Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34374772›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Experiences of Patients After Withdrawal From Cancer Clinical Trials.

Connie M Ulrich, Kathleen Knafl, Anessa M Foxwell, Qiuping Zhou, Cynthia Paidipati, Deborah Tiller, Sarah J Ratcliffe, Gwenyth R Wallen, Therese S Richmond, Mary Naylor and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer: MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Reflections on the opportunities and challenges of applying experience-based co-design (EBCD) to phase 1 clinical trials in oncology.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Procedures for application of the extended dosing after antitumor drug clinical trials.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Error in Funding/Support Statement.JAMA network open · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Connie M UlrichSchool of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Kathleen KnaflSchool of Nursing, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Anessa M FoxwellSchool of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Qiuping ZhouSchool of Nursing, George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Cynthia PaidipatiDepartment of Family and Community Health, Marcella Niehoff School of Nursing, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Deborah TillerSchool of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Sarah J RatcliffePublic Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Gwenyth R WallenNational Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Therese S RichmondSchool of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Mary NaylorSchool of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Thomas F GordonDepartment of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Lowell.
Christine GradyNational Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Victoria MillerDepartment of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Funding

Individualized Care for At Risk Older AdultsT32NR009356 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Lauren M Massimo, MARY D NAYLOR · 2007 to 2026
$7.8M
Retention in Cancer Clinical Trials: Modeling Patients' Risk Benefit AssessmentsR01CA196131 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI ULRICH, CONNIE MARIE · 2015 to 2019
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA196131NINR NIH HHS T32 NR009356
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Cancer clinical trials (CCTs) provide patients an opportunity to receive experimental drugs, tests, and/or procedures that can lead to remission. For some, a CCT may seem like their only option. Little is known about experiences of patient-participants who withdraw or are withdrawn from CCTs. Objective: To examine patient-participants' experiences during withdrawal from CCTs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative, descriptive study used a semistructured interview designed specifically for it, with open-ended and probing questions. The study took place at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania. The need for a sample of 20 interviewees was determined by code and meaning saturation (ie, no new themes revealed and identified themes fully elaborated). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed with a qualitative software program. Data coded with the software were refined into categories reflecting broad themes. A criterion-based sampling approach was used to select a subset of adult patients with cancer who were former CCT participants and who agreed on exit from those CCTs to a later interview about withdrawal experiences. They were contacted one by one by telephone from September 2015 through June 2019 until 20 agreed. Data analysis was completed in October 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Themes characterizing patient-participants' perceptions of their withdrawal experiences. Results: Respondents' mean (SD) age was 64.42 (8.49) years; 12 (63.2%) were men. Most respondents were White (18 respondents [94.7%]) and college educated (11 respondents [55.0%]). Cancer stage data were available for 17 participants, 11 of whom (64.7%) had stage IV cancer at CCT enrollment. Thirteen respondents reported withdrawal as a result of disease progression, and 5 withdrew because of adverse effects. Other reasons for withdrawal included acute illness and participant uncertainty about the reason. Analysis of interview data yielded 5 themes: posttrial prognostic awareness, goals of care discussions, emotional coping, burden of adverse effects, and professional trust and support. Subthemes included regrets or hindsight, urgency to start next treatment, and weighing benefits and burdens of treatment. Limited discussions about patient-participants' immediate posttrial care needs left many feeling that there was no clear path forward. Conclusions and Relevance: Patient-participants transitioning from a CCT described feeling intense symptoms and emotions and awareness that their life span was short and options seemed to be limited. Communication that includes attention to posttrial needs is needed throughout the CCT to help patient-participants navigate posttrial steps. Research should focus on components of responsible and ethical CCT transitions, including types and timing of discussions and who should begin these discussions with patient-participants and their families.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalStress, PsychologicalAgedClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient ParticipationPatient SatisfactionQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID34374772
PMCPMC8356063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.