Symptom science research conducted in community programs funded by the US National Cancer Institute: a 12-year review, 2008 to 2019.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to describe the portfolio of symptom science research conducted through the community oncology network supported by the US National Cancer Institute during the 12-year period 2008 to 2019. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute conducted a retrospective review of the National Cancer Institute database to identify pediatric and adult symptom management studies that were opened between 2008 and 2019 in the community oncology network and to determine types of studies, accrual patterns, completed studies, and number of publications reporting clinical trial results. RESULTS: The NCI community oncology network conducted 109 symptom studies between 2008 and 2019. The majority of these studies were phase II and III clinical trials. Neurotoxicities were the most frequently occurring symptom studied, with the majority of those focused on neurocognitive impairments. Gastrointestinal symptoms, pain, and fatigue were the next most frequently studied. A variety of interventions were utilized including pharmacologic, behavioral, complementary and alternative medicines, and radiation therapy. Accrual to symptom studies ranged from a low of 896 participants in 2008 to a high of 3468 participants in 2012. The number of open studies ranged from 8 in 2008 to 35 in 2012. CONCLUSIONS: Examining the symptom science portfolio of the NCI community oncology network has identified research gaps and has highlighted the need to focus on a mechanistic understanding of symptoms and phenotyping of patients experiencing cancer and treatment-related symptoms. Subsequently, targeted interventions can be developed to prevent or treat these symptoms.

Racial/ethnic differences in clinical trial enrollment, refusal rates, ineligibility, and reasons for decline among patients at sites in the National Cancer Institute's Community Cancer Centers Program.

BACKGROUND: This study examined racial/ethnic differences among patients in clinical trial (CT) enrollment, refusal rates, ineligibility, and desire to participate in research within the National Cancer Institute's Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) Clinical Trial Screening and Accrual Log. METHODS: Data from 4509 log entries were evaluated in this study. Four logistic regression models were run using physical/medical conditions, enrollment into a CT, patient eligible but declined a CT, and no desire to participate in research as dependent variables. RESULTS: Age ≥ 65 years (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.28-1.79), males (OR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.92-2.71), and non-Hispanic black race (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.2-1.96) were significantly associated with more physical/medical conditions. Age ≥ 65 years was significantly associated with lower CT enrollment (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.7-0.98). Males (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.65-0.94) and a higher grade level score for consent form readability (OR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.83-0.97) were significantly associated with lower refusal rates. Consent page length ≥ 20 was significantly associated with lower odds of "no desire to participate in research" among CT decliners (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.58-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: There were no racial/ethnic differences in CT enrollment, refusal rates, or "no desire to participate in research" as the reason given for CT refusal. Higher odds of physical/medical conditions were associated with older age, males, and non-Hispanic blacks. Better management of physical/medical conditions before and during treatment may increase the pool of eligible patients for CTs. Future work should examine the role of comorbidities, sex, age, and consent form characteristics on CT participation.

Oncologists' perceived confidence and attitudes toward managing pre-existing chronic comorbidities during patients' active cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: To examine practicing oncologists' perceived confidence and attitudes toward management of pre-existing chronic conditions(PECC) during active cancer treatment(ACT). METHODS: In December 2018, oncologists in the National Cancer Institute's Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were invited to complete a was pilot-tested, IRB-approved online survey about their perceived confidence in managing PECC. Pearson chi-square test was used to identify oncologists' differences in perceived confidence to manage PECC and attitudes toward co-management of patients' PECC with non-oncologic care providers. Perceived confidence and attitudes were analyzed as a function of medical specialty while controlling demographic and medical practice variables. RESULTS: A total of 391 oncologists responded to the survey, 45.8% stated medical oncology as their primary specialty, 15.1% hematology oncology, 15.1% radiation oncology, 6.9% surgical oncology, and 17.1% other specialties such as gynecology oncology. Overall, 68.3% agreed (agree/strongly agree) that they were confident to manage PECC in the context of standard of care. However, only 46.6% and 19.7% remained confident when managing PECC previously managed by a primary care physician (PCP) and by a non-oncology subspecialist, respectively. Most oncologists (58.3%) agreed that patients' overall care was well coordinated, and 63.7% agreed that patients had optimal cancer and non-cancer care when PECC was co-managed with a non-oncology care provider. CONCLUSION: Most oncologists felt confident to manage all PECC during patients' ACT, but their perceived confidence decreased for PECC previously managed by PCPs or by non-oncology subspecialists. Additionally, they had positive attitudes toward co-management of PECC with non-oncologic care providers. These results indicate opportunities for greater collaboration between oncologists and non-oncology care providers to ensure comprehensive and coordinated care for cancer patients with PECC.

National Cancer Institute: Restructuring to Support the Clinical Trials of the Future.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the evolution and structure of the National Cancer Institute clinical trials programs, their notable accomplishments, nurses' roles in these accomplishments, and the essential role of nursing today and in the future. DATA SOURCES: Manuscripts, government publications, websites, and professional communications. CONCLUSION: Change is inevitable and a constant factor in the world of advancing science and clinical research. Nurses' contribution to research and evidence-based practice will continue to grow and is vital as the scientific landscape evolves. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: As the understanding of cancer biology increases and clinical trials evolve, nurses will need to remain key team members and leaders in National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program and National Cancer Trials Network trials and their associated infrastructure.

A critical review of the enrollment of black patients in cancer clinical trials.

Although clinical trials represent a vital opportunity for improvements in cancer treatment, data show that a small proportion of patients with newly diagnosed cancer participate in clinical research. Black patients continue to have a worse prognosis for most cancers compared with other patients of other races/ethnicities. Racial/ethnic- and age-related disparities in clinical trial accrual are also well documented. The recruitment and retention of minorities in these trials present an even greater challenge despite regulatory efforts and initiatives to increase representation. Treatment data from homogenous populations prevent us from understanding therapeutic response and the true safety profile of novel therapies. Patient-, physician-, and system-level factors that affect trial participation have been extensively studied. However, years of accrual data remain largely unchanged, suggesting the challenge lies in effectively addressing these factors. Furthermore, data showing that black patients tend to have more advanced stage cancers at the time of diagnosis in fact beg their overrepresentation on clinical trials. An inability to successfully enroll diverse populations in clinical trials only exacerbates racial/ethnic differences in cancer treatment and survivorship.