Time burden and logistical intensity of early-phase clinical trials (EP-CTs).

Abstract

84 Background: EP-CTs are increasingly important options for patients with cancer and often involve intensive monitoring. Thus, characterizing the time burden and logistical intensity of EP-CTs could help patients and clinicians make informed decisions regarding trial participation. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of consecutive patients enrolled in EP-CTs at Massachusetts General Hospital from 2017-2019 to obtain baseline characteristics (demographics and clinical factors), EP-CT investigational agent (immunomodulatory therapy [IM], targeted inhibitor(s) [TI], antibody drug conjugate [ADC]/chemotherapy prodrug), and logistical intensity (trial visit frequency, presence of extended visits, distance traveled in one direction from home zip code to trial site). We defined visit frequency as the number of visits per protocol within the first 28 days on trial. We defined an extended visit as six or more hours in clinic on at least one day during the first 28 days on study. We investigated associations among patient characteristics, investigational agent, and logistical intensity. Results: Among 421 patients (median age=60.6 years, 55.8% female, 97.4% metastatic disease), most (73.6%) had two or more sites of metastatic disease. EP-CTs included 43.2% IM, 43.0% TI, and 13.8% ADC/chemotherapy prodrug. Patients enrolled in ADC/prodrug trials had the highest burden of metastatic disease (mean sites: 2.8 [ADC] vs 2.4 [TI] vs 2.3 [IM], p = 0.007) and oldest age (mean years: 64.0 [ADC] vs 61.7 [IM] vs 58.5 [TI], p = 0.003). Patients enrolled on TI trials had the highest visit frequency compared with those enrolled on other trials (mean visits: 5.5 [TI] vs 5.3 [ADC] vs 5.0 [IM], p = 0.027) and the fewest days spent on trial (mean days: 78.3 [TI] vs 102.2 [IM] vs 131.8 [ADC], p = 0.003). Patients enrolled on TI trials were also most likely to have an extended visit (82.3% [TI] vs 58.2% [IM] vs 29.3% [ADC], p < 0.001) and least likely to receive first in human therapy (38.1% [TI] vs 74.1% [ADC] vs 74.2% [IM], p < 0.001). Distance traveled from home to clinic did not significantly differ across trial type (median miles traveled: 35.1 [TI] vs 34.1 [IM] vs 33.2 [ADC], p = 0.884). Conclusions: In this cohort of patients participating in EP-CTs, we found that a plurality enrolled in IM studies. Those receiving ADC/prodrug regimens were older and had a higher burden of disease. On average, patients participating in EP-CTs had over five visits in the first month, with those enrolled on TI trials having the highest visit frequency and greatest likelihood of extended visits. Patients on TI trials also spent the fewest total days on trial. Despite the lack of significant differences in distance traveled, most patients were still traveling over 30 miles to get to the trial site. These data highlight the time burden and logistical intensity of various EP-CTs, which may help inform patient-clinician discussions about trial participation.