How Cancer Patients Perceive Clinical Trials (CTs) in the Era of CTs: Current Perception and Its Differences Between Common and Rare Cancers.

Perception has recently been highlighted as a critical determinant for participation in clinical trials (CTs) among cancer patients. We evaluated cancer patients' current perceptions of CTs using the PARTAKE questionnaires, focusing on differences between patients with common and rare cancers. From November 2015 to May 2017, we prospectively surveyed patients who had received anti-cancer treatment at Asan Medical Center. Among 333 respondents, 70.9% had common and 29.1% had rare cancers. In the cohort, 87.7% of patients with common cancers and 75.3% of patients with rare cancers answered that they heard of and knew about CTs. However, willingness to participate in CTs was expressed only in approximately 56% of patients, although it was significantly associated with awareness and perception. Surprisingly, patients with rare cancers when compared with patients with common cancers showed significantly lower levels of awareness and perception (64.2% vs 79.9%, p = 0.003 and 77.3% vs 91.9%, p < 0.001), and consequently less willingness to participate in CTs (47.4% vs 58.9%, p = 0.06). In addition, cancer patients still harbored fear and concerns about safety and reward of CTs, and demonstrated substantial lack of knowledge about the voluntary nature of CTs, which was more obvious in patients with rare cancers. We identified relatively modest willingness of cancer patients to participate in CTs regardless of generally favorable perception. These findings are highlighted by the more negative perception of CTs among patients with rare cancers relative to those with common cancers. Further education and encouragement by research and public entities seem essential to improve motivation of CTs in cancer patients beyond good perception, especially for patients with rare cancers.

Utilization of a Clinical Trial Management System for the Whole Clinical Trial Process as an Integrated Database: System Development.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials pose potential risks in both communications and management due to the various stakeholders involved when performing clinical trials. The academic medical center has a responsibility and obligation to conduct and manage clinical trials while maintaining a sufficiently high level of quality, therefore it is necessary to build an information technology system to support standardized clinical trial processes and comply with relevant regulations. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to address the challenges identified while performing clinical trials at an academic medical center, Asan Medical Center (AMC) in Korea, by developing and utilizing a clinical trial management system (CTMS) that complies with standardized processes from multiple departments or units, controlled vocabularies, security, and privacy regulations. METHODS: This study describes the methods, considerations, and recommendations for the development and utilization of the CTMS as a consolidated research database in an academic medical center. A task force was formed to define and standardize the clinical trial performance process at the site level. On the basis of the agreed standardized process, the CTMS was designed and developed as an all-in-one system complying with privacy and security regulations. RESULTS: In this study, the processes and standard mapped vocabularies of a clinical trial were established at the academic medical center. On the basis of these processes and vocabularies, a CTMS was built which interfaces with the existing trial systems such as the electronic institutional review board health information system, enterprise resource planning, and the barcode system. To protect patient data, the CTMS implements data governance and access rules, and excludes 21 personal health identifiers according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rule and Korean privacy laws. Since December 2014, the CTMS has been successfully implemented and used by 881 internal and external users for managing 11,645 studies and 146,943 subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The CTMS was introduced in the Asan Medical Center to manage the large amounts of data involved with clinical trial operations. Inter- and intraunit control of data and resources can be easily conducted through the CTMS system. To our knowledge, this is the first CTMS developed in-house at an academic medical center side which can enhance the efficiency of clinical trial management in compliance with privacy and security laws.

Expedited Safety Reporting to Sponsors Through the Implementation of an Alert System for Clinical Trial Management at an Academic Medical Center: Retrospective Design Study.

BACKGROUND: Early detection or notification of adverse event (AE) occurrences during clinical trials is essential to ensure patient safety. Clinical trials take advantage of innovative strategies, clinical designs, and state-of-the-art technologies to evaluate efficacy and safety, however, early awareness of AE occurrences by investigators still needs to be systematically improved. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to build a system to promptly inform investigators when clinical trial participants make unscheduled visits to the emergency room or other departments within the hospital. METHODS: We developed the Adverse Event Awareness System (AEAS), which promptly informs investigators and study coordinators of AE occurrences by automatically sending text messages when study participants make unscheduled visits to the emergency department or other clinics at our center. We established the AEAS in July 2015 in the clinical trial management system. We compared the AE reporting timeline data of 305 AE occurrences from 74 clinical trials between the preinitiative period (December 2014-June 2015) and the postinitiative period (July 2015-June 2016) in terms of three AE awareness performance indicators: onset to awareness, awareness to reporting, and onset to reporting. RESULTS: A total of 305 initial AE reports from 74 clinical trials were included. All three AE awareness performance indicators were significantly lower in the postinitiative period. Specifically, the onset-to-reporting times were significantly shorter in the postinitiative period (median 1 day [IQR 0-1], mean rank 140.04 [SD 75.35]) than in the preinitiative period (median 1 day [IQR 0-4], mean rank 173.82 [SD 91.07], P≤.001). In the phase subgroup analysis, the awareness-to-reporting and onset-to-reporting indicators of phase 1 studies were significantly lower in the postinitiative than in the preinitiative period (preinitiative: median 1 day, mean rank of awareness to reporting 47.94, vs postinitiative: median 0 days, mean rank of awareness to reporting 35.75, P=.01; and preinitiative: median 1 day, mean rank of onset to reporting 47.4, vs postinitiative: median 1 day, mean rank of onset to reporting 35.99, P=.03). The risk-level subgroup analysis found that the onset-to-reporting time for low- and high-risk studies significantly decreased postinitiative (preinitiative: median 4 days, mean rank of low-risk studies 18.73, vs postinitiative: median 1 day, mean rank of low-risk studies 11.76, P=.02; and preinitiative: median 1 day, mean rank of high-risk studies 117.36, vs postinitiative: median 1 day, mean rank of high-risk studies 97.27, P=.01). In particular, onset to reporting was reduced more in the low-risk trial than in the high-risk trial (low-risk: median 4-0 days, vs high-risk: median 1-1 day). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that a real-time automatic alert system can effectively improve safety reporting timelines. The improvements were prominent in phase 1 and in low- and high-risk clinical trials. These findings suggest that an information technology-driven automatic alert system effectively improves safety reporting timelines, which may enhance patient safety.