventually be run and results eventually returned.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study yielded important insights to guide trial design in planning prospective evaluation of multicancer detection testing. Maintaining transparency and trust while possibly withholding multicancer detection test results to maximize trial feasibility and efficiency is of particular concern.</p>","PeriodicalId":14681,"journal":{"name":"JNCI Cancer Spectrum","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11463188/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JNCI Cancer Spectrum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkae084","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The National Cancer Institute Cancer Screening Research Network is launching a pilot study (Vanguard) to determine feasibility of successful completion of a clinical trial of multicancer detection tests. This focus group study reports perceptions of primary care physicians and laypersons of different clinical trial designs and willingness to participate in a multicancer detection clinical trial.

Methods: We undertook 14 focus groups with 88 laypersons and 6 focus groups with 45 primary care physicians. Participants were shown graphics of clinical trial designs and asked for their reactions. Focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis of the transcripts were conducted to identify emergent themes.

Results: Primary care physician and layperson participants recognized the importance of conducting clinical trials to determine the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests. Primary care physicians expressed reluctance to participate in trials because of workload burden, and laypersons expressed hesitancy about enrolling in the control group. Primary care physicians and laypersons expressed concern about a study design in which multicancer detection test results would not be returned to the control group (intended effect), but they respectively indicated a willingness to refer patients to, or participate in, a multicancer detection test clinical trial given transparent and clear communication on collection and use of biospecimens and data, particularly if a multicancer detection test would eventually be run and results eventually returned.

Conclusion: This study yielded important insights to guide trial design in planning prospective evaluation of multicancer detection testing. Maintaining transparency and trust while possibly withholding multicancer detection test results to maximize trial feasibility and efficiency is of particular concern.

初级保健提供者和普通人对多种癌症检测临床试验设计的看法。
背景:美国国立癌症研究所癌症筛查研究网络正在启动一项试点研究("先锋"),以确定成功完成多重癌症检测(MCD)临床试验的可行性。本焦点小组研究报告了初级保健医生(PCP)和非专业人士对不同临床试验设计的看法,以及参与 MCD 临床试验的意愿:我们与 88 名非专业人士进行了 14 次焦点小组讨论,与 45 名初级保健医生进行了 6 次焦点小组讨论。我们向参与者展示了临床试验设计的图表,并询问他们的反应。我们对焦点小组的录音进行了逐字记录,并对记录进行了主题分析,以确定新出现的主题:结果:初级保健医生和非专业人士参与者认识到开展临床试验以确定 MCD 检测临床效用的重要性。初级保健医生表示由于工作量大而不愿意参加试验,非专业人员则对是否加入对照组表示犹豫。初级保健医生和非专业人士都对 MCD 检测结果不会返回对照组("预期效果")的研究设计表示担忧,但他们分别表示,如果在生物样本和数据的收集与使用方面进行透明、清晰的沟通,尤其是如果最终将进行 MCD 检测并返回检测结果,他们愿意将患者转诊或参与 MCD 检测临床试验:本研究提出了重要的见解,可为规划 MCD 检测前瞻性评估的试验设计提供指导。在可能保留 MCD 检测结果以最大限度地提高试验可行性和效率的同时,保持透明度和信任度尤为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
JNCI Cancer Spectrum Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
80
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信