Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31790330›Full record

ArticleJCO oncology practice2020

Unpacking Trial Offers and Low Accrual Rates: A Qualitative Analysis of Clinic Visits With Physicians and Patients Potentially Eligible for a Prostate Cancer Clinical Trial.

Lauren M Hamel, David W Dougherty, Terrance L Albrecht, Mark Wojda, Alice Jordan, Tanina F Moore, Nicole Senft, Michael Carducci, Elisabeth I Heath, Mark A Manning and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO oncology practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Lauren M HamelWayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI.
David W DoughertyDana-Farber Cancer Institute/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Terrance L AlbrechtWayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI.
Mark WojdaWayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI.
Alice JordanJohns Hopkins/Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD.
Tanina F MooreWayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI.
Nicole SenftVanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Michael CarducciJohns Hopkins/Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD.
Elisabeth I HeathWayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI.
Mark A ManningWayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI.
Louis A PennerWayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI.
Seongho KimWayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI.
Susan EgglyWayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI.
The Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute · USWayne State University · USSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USVanderbilt University · US

Funding

A Multilevel Intervention to Increase the Participation of African Americans in Prostate Cancer Clinical TrialsR01CA200718 · NCI · WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY · PI EGGLY, SUSAN S. · 2016 to 2020
$3.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA200718
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCancer clinical trial accrual rates are low, and information about contributing factors is needed. We examined video-recorded clinical interactions to identify circumstances under which patients potentially eligible for a trial at a major cancer center were offered a trial.

methodsWe conducted a qualitative directed content analysis of 62 recorded interactions with physicians (n = 13) and patients with intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer (n = 43). Patients were screened and potentially eligible for a trial. We observed and coded the interactions in 3 steps: (1) classification of all interactions as explicit offer, offer pending, trial discussed/not offered, or trial not discussed; (2) in interactions with no explicit offer, classification of whether the cancer had progressed; (3) in interactions classified as progression but no trial offered, identification of factors discussed that may explain the lack of an offer.

resultsOf the 62 interactions, 29% were classified as explicit offer, 12% as offer pending, 18% as trial discussed/not offered, and 39% as trial not discussed. Of those with no offer, 57% included information that the cancer had not progressed. In 68% of the remaining interactions with patients whose cancer had progressed but did not receive an offer, reasons for the lack of offer were identified, but in 32%, no explanation was provided.

conclusionEven in optimal circumstances, few patients were offered a trial, often because their cancer had not progressed. Findings support professional recommendations to broaden trial inclusion criteria. Findings suggest accrual rates should reflect the proportion of eligible patients who enroll.

Indexed as

PhysiciansProstatic NeoplasmsAmbulatory CareClinical Trials as TopicHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID31790330
PMCPMC7587411
OpenAlexW2993167487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.