Patient Participation In Trials Research Articles

Inequities in Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation, Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy and Clinical Trial Participation in Patients Receiving Second-Line and Later Multiple Myeloma Treatment

Introduction: Despite improvements in care and novel therapies for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM), nearly all patients experience relapse. However, few real-world studies have focused on treatment inequities that occur later in the MM patient journey with subsequent lines of therapy - the setting of particular interest for salvage treatment and novel drug development. The objectives of this study were to measure receipt of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) and participation in clinical trials following initiation of second-line (2L) MM treatment and to describe inequities by race/ethnicity and area-level sociodemographic factors. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using the nationwide, electronic health record-derived Flatiron Health de-identified database. We included patients that previously received therapy for newly diagnosed MM and were initiating 2L between 2011 and 2023. The exposures of interest were race/ethnicity and area-level (census block group) socioeconomic status (SES) measured by the Yost index. Outcomes of interest were receipt of ASCT, CAR-T and clinical trial participation. Patients were followed from the date of 2L initiation until the first of the outcome of interest, death or end of the study period. Multivariable cause-specific hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations with receipt of ASCT, CAR-T and clinical trial participation separately and as a single outcome. Informed by the Institute of Medicine's framework for healthcare disparities, models were adjusted for clinical factors, specifically, age, sex, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status. Results: In a cohort of 2,017 patients with MM that were ASCT and CAR-T naïve with a median age of 72 years (interquartile range [IQR] 63-79), 52% were male, 52% had ECOG scores of 0 or 1, and 59% were treated in community oncology practices. Prior to 2L, 73% received fluorescence in situ hybridization testing for cytogenetic abnormalities and most patients received either doublet (34%) or triplet (51%) therapy. The majority of patients included were non-Latinx (NL)-White (61%), 21% were NL-Black and 4% were Latinx. Compared to NL-White patients, fewer NL-Black patients received FISH testing (70% versus 73%) and either doublet or triplet therapy (81% versus 86%) for newly diagnosed MM. A higher proportion of Black and Latinx patients resided in areas in the lowest quintile of SES (42% and 40% respectively) compared to NL-White patients (8%). Overall, 12.7% received ASCT, 0.8% received CAR-T and 1.3% participated in a clinical trial following the start of 2L. Compared with NL-White patients, Black and Latinx patients had lower rates of treatment with ASCT and CAR-T; and clinical trial participation was also lower among Latinx patients relative to NL-White patients (see Figure). Patients living in the highest quintile of SES had higher rates of ASCT (19.2%), CAR-T (0.8%) and clinical trial participation (2.3%) compared to those living in the lowest quintile of SES (10.1%, 0.3% and 1.5% respectively). In multivariable models, NL-Black (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42-0.76) and Latinx (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.25-0.76) patients had a lower likelihood of receiving these treatments or participating in a clinical trial compared to NL-White patients; similarly, living in the lowest SES quintile (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26-0.56) was also associated with lower likelihood of these outcomes. Other area-level factors associated with inequities in ASCT, CAR-T and trial participation included living in segregated Black neighborhoods and areas with greater concentration of non-citizen residence and no vehicle ownership. Conclusion: We observed lower receipt of ASCT, CAR-T, and participation in clinical trials among Black and Latinx patients initiating 2L or later MM therapy, as well as patients living in areas of low SES. Persistent inequities in MM span the entirety of the patient journey, including the limited uptake and availability of novel therapies at later stages of the disease and a lack of representation in trials investigating new MM therapies.

Primary care provider perceptions of patient participation in a multi-cancer early detection trial.

e13607 Background: Randomized clinical trials of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are being planned, and primary care providers (PCPs) are likely to encounter patients who are considering participation. Little information has been reported about provider support for patient participation in such trials. Methods: We surveyed PCPs from 4 practices in a large health system to learn about their views on patient participation in a hypothetical MCED test trial. The PCPs received a link to view a patient-oriented infographic that described a trial in which participants would undergo serial blood draws for MCED testing and would be randomly assigned either to standard care or to receive MCED test results and follow-up, as needed. After viewing the infographic, respondents were asked to complete a brief survey that included statements related to factors that would affect their receptivity to patient participation in the trial, using a 5-point Likert type response scale that ranged from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree. The survey also included a single item that asked respondents if they would support patient participation in the trial and provided an opportunity to report the main reason for their answer. Finally, the survey contained a background characteristics section. We computed frequency distributions of survey responses. Results: Twenty-seven of 37 (73%) invited primary care providers completed the survey. About half of the respondents were women and two thirds were white; 81% were physicians while 19% were nurse practitioners, 54% were in practice for less than 20 years, all were board certified, and 74% had a hospital affiliation. Receptivity scores regarding a future MCED trial were high, with a mean of 3.8 and standard deviation of 0.6. Overall, 25 providers (93%) reported that they would support patient participation in an MCED test trial. The most commonly reported reasons for supporting patient participation were the belief that early cancer detection is important and the belief that research to develop new cancer screening tests is needed. The most commonly cited reasons for not supporting participation were concern about managing patients diagnosed with cancer in the trial and worry that trial participants would require too many practice resources. Conclusions: The overwhelming majority of respondents supported patient participation in an MCED test trial, but many were concerned about trial impact on their capacity to meet patient needs. Further research is needed in a larger study to validate these results and learn more about factors likely to influence PCP support for patient participation in MCED test trials and actual participation.

Representativeness of patients enrolled in the Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP).

6543 Background: A major goal of Lung-MAP, a biomarker-driven master protocol conducted within the National Clinical Trials Network of the NCI using a public-private partnership, was to improve access to novel therapeutics. Representative enrollment of patient sub-groups in clinical trials is essential for improving confidence that trial findings are valid and applicable to all patients. We examined the representativeness of patients enrolled in Lung-MAP by demographic and area-level measures compared to patients in other advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials and with the US NSCLC population. Methods: We analyzed data on patients enrolled to Lung-MAP between 2014-2020 according to sex, age ( < 65 years v. ≥ 65 years), race (White v. Black v. Asian), ethnicity (Hispanic v. not Hispanic), residence (rural v. urban), insurance type (Medicaid or no insurance v. private), and neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation (quintiles of Area Deprivation Index score). Rates were compared to SWOG-led NSCLC trials conducted between 2001-2020 (date range to provide sufficient power) and, where possible, to US NSCLC population rates using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry data (2014-2018). Two-sided tests of proportions at the 5% level were used for all comparisons. Results: 3,556 patients enrolled to Lung-MAP were compared to 2,267 patients enrolled to SWOG-led NSCLC studies. Lung-MAP patients were more likely to be ≥ 65 years old (57.2% v. 46.7%; p <.001) and from rural areas (17.3% v. 14.3%; p =.002) but less likely to be female (38.6% v. 47.2%; p <.001), Asian (2.7% v. 5.1%; p < 0.0001), or Hispanic (2.4% v. 3.7%; p =.003). Compared to the US NSCLC population, Lung-MAP patients were less likely to be ≥ 65 years (57.2% v. 73.5%; p <.001), female (38.6% v. 47.8%; p <.001), or a racial or ethnic minority (15.5% v. 19.3%; p <.001). Lung-MAP patients were more likely to be from socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods (42.2% vs. 36.5%, p <.001). Among patients aged < 65 years, Lung-MAP enrolled more patients reporting Medicaid/no insurance as their primary insurance (27.6% v. 17.9%; p <.001). Conclusions: Lung-MAP improved access to novel therapeutics for older patients, rural patients, those with Medicaid/no insurance, and patients from socioeconomically deprived areas compared to other NSCLC trials. Lung-MAP enrolled exclusively squamous cell lung cancers from 2014-2018, which explains decreased representation of females. Consistent with prior research, Lung-MAP patients were younger and less diverse compared to the US NSCLC population. Further examination of the underrepresentation of Asian and Hispanic patients in Lung-MAP is required to identify barriers to access and potential solutions. The conduct of a master protocol across multiple locations may improve trial participation for patients with limited access due to area-level (rural, socioeconomic deprivation) or insurance barriers.

CRAFT-A Proposed Framework for Decentralized Clinical Trials Participation in Canada.

Canada’s vast geography, and centralized delivery of cancer care and clinical trials create barriers for trial participation for patients in remote and rural settings. The development and implementation of a framework that enables safe and regulatory compliant trial participation through local healthcare providers would benefit Canadian patients, clinicians, trial sponsors and the health care system. To address this issue, representatives of Canada’s cancer clinical trial community met to identify key challenges and develop recommendations for remote patient participation in trials. A structured literature review identified remote/rural trial delivery models. A panel of expert stakeholders reviewed the models and participated in a workshop to assess health system readiness, identify needed processes, tools and mechanisms, and develop recommendations for a Canadian framework for decentralized clinical trial conduct. The Canadian Remote Access Framework for clinical Trials (CRAFT) represents a risk-based approach used by site investigators to delegate responsibilities for a given trial to satellite health centres within a hub-and-spoke “trial cluster”. The Framework includes specific recommendations to ensure research experience, capacity, regulatory compliance and patient safety. Canada’s cancer care and telemedicine systems can be leveraged to enable broader access to clinical trials for patients who are geographically remote from cancer centres. CRAFT’s risk-based framework is based on other successful models of remote trial patient management and is in the pilot implementation phase in Canada.

Abstract PD3-10: Patient perspectives on chemotherapy de-escalation: “Don’t de-escalate! I don’t want to die!”

Abstract Introduction: Given excellent survival outcomes in breast cancer and new methods to predict treatment response, oncologists are interested in de-escalating the amount of chemotherapy delivered to patients. This is particularly important in the setting of COVID-19, where patient perspectives of de-escalation may be altered by perception of COVID-19 risk.Methods: This concurrent mixed methods study included (1) semi-structured interview data from patients with breast cancer treated at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and patient advocates from nationally representative advocacy organizations (10/2019-5/2020) and (2) cross-sectional survey data from a nationwide sample of women with breast cancer (11/19-12/2019). Questions evaluated interest in de-escalation study participation, perceived barriers/facilitators to participation, and language describing de-escalation. Participant perspectives surrounding COVID-19 impact on de-escalation were elicited in interviews post 3/2020.Results: Quantitative and qualitative findings were synergistic. Interviews were conducted with 40 female participants (24 patients, 16 patient advocates). Participant ages ranged from 33-79 years old; 30% were minorities; 35% didn’t have a college degree. Common barriers to acceptance of de-escalation included fear of recurrence, worry about decision regret, lack of clinical trial interest, and dislike for the focus on less treatment. Fear of recurrence was the most commonly expressed barrier, with one participant stating, “I’m just afraid it wouldn’t get it all”. Common facilitators included trust in the physician, toxicity avoidance, monitoring with the option of increasing treatment intensity, perception of good prognosis, and impact on daily life. Participants interviewed during the COVID-19 pandemic (n=16) expressed substantial virus-related fear, including fear of exposure, fear of infecting their personal contacts or health care team, fear of cancer-related complications, and fear about their immunocompromised state. These fears contributed to participants perspective on de-escalation, as highlighted by participants stating, “I wouldn't worry about getting the chemo as much as I would worry about getting the virus” and “Less is more for me right now”.Of 91 survey respondents (69% response rate), median age was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR] 48-69), 86% had early stage breast cancer. Many (43%) patients were not interested in participation in a study testing lower doses of chemotherapy than standard of care. Patients not interested in participating were more often unmarried (55% vs. 32%, V=.23), disabled (56% vs. 40%, V=.17), or diagnosed with early stage cancer (45% vs. 22%, V=.14). Barriers to participation included fear of cancer recurrence (85%) and regret about the decision to receive less chemotherapy if the cancer were to recur (79%). Few patients (19%) considered clinical trials themselves as a barrier. Patients were interested in participation due to lessened physical side effects of treatment (82%), lessened long-term problems related to treatment (76%), and lessened impact on daily life (72%). The most popular terminology describing chemotherapy de-escalation was “lowest effective chemotherapy dose” (53%); no patients preferred the term “de-escalation.” Conclusion: Fear of recurrence is a common barrier to de-escalation clinical trial participation in patients with breast cancer. Fears may be altered for patients considering treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trust in the physician and use of patient-generated language, such as “customized” instead of “de-escalation”, are potential areas for future interventions engaging patients in trials. Citation Format: Gabrielle Rocque, Courtney P. Williams, Courtney J. Andrews, Kathleen Gallagher, Timothy C. Childers, Kimberly D. Wiseman, Alan Balch, Stacey A. Ingram, Thelma Brown, Tara Kaufman, Nadine Tung, Mary Lou Smith, Antonio C. Wolff, Angela DeMichele, Lynn Wagner. Patient perspectives on chemotherapy de-escalation: “Don’t de-escalate! I don’t want to die!” [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD3-10.

Transparency, trust and minimizing burden to increase recruitment and retention in trials: a systematic review

ObjectiveTo describe patient perspectives on recruitment and retention in clinical trials. Study Design and SettingSystematic review of qualitative studies that reported the perspective of adult patients with any health condition who accepted or declined to participate in clinical trials. ResultsSixty-three articles involving 1681 adult patients were included. Six themes were identified. Four themes reflected barriers: ambiguity of context and benefit – patients were unaware of the research question and felt pressured in making decisions; lacking awareness of opportunities – some believed health professionals obscured trials opportunities, or felt confused because of language barriers; wary of added burden – patients were without capacity because of sickness or competing priorities; and skepticism, fear and mistrust – patients feared loss of privacy, were suspicious of doctor's motivation, afraid of being a guinea pig, and disengaged from not knowing outcomes. Two themes captured facilitators: building confidence – patients hoped for better treatment, were supported from family members and trusted medical staff; and social gains and belonging to the community – altruism, a sense of belonging and peer encouragement motivated participation in trials. ConclusionImproving the visibility and transparency of trials, supporting informed decision making, minimizing burden, and ensuring confidence and trust may improve patient participation in trials.

Costs to healthcare payers associated with clinical trial (CT) participation in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

3 Background: To assess the financial implications of therapeutic CT participation for healthcare payers, we compared first-line (1L) and second-line (2L) total direct medical costs between patients enrolled in 2L CT vs non-CT participants receiving 2L therapy for metastatic NSCLC. Methods: We linked electronic health records from a single academic center with tumor registry and claims data to identify patients with metastatic NSCLC diagnosed from 1/1/2007-12/31/2015. Eligibility criteria included 60 day minimum survival, receipt of ≥ 1 anti-cancer drug within 180 days of diagnosis, insurance enrollment for ≥ 12 months after diagnosis and receipt of ≥ 2 therapy lines. Patients on 1L trials were excluded. We calculated mean per-patient-per-month (PPPM) total direct medical costs from the payer perspective for 1L and 2L. We performed a difference-of-difference analysis to estimate the effect of trial enrollment on costs by calculating the mean PPPM difference between 2L and 1L in trial (Diff trial) and non-trial enrollees (Diff non-trial). Then we calculated the difference between Diff trial and Diff non-trial. We used paired and non-paired t-tests for statistical comparisons and report all costs in 2019 US dollars. Results: Of 63 patients, 22 (35%) enrolled in a 2L CT. CT enrollees were younger (mean age 63.5 vs 66.7 years), female (73% vs 41%), had commercial insurance (36% vs 32%), were never smokers (36% vs 32%), had EGFR mutations (27% vs 22%) and fewer had brain metastases (14% vs 29%). The mean PPPM total direct medical costs decreased between 2L and 1L for patients enrolled in 2L CTs but increased in non-trial participants (Diff trial = -$5,585, SD ± $6,541; Diff non-trial = $1,532, SD ± $14,739). The mean difference of difference (Diff trial - Diff non-trial) was -$7,117 (p = 0.01; Table). Conclusions: This small observational study suggests that CT enrollment results in substantial cost-savings to payers. If confirmed in larger studies, our findings suggest that insurers support trial participation for patients with NSCLC. [Table: see text]

Factors associated with clinical trial participation for patients with renal cell carcinoma.

670 Background: Clinical trials are critical for the development of new treatment paradigms for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The primary objective of this study was to characterize the factors associated with clinical trial participation for patients with RCC. The secondary objective was to examine survival outcomes in the clinical trial and control cohorts. Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients with RCC who were coded as having enrolled in a clinical trial. Trial patients were matched in a 1:5 ratio to controls from the same institution based on clinical stage. Sociodemographic variables were compared between the two groups and univariate and multivariate logistic regression models evaluated factors associated with clinical trial participation. Kaplan-Meier product limit estimate was used to compare overall survival (OS) between the groups. Results: From 2004-2015, 681 patients enrolled in clinical trials were included for analysis. The mean age of trial patients was 56.4 compared to 62 in the matched cohort (p<0.0001). More patients in the trial group had a Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score of 0 (81.6% vs. 73.9%, p<0.0001). On multivariate analysis, male patients (OR 1.27; 95%CI 1.06-1.54, p=0.012) and white patients (OR 1.88, 95%CI 1.23-2.87; p=0.003) were more likely to participate in a trial. Having Medicaid (OR 0.42; 95%CI 0.27-0.64; p<0.0001) or Medicare (OR 0.6; 95%CI 0.46-0.77; p<0.0001) was negatively associated with clinical trial participation. Median OS was greater among clinical trial participants than that the control cohort (106.61 vs 87.62 months, p<0.0001). Conclusions: In this contemporary analysis of RCC patients from a national hospital registry database, we found that patient sociodemographic factors remain associated with clinical trial participation and that clinical trial participants experienced superior OS. Further work, both qualitative and quantitative, is necessary to identify clinical and non-clinical barriers to research participation in order to improve the validity of RCC trials.

Clinical Trial Participation Is Associated with Improved Overall Survival in Newly Diagnosed Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma

Clinical Trial Participation Is Associated with Improved Overall Survival in Newly Diagnosed Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma

Neurological Deficits in Stroke Patients that May Impede the Capacity to Provide Informed Consent for Endovascular Treatment Trials

BackgroundWe assessed the occurrence of neurological deficits that may impede the capacity to provide consent for trial participation in patients with an acute stroke, who are eligible for endovascular treatment (EVT). MethodsWe used data from the Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands Registry, a prospective observational cohort study. We included 1526 patients with an anterior large vessel occlusion, undergoing EVT between March 2014 and June 2016. We based our assessment of decision-making capacity for trial participation on neurological symptoms influencing conditions concerning informed consent as stated in the declaration of Helsinki. We formulated a strict and a mild capacity assessment rule, using 2 different cut points in item scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). ResultsApplying the strict and mild rule, respectively 1469 (96%) and 1220 (80%) patients deemed not capable of decision-making for trial participation on admission, and 1077 (79%) and 825 (60%) patients at 24-48 hours after admission. Highest frequencies of predefined scores suggesting incapacity based on the strict rule were on the NIHSS items “Level of Consciousness Questions” (59%), "Best Gaze" (68%), and “Best Language” (58%). Patients who were considered incapable were older (median 71 versus 66 years, P = .043), had higher NIHSS scores (median 16 versus 8, P < .001), and had more often left hemisphere strokes (55% versus 28%, P < .001) than patients who were presumably capable. ConclusionsIn the majority of patients with an anterior circulation stroke who are eligible for EVT, neurological deficits are present that may impede the capacity to provide informed consent for trial participation.

Patient understanding and acceptability of an early lung cancer diagnosis trial: a qualitative study

BackgroundThe ELCID (Early Lung Cancer Investigation and Diagnosis) trial was a feasibility randomised controlled trial examining the effect on lung cancer diagnosis of lowering the threshold for referral for urgent chest x-ray for smokers and recent ex-smokers, aged over 60 years with new chest symptoms. The qualitative component aimed to explore the feasibility of individually randomising patients to an urgent chest x-ray or not and to investigate any barriers to patient recruitment and participation. We integrated this within the feasibility trial to inform the design of any future definitive trial, particularly in view of the lack of research exploring symptomatic patients’ experiences of participating in diagnostic trials for possible/suspected lung cancer. Although previous studies contributed valuable information concerning screening for lung cancer and patient participation in trials, this paper is the first to explore issues relating to this specific patient group.MethodsQualitative interviews were conducted with 21 patients, comprising 9 who had been randomised to receive an immediate chest x-ray, 10 who were randomised to receive the standard treatment according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and 2 who chose not to participate in the trial. Interviews were analysed using a framework approach.ResultsThe findings of this analysis showed that altruism, personal benefit and the reassurance of not having lung cancer were important factors in patient participation. However, patients largely believed that being in the intervention arm was more beneficial, highlighting a lack of understanding of clinical equipoise. Disincentives to participation in the trial included the stigmatisation of patients who smoked (given the inclusion criteria). Although the majority of patients reported that they were happy with the trial design, there was evidence of poor understanding. Last, for several patients, placing trust in health professionals was preferred to understanding the trial processes.ConclusionsThe integration of a qualitative study focusing on participant experience as a secondary outcome of a feasibility trial enabled exploration of patient response to participation and recruitment. The study demonstrated that although it is feasible to recruit patients to the ELCID trial, more work needs to be done to ensure an understanding of study principles and also of smoking stigmatisation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01344005. Registered on 27 April 2011.

Insurance denials for cancer clinical trial participation after the Affordable Care Act mandate.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes a mandate requiring most private health insurers to cover routine patient care costs for cancer clinical trial participation; however, the impact of this provision on cancer centers' efforts to accrue patients to clinical trials has not been well described. First, members of cancer research centers and community-based institutions (n = 252) were surveyed to assess the status of insurance denials, and then, a focused survey (n = 77) collected denial details. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to examine associations between the receipt of denials and site characteristics. Overall, 62.7% of the initial survey respondents reported at least 1 insurance denial during 2014. Sites using a precertification process were 3.04 times more likely to experience denials (95% confidence interval, 1.55-5.99; P ≤ .001), and similar rates of denials were reported from sites located in states with preexisting clinical trial coverage laws versus states without them (82.3% vs 85.1%; χ = 50.7; P ≤ .001). Among the focused survey sites, academic centers reported denials more often than community sites (71.4% vs 46.4%). The failure of plans to cover trial participation was cited as the most common reason provided for denials (n = 33 [80.5%]), with nearly 80% of sites (n = 61) not receiving a coverage response from the insurer within 72 hours. Despite the ACA's mandate for most insurers to cover routine care costs for cancer clinical trial participation, denials and delays continue. Denials may continue because some insurers remain exempt from the law, or they may signal an implementation failure. Delays in coverage may affect patient participation in trials. Additional efforts to eliminate this barrier will be needed to achieve federal initiatives to double the pace of cancer research over the next 5 years. Future work should assess the law's effectiveness at the patient level to inform these efforts. Cancer 2017;123:2893-900. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Results and lessons from the Spironolactone To Prevent Cardiovascular Events in Early Stage Chronic Kidney Disease (STOP-CKD) randomised controlled trial

ObjectivesTo determine whether low-dose spironolactone can safely lower arterial stiffness in patients with chronic kidney disease stage 3 in the primary care setting.DesignA multicentre, prospective, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study.Setting11 primary...

Improved clinical trial accrual using a communication tool: Best case/worst case—Clinical trials.

26 Background: Clinical trials are crucial to the development of new treatments that may improve survival and quality of life for patients. Cancer clinical trials are hampered by chronically low participation rates. A decision support intervention designed to facilitate a shared decision making discussion with cancer patients regarding chemotherapy options could help oncologists align patient preferences with treatment options, including clinical trials. We performed a retrospective chart review comparing lung cancer patients seen in our integrated onco-palliative care clinic (PC) with standard oncology care (SOC) patients for clinical trial participation as a means of assessing potential effectiveness of the tool. The PC clinic is staffed exclusively by the author who also developed the tool. The tool is a combination of a structured discussion paired with a paper diagram the patient takes home which details all the treatment options including best supportive care alone, standard chemotherapy, and a clinical trial. Methods: Charts of every patient seen in our institution with advanced lung cancer from July 2007-June 2011 were reviewed. Eligible patients were those who received any care at our center thus excluding patient seen only for a second opinion. Demographic, treatment details, survival, and hospice utilization data were obtained. There were five oncologists included the SOC group though the vast majority of patients were seen by two providers. All providers (PC and SOC) are academic physicians who work closely together, meet weekly, have clinic on the same day, share the same research staff and have the same promotion requirements. Results: 207 patients with advanced lung cancer were identified, 82 in the PC group. A significantly higher proportion of patients participated in therapeutic clinical trials in the PC group when compared to the SOC group (29% versus 19%, adjusted OR = 2.54, p = 0.014). No difference in overall chemotherapy utilization was seen between the groups. Conclusions: Our chart review provides initial evidence that the best case/worst case: clinical trials tool may help facilitate clinical trial participation in patients with advanced lung cancer who are exploring their options.

A virtual consult service to optimize clinical trial participation in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

6601 Background: With an increasing complexity and number of endocrine, molecularly-targeted and immunotherapeutic clinical trial and standard-of-care therapies available for patients with metastat...

Targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) of advanced prostate cancer (PCA) using formalin-fixed tissue.

4649 Background: The genomic landscape of advanced PCA is not well characterized, partly due to limited availability of frozen metastatic tissue. This has created a gap in our knowledge of treatment related and potentially targetable genomic alterations. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate feasibility of performing NGS to molecularly characterize advanced PCA using formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue. Methods: 25 metastatic CRPC, 4 metastatic hormone naïve PCA, 3 primary localized PCA, and 18 benign matched prostates were evaluated (40mm FFPE tissue per case). High-density foci were captured and sequenced for 3230 exons of 182 cancer-related genes and 37 introns of 14 genes often rearranged in cancer to an average depth of &gt;800x in a CLIA lab (Foundation Medicine). Recurrent mutations, copy number alterations, and fusions were validated using PCR and FISH. Results: In &gt;90% of samples, there was sufficient DNA (≥50 ng) for analysis. Recurrent high confidence cancer alterations in CRPC included: TMPRSS2-ERG fusion (44%), PTEN loss (44%), TP53 mutation (40%), AR mutation (24%), AR gain (24%), RB mutation (28%), MYC gain (12%), and BRCA2 loss (12%). Overall 48% of CRPC harbored AR gene alterations. Additionally, there were mutations in CTNNB1 (12%), ATM (8%) and PIK3CA (4%). Copy number alterations not previously described in PCA included CCND1, CDK4/6 gains and CDKN2A/CDKN2B deletions. Hormone naïve metastatic and high risk localized PCA demonstrated similar frequency of TMPRSS2-ERG gene fusion, BRCA2 deletion, and TP53 mutations as CRPC, but AR alterations and MYC gain were not seen. Conclusions: This study demonstrates feasibility of in-depth, NGS based DNA analysis using FFPE tissue, even biopsy material. Frequent AR alterations in CRPC, mutations associated with disease progression, and potential drug targets were identified. Focused NGS has clinical potential to identify actionable genomic alterations in advanced PCA that can impact patient participation in trials as well as treatment and outcome. Treatment options include PARP inhibitors for patients with BRCA2 and ATM alterations (20% of cases) and PI3K/AKT inhibitors for PIK3CA mutations.

Older patient participation in SWOG lung cancer trials: Comparative analysis from 1993 to 2008.

7570 Background: In 1999, SWOG published a study demonstrating the underrepresentation of patients 65 years and older on clinical trials (Hutchins NEJM). A second report published in 2006 demonstrated increasing proportions of patients &gt; 65 years (31% 1997-2000; 38% 2001-2003) being enrolled into SWOG trials (Unger JCO). Older patient enrollment was still disproportionately low compared to the US cancer population. The current analysis focuses on patients with lung cancer from 1993-2008. Methods: The proportions of enrollment onto SWOG lung cancer treatment trials by age (65-69, 70-79, ≥80 years) and gender were computed for 4-year time intervals between 1993 and 2008; corresponding rates in the US were derived from US Census and National Cancer Institute SEER data. Proportions in the SWOG trials were compared to the SEER proportions using a 1-sample binomial test of proportions. Time trends within SWOG were evaluated using linear regression. Results: The proportion of patients 65-69 was significantly higher than the US population between 1993 and 2004, but was not significantly different after 2004. Proportions of patients on SWOG trials 70-79 years old and ≥ 80 were significantly smaller than the US population. Females were underrepresented from 1993-2004. Between 2005 and 2008 female enrollment was not significantly different from the US population. Conclusions: Currently, the proportion of patients 65-69 years of age and of female gender enrolled in SWOG trials is representative of the general lung cancer population. Although some progress has been made in increasing trial participation of patients &gt; 70, enrollment remains disproportionately low. The disparity is most evident in patients &gt; 80. Continued efforts are needed to increase older patient participation in lung cancer trials. Supported in part by PHS Cooperative Agreement grants awarded by the National Cancer Institute: DHHS, CA32102 and CA38926. [Table: see text]

Developing ethical strategies to assist oncologists in seeking informed consent to cancer clinical trials

Randomised clinical trials have come to be regarded as the gold standard in treatment evaluation. However, many doctors see the discussion of a clinical trial as an intrusion into the doctor–patient relationship and find these discussions difficult to initiate. Detailed informed consent is now a requirement of patient participation in trials; however, it is known that patients commonly fail to understand and recall the information conveyed. These difficulties for doctors and patients raise questions about the ethical integrity of the informed consent process. In this study, we have developed a set of communication strategies underpinned by ethical, linguistic and psychological theory, designed to assist doctors in this difficult task. Initially, audiotape transcripts of 26 consultations in which 10 medical oncologists invited patients to participate in clinical trials were analysed by expert ethicists, linguists, oncologists and psychologists, using rigorous qualitative methodology. A subset of seven of these was subjected to detailed linguistic analysis. A strategies document was developed to address themes which emerged from these analyses. This document was presented to relevant expert stakeholders. Their feedback was incorporated into the final document. Four themes emerged from the analysis; (a) shared decision-making, (b) the sequence of moves in the consultation, (c) the type and clarity of the information provided and (d) disclosure of controversial information and coercion. Detailed strategies were developed to assist doctors to communicate in these areas. We have developed a set of ethical strategies which may assist health professionals in this difficult area. A training package based on these strategies is currently being evaluated in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

The behavioral dynamics of clinical trials

Two ways of approaching the design of long-term clinical trials are presented and contrasted. The first, termed the “static” view, emphasizes close adherence to formal rules of study design. The second, termed the “dynamic” view, emphasizes the behavioral aspects of patient participation in trials of long duration. The dynamic view is discussed in detail, with discussion of how recruitment of participants, random assignment to conditions, compliance with protocol, and measurement of outcomes are affected by behavioral dynamics. Data from a recently completed tamoxifen toxicity trial are used to illustrate the points and to focus the discussion of behavioral dynamics on the design of a chemoprevention trial for breast cancer using tamoxifen.