The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Many challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature. RESULTS: Few rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.

Biomarkers: an overview for oncology nurses.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the basic principles of biomarker use in clinical oncology practice and discuss the range of biomarker forms (from genes to constitutional characteristics), biomarker functions (both disease- and drug-related), modalities (protein expression patterns to patient history), the criteria for biomarker validation, and the integral role of bioinformatics. DATA SOURCES: Published nursing and medical literature. CONCLUSION: The premise of nursing assessment is the same as that of biomarker use - biological variables that appear at one level of biological organization (eg, molecule, organelle, cell, tissue, organ, and organism) correspond to processes or events occurring at other levels of biologic organization. The advent of genomic technologies has logarithmically increased the volume of biomarkers, which are expected to provide new insights that improve patient care. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses and patients will benefit greatly from the incorporation of molecular biomarkers into patient care. Nurses will be able to better assess (and anticipate) patient needs with the new insights that are available in the post-genomic, personalized medicine era of health care. Although the rapid rate of technological changes and new discoveries will require continuing concerted educational efforts, the improved quality of patient care will be rewarded by better outcomes.

AccrualNet: Addressing Low Accrual Via a Knowledge-Based, Community of Practice Platform.

PURPOSE: Present the design and initial evaluation of a unique, Web-enabled platform for the development of a community of practice around issues of oncology clinical trial accrual. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted research with oncology professionals to identify unmet clinical trial accrual needs in the field. In response, a comprehensive platform for accrual resources, AccrualNet, was created by using an agile development process, storyboarding, and user testing. Literature and resource searches identified relevant content to populate the site. Descriptive statistics were tracked for resource and site usage. Use cases were defined to support implementation. RESULTS: ACCRUALNET HAS FIVE LEVELS: (1) clinical trial macrostages (prestudy, active study, and poststudy); (2) substages (developing a protocol, selecting a trial, preparing to open, enrolling patients, managing the trial, retaining participants, and lessons learned); (3) strategies for each substage; (4) multiple activities for each strategy; and (5) multiple resources for each activity. Since its launch, AccrualNet has had more than 45,000 page views, with the Tools & Resources, Conversations, and Training sections being the most viewed. Total resources have increased 69%, to 496 items. Analysis of articles in the site reveals that 22% are from two journals and 46% of the journals supplied a single article. To date, there are 29 conversations with 43 posts. Four use cases are discussed. CONCLUSION: AccrualNet represents a unique, centralized comprehensive-solution platform to systematically capture accrual knowledge for all stages of a clinical trial. It is designed to foster a community of practice by encouraging users to share additional strategies, resources, and ideas.

A nutrient approach to prostate cancer prevention: The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT).

The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) randomized 35,533 healthy men, >55 yr old (>50 yr if African American), with normal digital rectal exams and prostate specific antigens <4 ng/ml to 1) 200 µg/day l-selenomethionine, 2) 400 IU/day all-rac-alpha-tocopheryl acetate (vitamin E), 3) both supplements, or 4) placebo for 7 to 12 yr. The hypotheses underlying SELECT, that selenium and vitamin E individually and together decrease prostate cancer incidence, derived from epidemiologic and laboratory evidence and significant secondary endpoints in the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer (selenium) and Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene (vitamin E) trials. In SELECT, prostate cancer incidence did not differ among the 4 arms: hazard ratios [99% confidence intervals (CIs)] for prostate cancer were 1.13 (99% CI = 0.95-1.35, P = 0.06; n = 473) for vitamin E, 1.04 (99% CI = 0.87-1.24, P = 0.62; n = 432) for selenium, and 1.05 (99% CI = 0.88-1.25, P = 0.52; n = 437) for selenium + vitamin E vs. 1.00 (n = 416) for placebo. Statistically nonsignificant increased risks of prostate cancer with vitamin E alone [relative risk (RR) = 1.13, P = 0.06) and newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes mellitus with selenium alone (RR = 1.07, P = 0.16) were observed. SELECT data show that neither selenium nor vitamin E, alone or together, in the doses and formulations used, prevented prostate cancer in this heterogeneous population of healthy men.