4.7 Article

Barriers to clinical trial participation by older women with breast cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 12, Pages 2268-2275

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.09.124

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA31946] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Although 48% of breast cancer patients are 65 years old or older, these older patients are severely under-represented in breast cancer clinical trials. This study tested whether older patients were offered trials significantly less often than younger patients and whether older patients who were offered trials were more likely to refuse participation than younger patients. Patients and Methods: In 10 Cancer and Leukemic Group 8 institutions, using a retrospective case-control design, breast cancer patients eligible for an open treatment trial were paired. less than 65 years old and at 65 years old. Each of the 77 Pairs were matched by disease gage and treating physician. Patients were interviewed as to their reasons for participating or refusing to participate in a trial. The treating physicians were also given questionnaires about their reasons for offering or not offering a trial. Results: Sixty-eight percent of younger stage II patients were offered a trial compared with 340% of the older patients (P = .0004). In multivariate, analyses, disease stage and age remained highly significant in predicting trial offering (P = .0008), when controlling for physical functioning and comorbidity. Of those offered a trial, there was no significant difference in participation between younger (56%.) and older (50%) patients (P = .67). Conclusion: In a multivariate analysis including comorbid conditions, age and stage were the only predictors of whether a patient was offered a trial. The greatest impediment to enrolling older women onto trials in the setting of this study was the physicians' perceptions about age and tolerance of toxicity.

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