Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:09:22.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Investigating patient recruitment to radiotherapy clinical trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Emma Thompson*
Affiliation:
Radiotherapy and Oncology Department, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK
Melanie Clarkson
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health and Wellbeing,Sheffield Hallam University, Collegiate Campus, Broomgrove Road, Sheffield, S10 2BP
*
Correspondence to: Emma Thompson, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, Cleveland TS4 3BW, UK. Tel: 01642 837 947. Fax: 01642 835 522. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Background

Radiotherapy randomised controlled trials provide evidence to support the development of new techniques and dose/fractionation regimens. Some radiotherapy trials have previously had to close early or revise targets due to low recruitment rates. Many authors have recommended research into recruitment strategies for many areas of medicine, however little work has been carried out in the specific field of radiotherapy.

Method

Using a survey of research radiographers followed by radiotherapy patient interviews, this project provides perspectives on motives for patient participation in radiotherapy clinical trials, and how to best support people through this decision-making process.

Findings

The main factors influencing participation identified by the radiographers were altruism, treatment fatigue and concerns about the trial arms, lack of resources and lack of commitment from some medical colleagues. For patients the main factors were mainly emotional; altruism, and fears for efficacy of different trial arms featured, with requests for timely communication of trial information.

Conclusion

We recommend that strategies should be offered proactively to support patients through the decision-making process when considering trial participation. Research radiographers are ideally qualified to offer support and expert knowledge to these patients.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Coles, C, Faivre-Finn, C. Radiotherapy research trials in the UK: secrets of success. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2012; 24: 229231.Google Scholar
2. Treweek, S, Lockhart, P, Pitkethly, M. Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2013; 3: e002360 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002360.Google Scholar
3. Treweek, S, Mitchell, E, Pitkethly, M et al. Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 Jan 20; (1)MR000013.Google Scholar
4. Watson, J, Torgerson, D J. Increasing recruitment to randomised trials: a review of randomised controlled trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 34. http:/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559709/Accessed on 29th November 2011.Google Scholar
5. Donovan, J L, Peters, T J, Noble, S et al. ProtecT Study Group. Who can best recruit to randomised trials? Randomized trial comparing surgeons and nurses recruiting patients to a trial of treatments for localised prostate cancer (ProtecT study). J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56 (7): 605609.Google Scholar
6. Jenkins, V, Fallowfield, L. Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomised clinical trials for cancer therapy. Br J Cancer 2000; 82 (11): 17831788.Google Scholar
7. Ferguson, O, Fuller, J, Faivre-Finn, C, Bayman, N. Optimising recruitment rates to radiotherapy clinical trials for patients with non-small cell lung cancer and brain metastases. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2010; 22 (7): 616.Google Scholar
8.FAST forward; Randomised clinical trial testing a 1 week course of curative whole breast radiotherapy against a standard 3-week schedule in terms of local cancer control and late adverse effects in patients with early breast cancer Version 2.2, 2nd May 2013 ICR- CTSU Protocol Number ICR-CTSU/2010/10026 ISRCTN19906132Google Scholar
9. Glaser, B, Strauss, A L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine, 1967.Google Scholar
10. Mays, N, Pope, C. Qualitative research in healthcare: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000; 320: 5052.Google Scholar
11. Lincoln, Y S., Guba, E G. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1985.Google Scholar
12. Mills, E J, Seely, R, Rachlis, B et al. Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta analysis and systematic review of patient–reported factors. Lancet Oncol 2006; 7: 141148.Google Scholar
13. Lee, J Y, Breaux, S R. Accrual of radiotherapy patients to clinical trials. Cancer 1983; 52: 10141016.Google Scholar
14. Bradley, N, Chow, E, Tsao, M et al. Reasons for poor accrual in palliative radiation therapy research studies. Support Cancer Ther 2006; 3 (2): 110119.Google Scholar
15. McCann, S, Campbell, M, Entwistle, V. Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self. Trials 2010; 11: 31.Google Scholar
16. Shah, A, Efsfathiou, J A, Paly, J J et al. Prospective preference assessment of patients’ willingness to participate in a randomised controlled trial of intensity modulated radiotherapy versus proton therapy for localised prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 83 (1): e139.Google Scholar
17. Jenkins, V, Farewell, D, Batt, L et al. The attitudes of 1066 patients with cancer towards participation in randomised clinical trials. Br J Cancer 2010; 103: 18011807.Google Scholar
18. Bruera, E, Willey, J, Palmer, J, Rosales, M. Treatment decisions for breast carcinoma: patient preferences and physician perceptions. Cancer 2002; 94 (7): 20762080.Google Scholar
19. Tarriman, J, Berry, D, Cochrane, B, Doorenbos, A, Schepp, K. Preferred and actual participation roles during health care decision making in persons with cancer: a systematic review. Ann Oncol 2010; 21 (6): 11451151.Google Scholar