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":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
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.
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.
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.