Associations between geography, decision-making style, and interest in cancer clinical trial participation.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials offer novel treatments, which are essential to high quality cancer care. Patients living in rural areas are often underrepresented in clinical trials due to several factors. This study evaluated the association between rurality and interest in clinical trial participation, change in interest, and treatment decision-making style preference. METHODS: This cohort study included patients with cancer receiving oncology care at the University of Alabama at Birmingham from 2017 to 2019. Associations between treatment decision-making preference and the interaction between rurality and area deprivation were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression. Initial interest in clinical trial participation and change in interest were analyzed using modified Poisson regressions with robust standard errors. Initial interest model was stratified by Area Deprivation Index (ADI; higher vs. lower disadvantaged). RESULTS: In adjusted models, patients in rural versus urban areas had similar initial interest in clinical trials, both those in higher (40% vs. 50%) and lower disadvantaged settings (54% vs. 62%). Additionally, rural versus urban patients had similar change of clinical trial interest for both those who changed from uninterested-to-interested (31% vs. 26%) and interested-to-uninterested (47% vs. 42%). CONCLUSION: This study compares the interest in clinical trial participation among patients living in rural and urban settings. Lack of interest may be secondary to barriers that patients in rural areas face (e.g., transportation, financial, access). Most rural patients prefer a shared treatment decision-making style, which should be considered when identifying interventions to increase enrollment of underserved rural patients in clinical trials.

Exclusion criteria of breast cancer clinical trial protocols: a descriptive analysis.

PURPOSE: 3-8% of US adults with cancer are enrolled in a clinical trial due to various barriers to enrollment. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the variability of eligibility criteria, which currently have no standard guidelines. METHODS: This descriptive analysis utilized all therapeutic breast protocols offered at the University of Alabama at Birmingham between 2004 and 2020. Exclusion criteria were abstracted using OnCore and ClinicalTrials.gov. Laboratory values included liver function tests and hematologic labs. Comorbid conditions included congestive heart failure, cardiovascular disease, central nervous system (CNS) metastases, and prior cancer history. Comorbid conditions were further analyzed by amount of time protocols required participants to be from diagnosis or exacerbation-free. RESULTS: 102 protocols were eligible. Among liver laboratory values, bilirubin (78%) was included in most protocols ranging from institutional upper limit of normal (ULN) (9%) to 3xULN (2%), with 1.5xULN (56%) being most common. Similar variability was observed in alanine transaminase and aspartate transaminase. Among hematological labs, 82% of protocols defined a lower limit of acceptable absolute neutrophil count ranging from 500 µL (1%) to 1800 µL (1%), with 1500 µL (64%) being most common. Of the comorbid conditions, exclusion criteria varied for congestive heart failure (49%), an acute exacerbation of cardiovascular disease (80%), CNS metastases (59%), and a prior cancer (66%). The allowable timeframe varied between protocols for cardiovascular disease and prior cancer. CONCLUSION: Substantial heterogeneity was observed across laboratory values and comorbid variables among protocols. Future research should focus on defining standardized eligibility criteria while allowing for deviation based on drug specificity.

Treatment Decision Making and Financial Toxicity in Women With Metastatic Breast Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Oncologists have increasingly been proponents of shared decision making (SDM) to enhance patient outcomes and reduce unnecessary health care spending. However, its effect on patient out-of-pocket costs is unknown. This study investigated the relationship between patient preferences for SDM and financial toxicity (FT) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study utilized surveys of women aged ≥ 18 with MBC who received care at two academic hospitals in Alabama from 2017 to 2019. Patients self-reported their SDM preference (Control Preferences Scale) and FT (Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity [COST] tool; 11-item scale, with lower scores indicating worse FT). Effect sizes were calculated using the proportion of variance explained (R2) or Cramer's V. Differences in FT by SDM preference were estimated using mixed models clustered by site and treating medical oncologist. RESULTS: In 95 women with MBC, 44% preferred SDM, 29% preferred provider-driven decision making, and 27% preferred patient-driven decision making. Patients preferring SDM were more often college educated (53% vs. 39%; V = 0.12) with an income greater than $40,000/y (55% vs. 43%; V = 0.18). Overall median COST was 22 (interquartile range, 16-29). After adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, patients preferring patient-driven decision making trended toward worse FT (COST 17: 95% confidence interval, 12-22) compared to those preferring SDM (COST 19: 95% confidence interval, 15-23) and those preferring provider-driven decision making (COST 22: 95% confidence interval, 17-27). CONCLUSION: Patients preferring more patient-driven decision making reported worse FT, although differences did not reach statistical significance. Further research is needed to understand this relationship.