Sahil D. Doshi , Andrea Knezevic , Carlene Gonzalez , Patricia Fischer , Robert Goodman , Suzanne Gornell , Sweta Patel , Cindy Puzio , Alisa Ritea , Chung-Han Lee , Lauren Evans , Martin H. Voss , Robert J. Motzer , Ritesh R. Kotecha
{"title":"Prospective Study of Patient, Nursing, and Oncology Provider Perspectives on Telemedicine Visits for Renal Cell Carcinoma Clinical Trials","authors":"Sahil D. Doshi , Andrea Knezevic , Carlene Gonzalez , Patricia Fischer , Robert Goodman , Suzanne Gornell , Sweta Patel , Cindy Puzio , Alisa Ritea , Chung-Han Lee , Lauren Evans , Martin H. Voss , Robert J. Motzer , Ritesh R. Kotecha","doi":"10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Clinical trials enable renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients to receive promising investigational agents, yet access may be limited. Telemedicine (TM) is an increasingly utilized platform that can expand access, but perspectives on its use in clinical trial care are unknown.</div></div><div><h3>Patients and Methods</h3><div>A prospective study was conducted between Jan 2023 – Oct 2023 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. RCC patients enrolled on therapeutic clinical trials who had prior TM visits were eligible. Surveys in English were distributed to patients, treating clinical trial nurses (CTNs), and oncology providers engaged in clinical trials.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>39 patients, 7 CTNs, and 15 oncology providers were included in our analysis. Regarding clinical trial care, 26 patients (67%) preferred in-person, 4 (11%) preferred TM, and 9 (22%) had no preference. However, 25 patients (64%) reported TM provided an equal quality of care, and 38 (97%) reported a positive or neutral experience. Conversely, 7 CTNs (100%) and 11 providers (73%) preferred in-person care while 4 (27%) indicated no preference. Most, including 6 CTNs (86%) and 13 providers (87%), reported that TM quality of care was inferior. However, most, including 7 CTNs (100%) and 14 providers (93%), reported a positive experience with TM.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In this study, one third of RCC participants preferred TM or had no preference, and a majority felt TM delivered equal quality of care. Providers, however, preferred in-person visits and reported inferior quality of care with TM. These findings warrant further evaluation of safety and feasibility to optimize TM integration for clinical trial care delivery.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10380,"journal":{"name":"Clinical genitourinary cancer","volume":"23 1","pages":"Article 102268"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical genitourinary cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1558767324002386","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
Clinical trials enable renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients to receive promising investigational agents, yet access may be limited. Telemedicine (TM) is an increasingly utilized platform that can expand access, but perspectives on its use in clinical trial care are unknown.
Patients and Methods
A prospective study was conducted between Jan 2023 – Oct 2023 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. RCC patients enrolled on therapeutic clinical trials who had prior TM visits were eligible. Surveys in English were distributed to patients, treating clinical trial nurses (CTNs), and oncology providers engaged in clinical trials.
Results
39 patients, 7 CTNs, and 15 oncology providers were included in our analysis. Regarding clinical trial care, 26 patients (67%) preferred in-person, 4 (11%) preferred TM, and 9 (22%) had no preference. However, 25 patients (64%) reported TM provided an equal quality of care, and 38 (97%) reported a positive or neutral experience. Conversely, 7 CTNs (100%) and 11 providers (73%) preferred in-person care while 4 (27%) indicated no preference. Most, including 6 CTNs (86%) and 13 providers (87%), reported that TM quality of care was inferior. However, most, including 7 CTNs (100%) and 14 providers (93%), reported a positive experience with TM.
Conclusions
In this study, one third of RCC participants preferred TM or had no preference, and a majority felt TM delivered equal quality of care. Providers, however, preferred in-person visits and reported inferior quality of care with TM. These findings warrant further evaluation of safety and feasibility to optimize TM integration for clinical trial care delivery.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Genitourinary Cancer is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes original articles describing various aspects of clinical and translational research in genitourinary cancers. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer is devoted to articles on detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of genitourinary cancers. The main emphasis is on recent scientific developments in all areas related to genitourinary malignancies. Specific areas of interest include clinical research and mechanistic approaches; drug sensitivity and resistance; gene and antisense therapy; pathology, markers, and prognostic indicators; chemoprevention strategies; multimodality therapy; and integration of various approaches.