Cooperative group and pharmaceutical sponsored clinical trials: Perceptions of U.S. community oncologists.

Abstract

e13571 Background: Many community-based oncologists in the US participate in clinical trials. These trials largely fall into two categories: trials run by cooperative (co-op) groups, funded and supported by the National Cancer Institute and trials developed, and supported by the pharmaceutical (pharma) industry. This study aimed to assess participation in, and perceptions regarding, co-op versus pharma trials among US community oncologists. Methods: We invited healthcare providers (HCP) across the continental US to attend 4 virtual meetings held between September and November 2020. Participants submitted their demographic information and responses to targeted questions regarding their opinions about co-op- and pharma-sponsored trials via a web-based pre-meeting survey. We evaluated participant HCP practice demographics and survey responses using descriptive statistics. Results: Of 259 surveyed participants, HCPs specialized in hematology-oncology (57%) and medical oncology (40%) with mean (median) 19 (18) years’ clinical experience. Most HCPs (178; 69%) reported participating in clinical research, and of these, 137 (77%) participated in co-op-led and 156 (88%) participated in pharma-led clinical research. HCPs preferred participating in both pharma and co-op (49%), pharma only (22%), and co-op only (11%) trials, while 18% preferred not to participate. Co-op trials were considered more prestigious to lead (86%), less likely to imply a conflict of interest (59%), and to address more pertinent questions (58%), while pharma trials had perceived advantages of better compensation (61%) and superior efficiency (48%). Co-op trials were perceived as not being financially sustainable (69%) and slower to accrue patients (85%) than pharma-led trials. Relatedly, in a hypothetical scenario of competing trials with identical design, the majority (60%) of HCPs preferred enrolling a loved one in a co-op trial. HCPs practicing in facilities with academic affiliation (34%) and in non-academic (66%) settings reported similar perceptions about co-op- and pharma-led trials; though, HCPs in academic settings were more likely to participate in clinical research compared to those in non-academic settings (82% vs. 62% [ P=0.001], respectively). Conclusions: In our survey of experienced HCPs, co-op-led clinical trials were perceived generally more favorably than pharma-led trials, even with concerns regarding cost, feasibility, and slower recruitment. However, despite their preference for co-op trials, HCPs were more likely to participate in pharma-led trials. Almost a third of surveyed HCPs are not participating in clinical trials and a fifth do not wish to. These findings can inform stakeholders (co-op trial leadership, pharma drug development teams, and patient advocacy groups) regarding appropriate education, design, and messaging regarding future clinical trials in oncology.