Only 3% of cancer patients participate in clinical trials despite the importance of clinical trials in improving cancer treatment
and control.
The Patient Advocate Sub-Committee (PASC) of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B's (CALGB) Committee on Advocacy, Research Communication
and Ethics (CARE), in collaboration with cancer advocacy organizations, surveyed cancer survivors from July to September 2004
to identify how patients learn about and enroll in trials.
The goal of the survey was to identify opportunities to improve patient enrollment in cancer trials and provide recommendations
to improve accrual in CALGB clinical trials. A key challenge to successful cancer clinical trial research is the issue of
patient accrual. Poor accrual has been associated with early closure of studies1 and negative findings.2 Therefore, improving trial enrollment is a priority for NCI-funded research groups such as CALGB.
The PASC, comprised of patient advocates affiliated with cancer survivor advocacy organizations and advocates possessing skills
and experience in clinical research, identified clinical trial accrual as a primary issue to address within CALGB. This article presents the findings of the PASC survey and discusses their implications for increasing trial participation
among cancer patients.
Survey methods
The survey assessed awareness of, attitudes toward, and sources of knowledge about cancer trials among cancer survivors; documented
the factors associated with clinical trial participation and nonparticipation; and assessed how knowledge, attitudes, and
willingness to participate in cancer trials are mediated by demographics, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and education.
PASC members developed a survey written at an 8th grade reading level, and the CALGB statistical center staff reviewed it.
Multiple choice and open ended questions requiring written comments were included in the survey, and written comments were
classified and assigned a number code.
The project was conducted in collaboration with advocacy organizations with which PASC members had ties. Members identified
advocacy organizations comprised of cancer survivors who could complete the survey. Each PASC member who identified potential
collaborators acted as a liaison to the respective advocacy group. The liaison contacted the advocacy group, explained the
project, and assessed the willingness and capacity of the organization to participate. In order to participate, the group
needed to inform their membership of the survey and provide access to it.
Liaisons then worked with each organization to identify the most appropriate mechanism to survey their members. Options included
posting the survey on the organization's Web site, mailing out the survey to members along with a newsletter, and administering
the survey at a scheduled meeting.
The CALGB Web site manager established a link to the survey on each collaborating cancer advocacy organization's Web site.
Once posted on the site, cancer survivors could click on the link, complete the survey, and then click on an icon to submit
it. Once submitted, online survey responses were emailed to the lead author, a PASC member and project coordinator.
Statistical support staff at Wake Forest University's School of Medicine conducted data analysis. Descriptive analysis was
performed on the total sample. Pearson's chi-square tests were used to assess univariate associations of demographic characteristics
with clinical trial participants.
Result insights
Sixteen cancer survivor organizations were contacted for their interest in participating in the survey, and 14 participated.
Most organizations used their Web site to post the survey and inform their members about the study. One organization sent
out a mailing in addition to posting the survey, and one circulated the survey at a scheduled meeting.
A total of 922 surveys were submitted via email, and an additional 35 surveys were mailed in for a total response of 957 surveys
over a two-month period. A total of 888 of the submitted surveys contained enough information to analyze, but due to time
restrictions, 727 surveys were analyzed. Surveys selected for analysis represented an attempt to maximize demographic diversity,
both in type of cancer and ethnicity.