Unpacking Trial Offers and Low Accrual Rates: A Qualitative Analysis of Clinic Visits With Physicians and Patients Potentially Eligible for a Prostate Cancer Clinical Trial.

Q1 Nursing
Journal of Oncology Practice Pub Date : 2020-02-01 Epub Date: 2019-12-02 DOI:10.1200/JOP.19.00444
Lauren M Hamel, David W Dougherty, Terrance L Albrecht, Mark Wojda, Alice Jordan, Tanina F Moore, Nicole Senft, Michael Carducci, Elisabeth I Heath, Mark A Manning, Louis A Penner, Seongho Kim, Susan Eggly
{"title":"Unpacking Trial Offers and Low Accrual Rates: A Qualitative Analysis of Clinic Visits With Physicians and Patients Potentially Eligible for a Prostate Cancer Clinical Trial.","authors":"Lauren M Hamel, David W Dougherty, Terrance L Albrecht, Mark Wojda, Alice Jordan, Tanina F Moore, Nicole Senft, Michael Carducci, Elisabeth I Heath, Mark A Manning, Louis A Penner, Seongho Kim, Susan Eggly","doi":"10.1200/JOP.19.00444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":54273,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oncology Practice","volume":"1 1","pages":"e124-e131"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7587411/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Oncology Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.19.00444","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/12/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

开箱试验提供和低应计率:有资格参加前列腺癌临床试验的医生和患者的临床访问的定性分析。
癌症临床试验应计率较低,需要有关影响因素的信息。我们检查了视频记录的临床互动,以确定在哪些情况下患者可能有资格在主要癌症中心进行试验。方法对62例与医生(n = 13)和中高危前列腺癌患者(n = 43)的互动记录进行定性定向内容分析。患者经过筛选,可能有资格参加试验。我们分三个步骤观察和编码交互作用:(1)将所有交互作用分类为明确要约、未决要约、讨论/未讨论审判或未讨论审判;(2)在没有明确提议的互动中,对癌症是否进展进行分类;(3)在被归类为进展但未提供试验的相互作用中,确定可能解释缺乏试验的讨论因素。结果在62次互动中,29%为明确要约,12%为要约待定,18%为试验讨论/未提出,39%为试验未讨论。在那些没有接受治疗的患者中,57%的人表示癌症没有进展。在剩下的与癌症进展但没有得到治疗方案的患者的互动中,68%的人确定了缺乏治疗方案的原因,但32%的人没有提供任何解释。结论:即使在最佳情况下,很少有患者接受临床试验,通常是因为他们的癌症没有进展。研究结果支持拓宽试验纳入标准的专业建议。研究结果表明,应计率应反映入组的符合条件的患者比例。
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
Journal of Oncology Practice
Journal of Oncology Practice Nursing-Oncology (nursing)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Journal of Oncology Practice (JOP) provides necessary information and insights to keep oncology practice current on changes and challenges inherent in delivering quality oncology care. All content dealing with understanding the provision of care—the mechanics of practice—is the purview of JOP. JOP also addresses an expressed need of practicing physicians to have compressed, expert opinion addressing common clinical problems.
×
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