Participation In Oncology Clinical Trials Research Articles

Abstract A078: Exploring the unexplored: Clinical trial investigator perspectives of disparities in racial/ethnic minority participation in oncology clinical trials

Abstract Purpose: Thirty years after the NIH Revitalization Act, racial/ethnic minority (REM) patients continue to be underrepresented in oncology clinical trials with disproportionately low rates of participation compared to non-Hispanic whites. Health system, patient, and medical provider factors contribute to this disparity. However, little is known about clinical trial investigator perspectives of REM participation in oncology clinical trials and their contribution to this disparity. To our knowledge there are no published quantitative studies that have investigated this important and actionable topic. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, anonymous, pilot survey of medical, radiation, and surgical oncology clinical trial investigators at a large academic center. Over a 5-week period, 107 individuals received a survey. The survey assessed 6 domains regarding disparities in REM participation in clinical trials: investigator knowledge, attitudes, and prior training on the topic, self-efficacy and motivation for improvement in addressing known disparities, and perceived barriers to REM participation in clinical trials. Modified, previously validated items were used when possible. Results: Of 60 respondents (56% response rate), 33 were male (55%). Thirty-six identified as non-Hispanic white (60%), 16 as Asian (27%), 1 as Hispanic/Latinx (2%), and 7 as other/prefer not to state (11%). Respondents included 49 medical (82%), 7 surgical (11%), and 4 radiation oncologists (7%). Average time as a clinical trial investigator was 14 years (2-40). Respondents opened an average of 2 clinical trials as primary investigator in the past year (0-10). A majority (83%) strongly agreed disparities exist in REM clinical trial participation and that the resulting lack of diversity is problematic (75%). However, only 34% strongly agreed they consider ways to achieve racial/ethnic diversity among trial participants when designing clinical trials, or ways to specifically enroll REM patients (28%). Respondents most commonly cited patient rather than health system factors as barriers to REM participation in clinical trials. Notably, nearly half (45%) agreed that lack of REM participation is a problem they cannot directly address. A majority (83%) endorsed wanting to improve their consideration of barriers to REM participation as they design clinical trials and wanted help to improve (86%). Conclusion: Our results suggest there is awareness among clinical trial investigators at our academic center of disparities in REM participation in oncology clinical trials and the problem this poses to cancer care. There is also a pervasive view that primary barriers to REM participation are patient factors, and investigators do not feel they can directly address these. Nonetheless, there is motivation among investigators to improve in their ability to consider barriers to REM participation as they design clinical trials. Interventions that improve investigators’ self-efficacy for addressing barriers to REM participation in clinical trials, especially patient level barriers, are needed. Citation Format: Natalie P. Bransky, Anne M. Walling, John A. Glaspy, Maria Garcia-Jimenez. Exploring the unexplored: Clinical trial investigator perspectives of disparities in racial/ethnic minority participation in oncology clinical trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 16th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2023 Sep 29-Oct 2;Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(12 Suppl):Abstract nr A078.

One size does not fit all: Clinical trial investigator perspectives of disparities in racial/ethnic minority participation in oncology clinical trials.

108 Background: Thirty years after the NIH Revitalization Act, racial/ethnic minority (REM) patients remain underrepresented in oncology clinical trials. Little is known about clinical trial investigator perspectives of REM participation in clinical trials. To our knowledge no published studies exist assessing differences in investigator perspectives based on their primary role in the clinical trial process. We hypothesized that differences exist in investigator perspectives regarding REM participation in oncology clinical trials based on having a more design-oriented (principal (PI)/co-investigator (co-I)) or recruitment-oriented role (sub-investigator (sub-I)). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, anonymous, pilot survey of oncology clinical trial investigators at an academic center. Over 5 weeks, 107 individuals received a survey assessing 6 domains about disparities in REM participation in clinical trials, including knowledge, attitudes, and prior training. Modified, previously validated items were used if possible. We performed a subset analysis of mid- and late-career investigators (>/= 10 years of experience) comparing those who opened at least 1 clinical trial in the past year as PI or co-I to those who did not (sub-I). Results: There were 60 respondents (56% response rate). Average time as a clinical trialist was 14 years (2-40). Average number of trials opened in the last year as PI/co-I was 4 (1-30). Among all respondents, 83% strongly agreed disparities exist in REM clinical trial participation and that lack of diversity is problematic (75%). Notably, 45% agreed this is a problem they cannot directly address. Among mid- and late-career investigators, those who opened at least 1 trial as PI/co-I were more likely to have received training about barriers/facilitators (OR=3.56; 95% CI=1.05, 12.04; p=.04) to REM clinical trial participation and about strategies for improving participation (OR=3.75; 95% CI=1.06, 13.29; p=.04). Despite this, they were more likely to endorse wanting help to improve in this area (OR=4.95; 95% CI=1.17, 21.02; p=.03). Conclusions: Our results suggest there is awareness among clinical trial investigators of disparities in REM clinical trial participation, but investigators do not feel they can directly address these. Investigators who are more involved in clinical trial design are more likely to want help to improve their ability to address disparities in REM trial participation despite being more likely to have received prior training on the topic. Our findings suggest training alone is inadequate support for investigators involved in designing clinical trials. More studies eliciting the needs of investigators with varying roles in the clinical trial process are needed to inform targeted interventions to enhance investigators’ self-efficacy for improving REM participation in clinical trials.

Racial and Ethnic Inequities in US Oncology Clinical Trial Participation From 2017 to 2022

There is increasing recognition from regulatory agencies that racial and ethnic representation in clinical trials is inadequate and linked to health inequities. The extent of racial inequities in clinical trial participation is unclear because prior studies have synthesized enrollment data from published trials, which often do not report participant race and ethnicity. To evaluate racial and ethnic inequities in oncology clinical trial participation in a contemporary cohort of patients with cancer before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cohort study used a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database, which includes data for approximately 280 US cancer clinics (approximately 800 sites of care). The study included Latinx, non-Latinx Black (hereinafter, Black), and non-Latinx White (reference; hereinafter, White) patients aged 18 years or older who had been diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, metastatic colorectal cancer, metastatic breast cancer, multiple myeloma, or metastatic pancreatic cancer between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2022 (follow-up through December 31, 2022). Data analysis was performed between August 1, 2022, and February 7, 2023. Electronic health record-documented race and ethnicity. The main outcome was oncology trial participation (ie, receipt of a clinical study drug). Stratified cause-specific hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for likelihood of participation. Participation was assessed overall, by cancer type, and by period of diagnosis (2017-2019 vs 2020-2022). Of the 50 411 patients in this study, 28 878 (57.3%) were women and 21 533 (42.7%) were men. Black and Latinx patients were younger than White patients, with a median age of 65 (IQR, 57-72), 64 (IQR, 54-73), and 68 (IQR, 60-76) years, respectively. Oncology trial participation was lower among Black patients (307 of 6912 [4.4%]) and Latinx patients (166 of 3973 [4.2%]) relative to White patients (2858 of 39 526 [7.2%]) over the entire study period. Inequities in participation were observed across the 5 cancer types studied, with notably large inequities observed among Black patients (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.36-0.81]) and Latinx patients (HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.27-0.77]) with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Moreover, inequities between Black and White patients in terms of participation widened among those diagnosed in the COVID-19 era (2020-2022: HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.40-0.60] vs 1.00 [95% CI, 0.93-1.09]) relative to those diagnosed before the pandemic (2017-2019: HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.53-0.70] vs 1 [reference]). The findings of this cohort study suggest that oncology trial participation was lower among Black and Latinx patients relative to White patients across all 5 cancer types examined. These findings, including potentially widening inequities in the COVID-19 era, support the need for regulatory guidance to improve enrollment of participants from historically excluded racial and ethnic populations in clinical trials.

Abstract OT2-21-01: Assessing Response to neoadjuvant Taxotere and TrAstuzumab in Nigerian women with HER2-positive breast cancer (ARETTA)

Abstract Background: Populations of African ancestry are underrepresented in global oncology clinical trials resulting in paucity of data on safety and efficacy of cancer medicines in vulnerable Black populations. The ARETTA clinical trial was initiated by the Nigerian Breast Cancer Study Team in partnership with the University of Chicago Comprehensive Cancer Center to build local capacity for biomarker informed clinical trials and translational breast cancer research. ARETTA is a pragmatic single-arm, phase II clinical trial to optimize therapy and determine the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant taxotere and trastuzumab in women with HER2-positive breast cancer. The study sought to 1) determine the pathological complete response (pCR) rate of patients with early stage breast cancer to neoadjuvant docetaxel and subcutaneous trastusumab 2) develop the capacity of investigators in Nigeria to improve quality of care through participation in oncology clinical trials using upgraded facilities and trained personnel and 3) determine accrual rate and retention of participants. Methods: Inclusion criteria include treatment naïve women aged 18 years to 70 years with HER-2 positive breast cancer stages II-IIIC (AJCC). Eligible participants receive four cycles of docetaxel 75mg/m2 and trastuzumab every 3 weeks. Those with incomplete clinical response by breast ultrasound volume measurements receive 3 additional cycles of chemotherapy; cyclophosphamide 600mg/m2, epirubicin 90mg/m2 and 5-fluorouracil 600mg/m2 every 3 weeks before re-evaluation for surgery. All participants receive a fixed dose of sub-cutaneous Herceptin (600mg) every 3 weeks (total of 18 doses). The primary endpoint is pCR rate. Secondary objectives are to evaluate invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), the pattern of response and mechanisms of resistance to treatment based on genomic markers, the pharmacokinetics of Herceptin SC, quality of life, and adverse event rates, including cardiac toxicity. Planned enrollment is 47 evaluable patients, which will provide 90% power to test the null hypothesis that the pCR rate is 20% versus a 40% alternative (one-sided alpha=0.05). More protocol details can be found at ClinicalTRial.gov NCT03879577 and JCO Glob Oncol2020 doi: 10.1200/GO.20.00043 Progress: The study has met its primary endpoint and will be closed to accrual by the time of the meeting. Results will be submitting as Late Breaking before the meeting Citation Format: Atara Ntekim, Adenike Adeniji-Sofoluwe, Abiola Ibraheem, Anthonia Sowunmi, Ayorinde Folasire, Thomas Olajide, Olalekan Olasehinde, Akinwunmi Komolafe, AbdulRazzak Lawal, Foluso Omodele, Ayodele Sanni, Mustapha Ajani, Olayinka Kotila, Sharifat Folorunsho, Tonyin Aniagwu, Adewumi Alabi, Abiodun Popoola, Chioma Asuzu, Adetola Daramola, Chinedum Babalola, Theodore Karrison, Fatimah Abdulkareem, Olufunmilayo I. Olopade. Assessing Response to neoadjuvant Taxotere and TrAstuzumab in Nigerian women with HER2-positive breast cancer (ARETTA) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr OT2-21-01.

Increasing patient participation in oncology clinical trials.

Timely recruitment of eligible participants is essential for the success of clinical trials, with insufficient accrual being the leading cause for premature termination of both oncology and non-oncology trials. In this paper we further elaborate on the challenges for patient participation in oncology trials from physician, patient, healthcare system, and some trial-related perspectives. We present strategies such as use of digital healthcare technologies, real-world data and real-world evidence, decentralized clinical trials, pragmatic trial designs, and supportive services to increase patient participation. Multifaceted measures are necessary to increase patient participation, especially for those who are under-represented in cancer trials.

The psychosocial responses of patients in cancer clinical trials: are they a barrier to participation?

Abstract Introduction: This paper aims to discuss the psychosocial concomitants with involvement in oncology clinical trials, focusing on barriers that can impact upon participation. It will conclude with some recommendations for strategies to address potential psychosocial barriers with the aim of increasing trial participation rates. Materials and methods: A literature search was carried out using CINAHL, PubMed and EMCare databases with the following keywords for filtering: psychological distress, clinical trials, participation and oncology. The final selection of papers that met the inclusion criteria for this review was manually subjected to Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for relevance. Results: Thirteen papers were included in the review. The dominant theme within the literature is psychosocial obstacles to oncology clinical trial participation. Five key barriers were identified: anxiety and fear; ethnicity and social background; tensions between scientific objectives and personal motivations to participation; tensions between personal benefits versus altruism; carer perspectives. Conclusions: The key barriers discussed led to the identification of a set of strategies to help mediate conflicting tensions and motivations of trial enrolment with a view to increasing participation rates. Further prospective research garnering primary data investigating both the psychological and psychosocial factors influencing cancer clinical trial participation for patients needs to be undertaken.

Scoping to analyze oncology trial participation in Australia

Equity in oncology clinical trial participation has been declared a global priority. Australia is a key stakeholder in the global clinical trials sphere and managed to maintain high clinical trial activity during the COVID pandemic. Despite these successes, there is paucity of understanding about what influences clinical trial participation in Australia. In the international context, systematic reviews have highlighted that sociodemographic barriers, access to health care, clinical trial inclusion criteria, and attitudes of physicians and patients are factors which influence oncology trial participation. Exploring the factors in Australian health services which influence trial participation is now of significant importance. The lack of clear evidence directly highlights a need to assess the factors that influence oncology trial participation in Australia. We call for review of existing data to identify future directions in Australia which will potentially give deeper insights for the international clinical trial community.

Perceived Institutional Barriers Among Clinical and Research Professionals: Minority Participation in Oncology Clinical Trials.

In general, participation rates in cancer clinical trials are very low. However, participation rates are especially low among the socially disadvantaged and racial and ethnic minority groups. These groups have been historically under-represented in cancer clinical trials. Although many patient-related barriers have been studied, institutional factors that are essential for building clinical research infrastructure around the clinical trial enterprise in academic medical centers have been underexplored. We assessed perspectives of cancer center professional stakeholders on the institutional factors that can potentially influence racial and ethnic minority recruitment for cancer clinical trials. Ninety-one qualitative interviews were conducted at five US cancer centers among four stakeholder groups: cancer center leaders, principal investigators, referring clinicians, and research staff. Qualitative analyses examined response data focused on institutional factors related to minority recruitment for cancer clinical trials. Four prominent themes emerged regarding institutional barriers among clinical and research professionals. (1) There are no existing programs currently being used to recruit or retain minorities to clinical trials. (2) Institutional efforts are needed to increase trial participation and are not specific to potential minority participants. (3) Access to cancer clinical trials and navigation within an Academic Medical Center need to be simplified to better facilitate recruitment of minority patients. (4) Community outreach by cancer centers will increase clinical research awareness in the community. Our research highlights the need to address institutional barriers to improve the success of minority recruitment. To increase participation among minority populations, medical centers must address mutable institutional barriers such as setting specific minority recruitment goals for cancer clinical trials, ensuring that cancer clinical trials are accessible, especially to minority patients, and supporting sustained community outreach programs to increase clinical research awareness.

When life gives you no choice: Context of decision-making when offered an oncology clinical trial.

Patients with advanced cancer are faced with a wide variety of challenges and difficult treatment decisions made while in a vulnerable life-threatening situation, including decisions about clinical trial participation. Internationally, there is a great focus on shared decision-making as a way to help patients and healthcare professionals to make informed decisions together; nevertheless, research focusing on patient experiences shows that information about clinical trials is insufficient in supporting patients to make trial decisions in the context of their course of disease and managing life with advanced cancer. To explore where and how decisions about participation in oncology clinical trials are made and the role of the patients and healthcare professionals. Participant observation was used as a qualitative research method to gain knowledge about decision-making in different clinical situations. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Four themes were developed: (a) preformed decisions, (b) dissimilar perceptions of successful treatment, (c) cues and concerns stated by patients and (d) creating common ground. There are underexposed aspects to be aware of in the decision-making process for clinical trial participation. Preformed decisions made by the physicians before the encounter with patients seemed to narrow down the patients' options and could have benefited from including the patients' views. Cues and concerns stated by patients were often neglected. However, when physicians talked with the patients about truly difficult issues such as treatment expectations, hope and death, it led to another kind of conversation about treatment decisions involving the patients' preferences. Awareness of preformed decisions and an increased focus on picking up cues and concerns about existential issues in the clinical encounter may improve the quality of the decisions and increase shared decision-making.

The National Cancer Institute and Department of Veterans Affairs Interagency Group to Accelerate Trials Enrollment (NAVIGATE): A federal collaboration to improve cancer care

Cancer clinical trials represent an important option for patients with a diagnosis of cancer and the clinician-investigators involved in their care who seek options for their disease. For all who are impacted by cancer, these studies offer opportunities for greater learning. Conducting these important studies involves several challenges, including recruiting eligible participants. To address barriers that arise over the course of these activities, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) have partnered to increase Veteran participation in oncology clinical trials. This initiative, the NCI And VA Interagency Group to Accelerate Trials Enrollment, or NAVIGATE, is focused on addressing recruitment across the VA healthcare system and finding systematic solutions related to activating, recruiting for and conducting oncology clinical trials at VA Medical Centers. Additional goals include (1) establishing a sustainable network that can serve as a model for other VA sites interested in doing cancer clinical trials, (2) recruitment of minority patients, and (3) developing best practices and policies that can be deployed across the VA healthcare system. In this manuscript, we describe the scope, organization, activities, and future directions of NAVIGATE while also highlighting key needs for successfully conducting cancer clinical trials within the VA system. This partnership between 2 large federal agencies with a shared commitment to improving cancer care may provide lessons to others who are also dedicated to helping those affected by the disease.

Barriers to clinical trial accrual: Clinical trialists' perspectives.

e18156 Background: Oncology clinical trial participation rates remain at historic lows. There are many barriers that impede participation. Understanding those barriers, from the perspective of cancer clinical trialists, will help develop solutions to increase physician and site engagement, with the goal of improving accrual rates and advancing cancer treatment. Methods: Physician investigators and research staff from community-based and academic-based research sites were surveyed during ASCO’s Research Community Forum (RCF) Annual Meeting (N = 159) and through a pre-meeting survey (N = 124) in 2018. Findings and potential solutions were discussed during the meeting. Results: 84% of respondents (n = 84) reported that it took 6-8 months to open a trial and 86% (n = 81) reported that trials had unnecessary delays 70% of the time. The top 10 barriers to accrual identified were: insufficient staffing resources, restrictive eligibility criteria, physician buy-in, site access to trials, burdensome regulatory requirements, difficulty identifying patients, lack of suitable trials, sponsor and contract research organization requirements, patient barriers, and site cost-benefit. Respondents shared strategies to address these barriers. Conclusions: The current state of conducting clinical trials is not sustainable and hinders clinical trial participation. New strategies are needed to ensure patients and practices have access to trials, standardize and streamline processes, reduce inefficiencies, simplify trial activation, reduce regulatory burden, provide sufficient compensation to sites, engage the community and patients, educate the public, and increase collaborations. The ASCO RCF offers resources, available to the public, that offer practical strategies to overcome barriers to clinical trial accrual and has ongoing efforts to facilitate oncology practice participation in clinical trials.

Who Needs What? Perceptions of Patients and Caregivers in Oncology Phase 1 Trials.

Background:The study design and nature of oncology phase 1 clinical trials create a uniquely vulnerable patient population yet little research has been conducted to identify the added burden these trials create for both cancer patients and their caregiver(s).Objective:Examining the perceptions and needs of patients and their caregivers participating in phase 1 oncology clinical trials, the investigators tested the hypothesis that the caregiver will exhibit a higher level of burden and/or distress than the patient.Method:A mixed-methods exploratory process utilizing patient and caregiver interviews and quality-of-life questionnaires was used to assess the psychosocial burdens associated with oncology clinical trial participation. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the responses were 8 performed.Result:Both patients and caregivers reported similar themes identifying the burdens and benefits related to phase 1 clinical trial participation. However, the caregivers’ expressed burden exceeded that of the patients’ validating the study’s hypothesis.Conclusion:The need for ongoing additional support services for not only the patient but also the caregiver was identified.

Improving Oncology Clinical Trial Participation and Experience

Cancer patients are underrepresented in clinical trial populations because of protocol-, physician-, and patient-related barriers. We engaged focus groups of patients who had participated in breast and ovarian cancer trials to identify concerns regarding their experiences. The lessons learnt are applicable to improving patient experience during future trials.

Ambivalence: A Key to Clinical Trial Participation?

Trust exerts a multidimensional influence at the interpersonal level in the clinical trials setting. Trust and distrust are dynamic states that are impacted, either positively or negatively, with each participant-clinical trials team interaction. Currently, accepted models of trust posit that trust and distrust coexist and their effects on engagement and retention in clinical trials are mediated by ambivalence. While understanding of trust has been informed by a robust body of work, the role of distrust and ambivalence in the trust building process are less well understood. Furthermore, the role of ambivalence and its relationship to trust and distrust in the clinical trials and oncology settings are not known. Ambivalence is a normal and uncomfortable state in the complex decision making process that characterizes the recruitment and active treatment phases of the clinical trials experience. The current review was conducted to understand the constructs of ambivalence as a mediator of trust and distrust among vulnerable, minority participants through different stages of the oncology clinical trials continuum, its triggers and the contextual factors that might influence it in the setting of minority participation in oncology clinical trials. In addition, the researchers have sought to link theory to clinical intervention by investigating the feasibility and role of Motivational Interviewing in different stages of the clinical trials continuum. Findings suggest that ambivalence can be processed and managed to enable a participant to generate a response to their ambivalence. Thus, recognizing and managing triggers of ambivalence, which include, contradictory goals, role conflicts, membership dualities, and supporting participants through the process of reducing ambivalence is critical to successfully managing trust. Contextual factors related to the totality of one's previous health-care experience, specifically among the marginalized or vulnerable, can contribute to interpersonal ambivalence. In addition, changes in information gathering as a moderator of interpersonal ambivalence may have enormous implications for gathering, assessing, and accepting health information. Finally, motivational Interviewing has widespread applications in healthcare settings, which includes enabling participants to navigate ambivalence in shared-decision making with their clinician, as well as executing changes in participant behavior. Ultimately, the Integrated Model of Trust can incorporate the role of therapeutic techniques like Motivational Interviewing in different stages of the clinical trials continuum. Ambivalence is a key component of clinical trial participation; like trust, ambivalence can be managed and plays a major role in the management of trust in interpersonal relationships over time. The management of ambivalence may play a major role in increasing clinical trial participation particularly among the marginalized or the vulnerable, who may be more susceptible to feelings of ambivalence.

Systematizing precision oncology clinical trial participation through the integration of electronic medical record (EMR) data and routine tumor profiling.

e18578Background: Inadequate recruitment of patients represents a major impediment to successful completion of precision oncology clinical trials. Rapid and efficient identification of all potentia...

Pediatric oncology clinical trial participation where the geography is vast: Development of a clinical research system for tertiary and satellite centers in Ontario, Canada.

Opportunities for participation in clinical trials are a core component of the care of children with cancer. In Ontario, many pediatric patients live long distances from their cancer center. This paper describes the work that was done in order to allow patients participating in Children's Oncology Group trials to receive care, including research protocol related care, jointly between the tertiary pediatric cancer center and the closer-to-home satellite center. The system is a pragmatic risk-based model, supporting excellence in care while ensuring good conduct of the research in compliance with applicable regulations and guidelines, including ethics oversight.

Perceptions and Attitudes of Cancer Patients and Caregivers Towards Enrollment in Clinical Trials in Lebanon.

The rates of participation in oncology clinical trials (CTs) are relatively lower in the Middle East compared to other areas in the world. Many social and cultural factors underlie the patients' reluctance to participate. To probe the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of patients with cancer and their caregivers regarding participation in CTs at our tertiary referral center in Lebanon, we interviewed 210 patients and caregivers visiting the outpatient clinics in the Naef Basile Cancer Institute at the American University of Beirut. A questionnaire was derived from literature and administered in Arabic. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Two hundred individuals agreed to answer the questionnaire. The majority of participants (90.5%) were Lebanese with the remaining being non-Lebanese Arabs. Eighty-nine participants (45%) were aware of the concepts of CTs. Eighty-two respondents (41%) would participate in phase I CTs. Twenty-nine individuals (14.5%) agree to be enrolled in CTs with the approval of their family members only. One hundred twenty-nine subjects (64.5%) stated that they would refuse enrollment in a CT where they might receive placebo. Eighty-eight (44%) of participants considered that medical records could be reviewed for research without consent while 54% agreed that samples collected during clinical workup could be used for research without the consent of the patient. There are several social and demographic correlates for participation in CTs. Raising awareness and overcoming barriers of misconception are keys to promote participation in CTs in Lebanon.

Association between patient perception of oncology clinical trial participation and survival: N0392 (Alliance).

e18122Background: We previously reported that patient subjective perception of their oncology clinical trial experience was influenced by factors beyond their treatment outcome (Chauhan, ASCO, 2012...

Attitudinal barriers to participation in oncology clinical trials: factor analysis and correlates of barriers.

Patient participation in cancer clinical trials is low. Little is known about attitudinal barriers to participation, particularly among patients who may be offered a trial during an imminent initial oncology consult. The aims of the present study were to confirm the presence of proposed subscales of a recently developed cancer clinical trial attitudinal barriers measure, describe the most common cancer clinical trials attitudinal barriers, and evaluate socio-demographic, medical and financial factors associated with attitudinal barriers. A total of 1256 patients completed a survey assessing demographic factors, perceived financial burden, prior trial participation and attitudinal barriers to clinical trials participation. Results of a factor analysis did not confirm the presence of the proposed four attitudinal barriers subscale/factors. Rather, a single factor represented the best fit to the data. The most highly-rated barriers were fear of side-effects, worry about health insurance and efficacy concerns. Results suggested that less educated patients, patients with non-metastatic disease, patients with no previous oncology clinical trial participation, and patients reporting greater perceived financial burden from cancer care were associated with higher barriers. These patients may need extra attention in terms of decisional support. Overall, patients with fewer personal resources (education, financial issues) report more attitudinal barriers and should be targeted for additional decisional support.

Adult participation in oncology clinical trials by indication, race, and age.

e17586 Background: According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), approximately 3 percent of adult cancer patients participate in clinical trials despite the NCCN guidelines frequently recommending clinical trials as standard of care in many circumstances (Mooney, 2010). In a large analysis of NCI Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) trials, 40 percent of trials failed to achieve minimum enrollment, including 3 of 5 phase III trials (Cheng, 2010). Additionally, concerns about unequal access to clinical trials led Congress to enact the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act 20 years ago (June 10, 1993). Using data from Ipsos’ Tandem Oncology Monitor, a robust, nationwide system that collects actual prescriptions and clinical trial participation by indication from 500 oncologists and hematologists from the United States, we evaluated current participation and ethnic diversity in clinical trials. Methods: We assessed adult clinical trial participation from October 2011 to September 2012. Age, ethnicity and practice type were also collected to identify descriptive trends. Results: With regards to indication, clinical trial participation ranged from 1 percent (prostate, renal cell and head and neck) to 12 percent (thyroid) averaging between 2 and 3 percent. We observed a decline in first-line metastatic melanoma participation between pre- and post- vemurafenib/ipilimumab approval (9%-pre versus 2%-post). Patient diversity results are included in the Table. Conclusions: Despite efforts to increase oncology clinical trial participation, we have observed overall low clinical trial participation. Additionally, we observed better trial participation in the youngest age groups and minor differences between ethnic categories. Continued focus on increasing trial participation and patient diversity is still needed. [Table: see text]