Successes and lessons learned in database development for national multi-site cancer care delivery research trials: the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology experience.

INTRODUCTION: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) coordinated trials utilize Medidata Rave® (Rave) as the primary clinical data capture system. A growing number of innovative and complex cancer care delivery research (CCDR) trials are being conducted within the Alliance with the aims of studying and improving cancer-related care. Because these trials encompass patients, providers, practices, and their interactions, a defining characteristic of CCDR trials is multilevel data collection in pragmatic settings. Consequently, CCDR trials necessitated innovative strategies for database development, centralized data management, and data monitoring in the presence of these real-world multilevel relationships. Having real trial experience in working with community and academic centers, and having recently implemented five CCDR trials in Rave, we are committed to sharing our strategies and lessons learned in implementing such pragmatic trials in oncology. METHODS: Five Alliance CCDR trials are used to describe our approach to analyzing the database development needs and the novel strategies applied to overcome the unanticipated challenges we encountered. The strategies applied are organized into 3 categories: multilevel (clinic, clinic stakeholder, patient) enrollment, multilevel quantitative and qualitative data capture, including nontraditional data capture mechanisms being applied, and multilevel data monitoring. RESULTS: A notable lesson learned in each category was (1) to seek long-term solutions when developing the functionality to push patient and non-patient enrollments to their respective Rave study database that affords flexibility if new participant types are later added; (2) to be open to different data collection modalities, particularly if such modalities remove barriers to participation, recognizing that additional resources are needed to develop the infrastructure to exchange data between that modality and Rave; and (3) to facilitate multilevel data monitoring, orient site coordinators to the their trial's multiple study databases, each corresponding to a level in the hierarchy, and remind them to establish the link between patient and non-patient participants in the site-facing NCI web-based enrollment system. CONCLUSION: Although the challenges due to multilevel data collection in pragmatic settings were surmountable, our shared experience can inform and foster collaborations to collectively build on our past successes and improve on our past failures to address the gaps.

Diet and Health-related Quality of Life Among Men on Active Surveillance for Early-stage Prostate Cancer: The Men's Eating and Living Study (Cancer and Leukemia Group 70807 [Alliance]).

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients with localized prostate cancer (PC) on active surveillance (AS) and whether it may be improved through lifestyle-focused interventions remain underdefined. OBJECTIVE: To assess longitudinal changes in HRQoL in patients who received and those who did not receive a behavioral intervention that increased vegetable intake. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A secondary analysis of participants in the Men's Eating and Living (MEAL) study (Cancer and Leukemia Group 70807 [Alliance]), a randomized trial of vegetable consumption in patients on AS, was conducted. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) included the Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC), the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26 (EPIC-26), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale-Prostate (FACT-P). Areas under the curves (AUCs) were used to summarize serial HRQoL. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: PROs were completed in 87% (n = 387) of the intention-to-collect population. Baseline characteristics of patients completing HRQoL measures did not differ significantly from the entire study population or between groups. Baseline scores were high for all PROs and remained stable over 24 mo, with no significant differences from baseline at any time point. In adjusted analyses, there were no significant differences in summary AUC measures comparing control with intervention for the total MAX-PC score (p = 0.173); EPIC-26 domains of urinary incontinence (p = 0.210), urinary obstruction (p = 0.062), bowel health (p = 0.607), sexual health (p = 0.398), and vitality (p = 0.363); and total FACT-P scores (p = 0.471). CONCLUSIONS: Among men with localized PC on AS enrolled in a randomized trial, HRQoL was high across multiple domains at baseline, remained high during follow-up, and did not change in response to a behavioral intervention that increased vegetable intake. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with localized prostate cancer enrolled on active surveillance experience minimal cancer-associated anxiety, suffer low levels of cancer-associated symptoms, and perceive high physical and emotional well-being.

Decision aids for localized prostate cancer in diverse minority men: Primary outcome results from a multicenter cancer care delivery trial (Alliance A191402CD).

BACKGROUND: Decision aids (DAs) can improve knowledge for prostate cancer treatment. However, the relative effects of DAs delivered within the clinical encounter and in more diverse patient populations are unknown. A multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design was performed to test the effectiveness of within-visit and previsit DAs for localized prostate cancer, and minority men were oversampled. METHODS: The interventions were delivered in urology practices affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program Alliance Research Base. The primary outcome was prostate cancer knowledge (percent correct on a 12-item measure) assessed immediately after a urology consultation. RESULTS: Four sites administered the previsit DA (39 patients), 4 sites administered the within-visit DA (44 patients), 3 sites administered both previsit and within-visit DAs (25 patients), and 4 sites provided usual care (50 patients). The median percent correct in prostate cancer knowledge, based on the postvisit knowledge assessment after the intervention delivery, was as follows: 75% for the pre+within-visit DA study arm, 67% for the previsit DA only arm, 58% for the within-visit DA only arm, and 58% for the usual-care arm. Neither the previsit DA nor the within-visit DA had a significant impact on patient knowledge of prostate cancer treatments at the prespecified 2.5% significance level (P = .132 and P = .977, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: DAs for localized prostate cancer treatment provided at 2 different points in the care continuum in a trial that oversampled minority men did not confer measurable gains in prostate cancer knowledge.