Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Barriers to Clinical Trial Implementation Among Community Care Centers

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What are the most common barriers to clinical trial implementation among community cancer centers, and what strategies might overcome them?

          Findings

          This survey study assessed 58 cancer centers across 25 states. While most centers (88%) offered therapeutic oncology trials, considerable disparities were observed between different care settings, such as fewer industry-sponsored trials at practices with smaller patient volumes and fewer early-phase trials among rural and suburban practices.

          Meaning

          These findings indicate that community cancer centers face unique challenges to engaging in clinical trials; support is needed from pharmaceutical companies, health care policymakers, national advocacy groups, and investigators to devise targeted interventions that improve access among these centers and enhance equity across all practice settings.

          Abstract

          This survey study investigates critical barriers to trial enrollment to translate findings into actionable practice changes that increase cancer clinical trial enrollment.

          Abstract

          Importance

          While an overwhelming majority of patients diagnosed with cancer express willingness to participate in clinical trials, only a fraction will enroll onto a research protocol.

          Objective

          To identify critical barriers to trial enrollment to translate findings into actionable practice changes that increase cancer clinical trial enrollment.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This survey study included designated site contacts at oncology practices with teams who were highly involved with the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Community Oncology Research Institute (ACORI) clinical trials activities, all American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)–ACCC collaboration pilot sites, and/or sites providing care to at least 25% African American and Hispanic residents. To determine participation trends among health care practices in oncology-focused research, identify barriers to clinical trial implementation and operation, and establish unmet needs for cancer clinics interested in trial participation, a 34-question survey was designed. Survey questions were defined within 3 categories: cancer center demographic characteristics, clinical trial characteristics, and referral practices. The survey was distributed through email and was open from June 20 through October 5, 2022.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Participation in and barriers to conducting oncology trials in different community oncology settings.

          Results

          The survey was distributed to 100 cancer centers, with completion by 58 centers (58%) across 25 states. Fifty-two centers (88%) reported that they conduct therapeutic clinical trials, of which 33 (63%) were from urban settings, 11 (21%) were from suburban settings, and 8 (15%) were from rural settings. Only 25% of rural practices (2 of 8) offered phase 1 trials, compared with 67% of urban practices (22 of 33) ( P = .01). Respondents noted challenges in conducting research, including patient recruitment (27 respondents [52%]), limited staffing (27 [52%]), and nonrelevant trials for their patient population (25 [48%]). Among sites not offering therapeutic trials, barriers to research conduct included limited infrastructure, funding, and staffing. Most centers (46 of 58 [79%]) referred patients to outside centers for clinical trial enrollment, particularly in the context of late-stage disease and/or disease progression. Only 17 of these sites (37%) had established protocols for patient follow-up subsequent to outside referral.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this national survey study of barriers to clinical trial implementation, most sites offered therapeutic trials, but there were significant disparities in trial availability across care settings. Furthermore, fundamental deficiencies in trial support infrastructure limited research activity, including within programs currently conducting research as well as at sites interested in future clinical research opportunities. These results identify crucial unmet needs for oncology clinics to effectively offer clinical trials to patients seeking care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities.

          Despite the importance of diversity of cancer trial participants with regard to race, ethnicity, age, and sex, there is little recent information about the representation of these groups in clinical trials. To characterize the representation of racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and women in cancer trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. Cross-sectional population-based analysis of all participants in therapeutic nonsurgical National Cancer Institute Clinical Trial Cooperative Group breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer clinical trials in 2000 through 2002. In a separate analysis, the ethnic distribution of patients enrolled in 2000 through 2002 was compared with those enrolled in 1996 through 1998, using logistic regression models to estimate the relative risk ratio of enrollment for racial and ethnic minorities to that of white patients during these time periods. Enrollment fraction, defined as the number of trial enrollees divided by the estimated US cancer cases in each race and age subgroup. Cancer research participation varied significantly across racial/ethnic and age groups. Compared with a 1.8% enrollment fraction among white patients, lower enrollment fractions were noted in Hispanic (1.3%; odds ratio [OR] vs whites, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.77; P<.001) and black (1.3%; OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.68-0.74; P<.001) patients. There was a strong relationship between age and enrollment fraction, with trial participants 30 to 64 years of age representing 3.0% of incident cancer patients in that age group, in comparison to 1.3% of 65- to 74-year-old patients and 0.5% of patients 75 years of age and older. This inverse relationship between age and trial enrollment fraction was consistent across racial and ethnic groups. Although the total number of trial participants increased during our study period, the representation of racial and ethnic minorities decreased. In comparison to whites, after adjusting for age, cancer type, and sex, patients enrolled in 2000 through 2002 were 24% less likely to be black (adjusted relative risk ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.89; P<.001). Men were more likely than women to enroll in colorectal cancer trials (enrollment fractions: 2.1% vs 1.6%, respectively; OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.24-1.35; P<.001) and lung cancer trials (enrollment fractions: 0.9% vs 0.7%, respectively; OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16-1.31; P<.001). Enrollment in cancer trials is low for all patient groups. Racial and ethnic minorities, women, and the elderly were less likely to enroll in cooperative group cancer trials than were whites, men, and younger patients, respectively. The proportion of trial participants who are black has declined in recent years.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Magnitude of Structural, Clinical, and Physician and Patient Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation

            Abstract Background Barriers to cancer clinical trial participation have been the subject of frequent study, but the rate of trial participation has not changed substantially over time. Studies often emphasize patient-related barriers, but other types of barriers may have greater impact on trial participation. Our goal was to examine the magnitude of different domains of trial barriers by synthesizing prior research. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that examined the trial decision-making pathway using a uniform framework to characterize and quantify structural (trial availability), clinical (eligibility), and patient/physician barrier domains. The systematic review utilized the PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Ovid Medline search engines. We used random effects to estimate rates of different domains across studies, adjusting for academic vs community care settings. Results We identified 13 studies (nine in academic and four in community settings) with 8883 patients. A trial was unavailable for patients at their institution 55.6% of the time (95% confidence interval [CI] = 43.7% to 67.3%). Further, 21.5% (95% CI = 10.9% to 34.6%) of patients were ineligible for an available trial, 14.8% (95% CI = 9.0% to 21.7%) did not enroll, and 8.1% (95% CI = 6.3% to 10.0%) enrolled. Rates of trial enrollment in academic (15.9% [95% CI = 13.8% to 18.2%]) vs community (7.0% [95% CI = 5.1% to 9.1%]) settings differed, but not rates of trial unavailability, ineligibility, or non-enrollment. Conclusions These findings emphasize the enormous need to address structural and clinical barriers to trial participation, which combined make trial participation unachievable for more than three of four cancer patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Role of Clinical Trial Participation in Cancer Research: Barriers, Evidence, and Strategies

              Fewer than one in 20 adult patients with cancer enroll in cancer clinical trials. Although barriers to trial participation have been the subject of frequent study, the rate of trial participation has not changed substantially over time. Barriers to trial participation are structural, clinical, and attitudinal, and they differ according to demographic and socioeconomic factors. In this article, we characterize the nature of cancer clinical trial barriers, and we consider global and local strategies for reducing barriers. We also consider the specific case of adolescents with cancer and show that the low rate of trial enrollment in this age group strongly correlates with limited improvements in cancer population outcomes compared with other age groups. Our analysis suggests that a clinical trial system that enrolls patients at a higher rate produces treatment advances at a faster rate and corresponding improvements in cancer population outcomes. Viewed in this light, the issue of clinical trial enrollment is foundational, lying at the heart of the cancer clinical trial endeavor. Fewer barriers to trial participation would enable trials to be completed more quickly and would improve the generalizability of trial results. Moreover, increased accrual to trials is important for patients, because trials provide patients the opportunity to receive the newest treatments. In an era of increasing emphasis on a treatment decision-making process that incorporates the patient perspective, the opportunity for patients to choose trial participation for their care is vital.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                29 April 2024
                April 2024
                29 April 2024
                : 7
                : 4
                : e248739
                Affiliations
                [1 ]City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California
                [2 ]Association of Community Cancer Centers, Rockville, Maryland
                [3 ]Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York
                [4 ]Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
                [5 ]Department of Internal Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
                [6 ]Genentech, Inc, South San Francisco, California
                [7 ]City of Hope Orange County Lennar Foundation Cancer Center, Irvine, California
                [8 ]Penn Medicine Ann B. Barshinger Cancer Institute, Lancaster, Pennsylvania
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: February 28, 2024.
                Published: April 29, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.8739
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2024 Ebrahimi H et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Alexander Chehrazi-Raffle, MD, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1500 E Duarte Rd, Duarte, CA 91010 ( achehraziraffle@ 123456coh.org ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Chehrazi-Raffle had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Ebrahimi, Plotkin, Shivakumar, Dizman, Bhagat, Liv, Tripathi, Oyer, Boehmer, Pal, Chehrazi-Raffle.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Ebrahimi, Megally, Plotkin, Salgia, Zengin, Meza, Chawla, Castro, Dizman, Bhagat, Li, Rock, Liu, Tripathi, Dorff, Chehrazi-Raffle.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Ebrahimi, Plotkin, Salgia, Boehmer, Chehrazi-Raffle.
                Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Megally, Plotkin, Shivakumar, Salgia, Zengin, Meza, Chawla, Castro, Dizman, Bhagat, Liv, Li, Rock, Liu, Tripathi, Dorff, Oyer, Pal, Chehrazi-Raffle.
                Statistical analysis: Ebrahimi, Megally, Dizman, Li, Chehrazi-Raffle.
                Obtained funding: Shivakumar, Bhagat.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Megally, Plotkin, Shivakumar, Salgia, Meza, Chawla, Dizman, Liv, Boehmer.
                Supervision: Plotkin, Bhagat, Liu, Tripathi, Boehmer, Pal, Chehrazi-Raffle.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Dizman reported serving as a consultant for Vivreon Gastroscience outside the submitted work. Dr Liu reported receiving personal fees from Exelixis, Esai, SeaGen, Merck, and EMD Serono outside the submitted work. Dr Tripathi reported receiving research funding from Clovis Oncology, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Aravive, WindMIL Therapeutics, and Bayer; receiving honoraria from Urology Times, Cardinal Health, and Targeted Oncology; and receiving personal fees from Foundation Medicine, Pfizer, Genzyme, EMD Serono, Deka Biosciences, Aadi Biosciences, Seattle Genetics, Bayer, Gilead, and Exelixis outside the submitted work. Dr Dorff reported receiving research funding from Pfizer and receiving personal fees from Seattle Genetics, AbbVie, Exelixis, Advanced Accelerator Applications, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr Boehmer reported receiving grants from Genentech Grant paid to ACCC for work under consideration during the conduct of the study and receiving personal fees from Merck and EMD Serono outside the submitted work. Dr Pal reported receiving travel expenses from CRISPR and Ipsen as well as serving as a consultant for Genentech, Aveo, Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Exelixis, Ipsen, BMS, and Astellas outside the submitted work. Dr Chehrazi-Raffle reported receiving personal fees from Exelixis, Aveo, and Tempus outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was funded by Genentech, Inc.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.
                Article
                zoi240323
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.8739
                11059033
                38683608
                502e414a-258f-4e8c-ac65-cb979b3a0200
                Copyright 2024 Ebrahimi H et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 29 October 2023
                : 28 February 2024
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Health Policy

                Comments

                Comment on this article