Screening log: Challenges in community patient recruitment for gynecologic oncology clinical trials

被引:0
|
作者
Ratnaparkhi, Rubina [1 ]
Doolittle, Gary C. [2 ,3 ]
Krebill, Hope [2 ,3 ]
Springer, Michelle [2 ,3 ]
Calhoun, Elizabeth [4 ]
Jewell, Andrea [1 ,2 ]
Mudaranthakam, Dinesh Pal [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Kansas, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Gynecol Oncol, 3901 Rainbow Blvd, Kansas City, KS 66160 USA
[2] Univ Kansas, Canc Ctr, 4001 Rainbow Blvd, Kansas City, KS 66160 USA
[3] Masonic Canc Alliance, 4350 Shawnee Mission Pkwy, Fairway, KS 66205 USA
[4] Univ Illinois, Off Vice Chancellor Hlth Affairs, 914 S Wood St, Chicago, IL 60612 USA
关键词
Clinical trials; Gynecologic oncology; Patient recruitment; Electronic screening; ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA; RACIAL DISPARITIES; RURAL PATIENTS; CANCER CARE; PARTICIPATION; ENROLLMENT; BARRIERS; METAANALYSIS; OUTREACH; STRATEGY;
D O I
10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101379
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Background: Clinical trial participation can improve overall survival and mitigate healthcare disparities for gynecologic cancer patients in low-volume community centers. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a centrally regulated but administratively decentralized electronic screening log system to identify eligible patients across a large catchment area for a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer center's open clinical trials. Methods: Electronic screening log data collected between 2014 and 2021 from ten community partner sites in a single NCI-designated cancer center's catchment area were reviewed retrospectively. Clinical factors assessed included cancer site, primary versus recurrent disease status, and histology. Identification efficiency (the ratio of patients screened identified with an available trial) was calculated. Identification inefficiencies (failures to identify patients with a potentially relevant trial) were assessed, and etiologies were characterized. Results: Across ten community partner sites, 492 gynecologic cancer patients were screened for seven open clinical trials during the study period. This included 170 (34.5 %) ovarian cancer patients, 156 (31.7 %) endometrial cancer patients, and 119 (24.2 %) cervical cancer patients. Over 40 % had advanced stage disease, and 10.6 % had recurrent disease. Only three patients were identified as having a relevant open trial; none ultimately enrolled due to not meeting trial eligibility criteria. An additional 2-52 patients were retrospectively found to have a relevant trial available despite not being identified as such within the electronic screening log system. Up to 14.4 % of patients had one or more missing minimum data elements that hindered full evaluation of clinical trial availability. Re-screening patients when new trials open may identify 12-15 additional patients per recurrent disease trial. Conclusions: An electronic screening log system can increase awareness of gynecologic oncology clinical trials at a NCI-designated cancer center's community partner sites. However, it is inadequate as a single intervention to increase clinical trial enrollment. Providing adequate support staff, documenting clinical factors consistently, rescreening patients at relevant intervals, and coordinating with central study personnel may increase its utility.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] SELECTION FACTORS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS - RESULTS FROM THE COMMUNITY CLINICAL ONCOLOGY PROGRAM PHYSICIANS PATIENT LOG
    HUNTER, CP
    FRELICK, RW
    FELDMAN, AR
    BAVIER, AR
    DUNLAP, WH
    FORD, L
    HENSON, D
    MACFARLANE, D
    SMART, CR
    YANCIK, R
    YATES, JW
    [J]. CANCER TREATMENT REPORTS, 1987, 71 (06): : 559 - 565
  • [2] The clinical trials crisis in gynecologic oncology
    del Carmen, Marcela G.
    Annunziata, Christina M.
    Rice, Laurel W.
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2017, 145 (03) : 481 - 482
  • [3] Telehealth utilization in gynecologic oncology clinical trials
    Andriani, Leslie
    Oh, Jinhee
    McMinn, Erin
    Chittams, Jesse
    Simpkins, Fiona
    Ko, Emily
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2022, 166 : S156 - S156
  • [4] Diversity and transparency in gynecologic oncology clinical trials
    de Oca, Mary Katherine Montes
    Howell, Elizabeth P.
    Spinosa, Daniel
    Knochenhauer, Hope
    Peipert, Benjamin J.
    Severson, Eric
    Ramkissoon, Shakti
    Akinyemiju, Tomi F.
    Previs, Rebecca A.
    [J]. CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL, 2023, 34 (02) : 133 - 140
  • [5] Diversity and transparency in gynecologic oncology clinical trials
    Spinosa, Daniel
    Howell, Elizabeth
    Montes, Mary Katherine
    de Oca, Mary Katherine Montes
    Knochenhauer, Hope
    Watson, Catherine
    Weber, Jeremy
    Truong, Tracy
    Previs, Rebecca
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2021, 162 : S138 - S139
  • [6] Telehealth utilization in gynecologic oncology clinical trials
    Andriani, Leslie
    Oh, Jinhee
    Mcminn, Erin
    Gleason, Emily
    Koelper, Nathanael C.
    Chittams, Jesse
    Simpkins, Fiona
    Ko, Emily M.
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2023, 177 : 103 - 108
  • [7] Diversity and transparency in gynecologic oncology clinical trials
    Mary Katherine Montes de Oca
    Elizabeth P. Howell
    Daniel Spinosa
    Hope Knochenhauer
    Benjamin J. Peipert
    Eric Severson
    Shakti Ramkissoon
    Tomi F. Akinyemiju
    Rebecca A. Previs
    [J]. Cancer Causes & Control, 2023, 34 : 133 - 140
  • [8] Delayed publication of clinical trials in gynecologic oncology
    Salinaro, Julia R.
    Rossi, Emma C.
    Penvose, Katherine N.
    Zhang, Yingao
    Darling, Alice J.
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2024, 183 : 74 - 77
  • [9] Clinical trials in gynecologic oncology: Past, present, and future
    Annunziata, Christina M.
    Kohn, Elise C.
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2018, 148 (02) : 393 - 402
  • [10] Barriers to enrollment in clinical trials in gynecologic oncology.
    McMinn, Erin
    Smith, Anna Jo Bodurtha
    Arasappan, Dhivya
    Koelper, Nathanael
    Simpkins, Fiona
    Howell, Elizabeth A.
    Ko, Emily Meichun
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2024, 42 (16)