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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Addressing multilevel barriers to clinical trial participation among Black and White men with prostate cancer through the PACCT study.Cancer medicine · 2023Trial
- Identification of Factors Affecting the Accrual of Black Males Into Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials in the United States.Urology practice · 2025Article
- Strategies for increasing accrual in cancer clinical trials: What is the evidence?Cancer medicine · 2024Review
- Identifying Oncology Clinical Trial Candidates Using Artificial Intelligence Predictions of Treatment Change: A Pilot Implementation Study.JCO precision oncology · 2024Article
- Development and pilot test of a physician-focused cancer clinical trials communication training intervention.PEC innovation · 2022Article
- Physicians' use of plain language during discussions of prostate cancer clinical trials with patients.Patient education and counseling · 2022Article
- Decision-making about clinical trial options among older patients with metastatic cancer who have exhausted standard therapies.Journal of geriatric oncology · 2022Article
- Feasibility of Randomized Controlled Trials for Cancer Drugs Approved by the Food and Drug Administration Based on Single-Arm Studies.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2021Article
- A Review of Research on Disparities in the Care of Black and White Patients With Cancer in Detroit.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.