Patient-Reported Outcomes as a Recruitment Strategy for Clinical Trial Enrollment.

Importance: Clinical trials are critical for progress in oncology; however, only 5% of the adult cancer population participates. Harnessing data that are routinely collected (ie, electronic patient-reported outcomes [ePROs]) may serve as a method to promote trial enrollment. Objective: To evaluate if an ePRO-prompted recruitment strategy is associated with increased clinical trial enrollment. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized substudy was conducted from September 2022 to March 2023 at a multisite tertiary cancer center as part of an ongoing clinical trial that was testing a symptom-intervention for cancer-related fatigue. Patients with breast cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy who completed at least 1 ePRO questionnaire during the study period were included. Physician-level cluster randomization assigned fatigue-eligible patients to either receive a portal message invitation to a symptom-intervention trial or standard of care (SOC; physician-based referral). Exposure: ePRO questionnaires distributed in routine practice were queried weekly and screened for moderate or greater fatigue, the principle inclusion criterion for the primary trial. To assess the association of the portal message source with response and enrollment, every other patient received a message from the primary radiation oncology team or the referral service. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical trial response/referral and enrollment. Results: A total of 1041 patients completed ePRO questionnaires, of whom 394 (38%; 53 Asian [13.6%], 43 Black [11.0%], 29 Hispanic [7.4%], and 262 White individuals [66.5%]; median [IQR] age, 55 [47-65] years) endorsed moderate or greater fatigue while receiving treatment. A total of 210 patients (53.3%) were assigned to receive a portal message and 184 (46.7%) patients, SOC. In the portal message group, 73 patients (35%) responded and 41 (20%) enrolled compared with 1 patient (0.5%) referred and 0 enrolled in the SOC group (P < .001). The response rate to portal messages favored the referral service vs the primary radiation oncology service (44% vs 26%; P = .01), but there was no significant difference in enrollments. Conclusions and Relevance: The study results suggest that use of routine care ePROs was associated with greater enrollment in a symptom-intervention trial compared with physician-based referral. Messaging directly from the referral service may support enrollment and help reduce oncology physician-level barriers to trial enrollment for studies testing symptom interventions.

When Is Telemedicine Appropriate in the Management of Head and Neck Cancer? A Mixed-Methods Assessment Among Patients and Physicians.

PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that oncology patients are satisfied with and sometimes prefer telemedicine compared with in-person visits; however, data are scarce on when telemedicine is appropriate for specific cancer populations. In this study, we aim to identify factors that influence patient experience and appropriateness of telemedicine use among a head and neck cancer (HNC) population. METHODS: We performed a mixed-methods study at a multisite cancer center. First, we surveyed patients with HNC and analyzed factors that may influence their telemedicine experience using multivariate regression. We then conducted focus groups among HNC oncologists (n = 15) to evaluate their perception on appropriate use of telemedicine. RESULTS: From January to December 2020, we collected 1,071 completed surveys (response rate 24%), of which 551 first unique surveys were analyzed. About half of all patients (56%) reported telemedicine as "same or better" compared with in-person visits, whereas the other half (44%) reported "not as good or unsure." In multivariate analyses, patients with thyroid cancer were more likely to find telemedicine "same or better" (adjusted odds ratio, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.35 to 3.25]) compared with other HNC populations (mucosal/salivary HNC). Consistently, physician focus group noted that patients with thyroid cancer were particularly suited for telemedicine because of less emphasis on in-person examinations. Physicians also underscored factors that influence telemedicine use, including clinical suitability (treatment status, visit purpose, examination necessity), patient benefits (travel time, access), and barriers (technology, rapport-building). CONCLUSION: Patient experience with telemedicine is diverse among the HNC population. Notably, patients with thyroid cancer had overall better experience and were identified to be more appropriate for telemedicine compared with other patients with HNC. Future research that optimizes patient experience and selection is needed to ensure successful integration of telemedicine into routine oncology practice.

Disparities in Access to Radiotherapy Among Hispanic/Latinx Populations in the United States: How Far Have We Left to Go?

OBJECTIVES: The Hispanic/Latinx population has consistently faced disparities in oncology access and outcomes with cancer being the leading cause of death in this population. We evaluate recent research in radiation therapy disparities among the Hispanic/Latinx population in the United States since our seminal analysis from 2017. METHODS: A PubMed literature search was conducted for articles published from January 2017 through March 2023. Four term combinations were utilized, including: (1) "Hispanic" and "Radiotherapy" and "Disparities", (2) "Latino" and "Radiotherapy" and "Hispanic", (3) "Hispanic" and "Radiation" and "Disparities", and (4) "Latino" and "Radiation" and "Disparities." Included studies were those taking place in the United States, examined radiation oncology care, and examined health disparities. RESULTS: Fifty-eight of 245 articles returned met inclusion criteria and spanned 6 disparity-types: (1) Stage at Presentation, (2) Time to Treatment Initiation & Completion, (3) Receipt of Treatment and Guideline-Concordant Care, (4) Geography, (5) Clinical Trial Access and (6) Insurance Barriers and Treatment Center Type. The most common disparity was receipt of treatment and guideline-concordant care (n=39 studies), demonstrating that the Hispanic/Latinx population was less likely to receive guideline-concordant treatment or treatment at all. In additon, studies identified disparities in time to treatment and completion (n=12), geography (n=5), clinical trial access (n=3), and insurance and treatment center access (n=5). CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in radiotherapy access remain prominent for the Hispanic/Latinx population through a multitude of barriers, despite increasing interest in disparities research. Continued health care disparities research with tangible interventions are needed in radiation oncology to properly understand and address this problem.

Evaluating a Physician Audit and Feedback Intervention to Increase Clinical Trial Enrollment in Radiation Oncology in a Multisite Tertiary Cancer Center: A Randomized Study.

PURPOSE: Clinical trial participation continues to be low, slowing new cancer therapy development. Few strategies have been prospectively tested to address barriers to enrollment. We investigated the effectiveness of a physician audit and feedback report to improve clinical trial enrollment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a randomized quality improvement study among radiation oncologists at a multisite tertiary cancer network. Physicians in the intervention group received quarterly audit and feedback reports comparing the physician's trial enrollments with those of their peers. The primary outcome was trial enrollments. RESULTS: Among physicians randomized to receive the feedback report (n = 30), the median proportion of patients enrolled during the study period increased to 6.1% (IQR, 2.6%-9.3%) from 3.2% (IQR, 1.1%-10%) at baseline. Among those not receiving the feedback report (n = 29), the median proportion of patients enrolled increased to 4.1% (IQR, 1.3%-7.6%) from 1.6% (IQR, 0%-4.1%) at baseline. There was a nonsignificant change in the proportion of enrollments associated with receiving the feedback report (-0.6%; 95% CI, -3.0% to 1.8%; P = .6). Notably, there was an interaction between baseline trial accrual and receipt of feedback reports (P = .005), with enrollment declining among high accruers. There was an increase in enrollment throughout the study, regardless of study group (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a positive effect of physician audit and feedback on clinical trial enrollment was not observed. Future efforts should avoid disincentivizing high accruers and might consider pairing feedback with other patient- or physician-level strategies. The increase in trial enrollment in both groups over time highlights the importance of including a comparison group in quality improvement studies to reduce confounding from secular trends.