4.7 Article

Predictors of enrollment in lung cancer clinical trials

Journal

CANCER
Volume 106, Issue 2, Pages 420-425

Publisher

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21638

Keywords

clinical trials; lung carcinoma; enrollment; predictors; disparity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND. Clinical trials may offer patients innovative therapeutic options with potentially better outcomes, which are particularly relevant for patients afflicted with lung carcinoma, because current therapies provide only modest survival benefits. Only approximately 5% of patients with newly diagnosed cancer participate in clinical trials nationwide, and African-American (AA) patients are particularly under-represented. METHODS. To determine predictors of clinical trials enrollment, the authors reviewed the medical records of 427 patients with lung carcinoma (175 AA patients and 252 non-AA patients) who were eligible for clinical trials between 1994 and 1998 at the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit, Michigan. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association of patient demographic characteristics and clinical trial enrollment. RESULTS. Ninety-one patients (21%) were enrolled onto a lung cancer clinical trial during the period of the current study. Enrollment was associated significantly with race (P < 0.001), gender (P = 0.048), age (P = 0.005), and insurance type (P = 0.024). After multivariable adjustment, only race and gender remained significant predictors of enrollment. AA patients were less likely to enroll than non-AA patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.485; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.243-0.966), and men were more likely than women to enroll (OR, 1.812; 95% CI, 1.033-3.178). CONCLUSIONS. The current results suggest disparities by race and gender in the enrollment of patients onto lung cancer clinical trials and support the need to improve educational and outreach endeavors that would make clinical trials available to a wider range of eligible patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available