Dataset Information

Understanding the barriers to, and facilitators of, ovarian toxicity assessment in breast cancer clinical trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Detailed toxicity data are routinely collected in breast cancer (BC) clinical trials. However, ovarian toxicity is infrequently assessed, despite the adverse impacts on fertility and long-term health from treatment-induced ovarian insufficiency.

Objectives

To determine the barriers to and facilitators of ovarian toxicity assessment in BC trials of anti-cancer drugs.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively selected stakeholders from multiple countries involved in BC clinical trials (clinicians, consumers, pharmaceutical company representatives, members of drug-regulatory agencies). Participants were asked to describe the perceived benefits and barriers to evaluating ovarian toxicity. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded in NVivo software and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results

Saturation of the main themes was reached and the final sample size included 25 participants from 14 countries (9 clinicians, 7 consumers, 5 members of regulatory agencies, 4 pharmaceutical company representatives); half were female. The main reported barrier to ovarian toxicity assessment was that the issue was rarely considered. Reasons included that these data are less important than survival data and are not required for regulatory approval. Overall, most participants believed evaluating the impact of BC treatments on ovarian function is valuable. Suggested strategies to increase ovarian toxicity assessment were to include it in clinical trial design guidelines and stakeholder advocacy.

Conclusion

Lack of consideration about measuring ovarian toxicity in BC clinical trials that include premenopausal women suggest that guidelines and stronger advocacy from stakeholders, including regulators, would facilitate its more frequent inclusion in future trials, allowing women to make better informed treatment decisions.

SUBMITTER: Cui W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9127191 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Understanding the barriers to, and facilitators of, ovarian toxicity assessment in breast cancer clinical trials.

Cui Wanyuan W Phillips Kelly-Anne KA Francis Prudence A PA Anderson Richard A RA Partridge Ann H AH Loi Sherene S Loibl Sibylle S Keogh Louise L

Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) 20220516

<h4>Background</h4>Detailed toxicity data are routinely collected in breast cancer (BC) clinical trials. However, ovarian toxicity is infrequently assessed, despite the adverse impacts on fertility and long-term health from treatment-induced ovarian insufficiency.<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine the barriers to and facilitators of ovarian toxicity assessment in BC trials of anti-cancer drugs.<h4>Methods</h4>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively selected stakeholders from mult ...[more]

PMID: 35597179

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLoss of ovarian function is a recognized adverse effect of chemotherapy for breast cancer and of great importance to patients. Little is known about the ovarian toxicity of newer cancer treatments. This study examined whether breast cancer clinical trials include assessment of the impact of trial interventions on ovarian function.MethodsEligible trials were phase III (neo)adjuvant trials of pharmacologic treatments for breast cancer, recruiting between June 2008 and October 2019, which included premenopausal women. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, and EudraCT were searched. Data were extracted from trial publications, protocols, databases, and a survey sent to all trial chairs. Tests of statistical significance were 2-sided.ResultsOf 2354 records identified, 141 trials were eligible. Investigational treatments included chemotherapy (36.9%), HER2 targeted (24.8%), endocrine (12.8%), immunotherapy (7.8%), cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (5.0%), and poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (2.8%). Ovarian function was a prespecified endpoint in 13 (9.2%) trials. Forty-five (31.9%) trials collected ovarian function data, but only 33 (23.4%) collected posttrial-intervention data. Common postintervention data collected included menstruation (15.6%), pregnancy (13.5%), estradiol (9.9%), and follicle-stimulating hormone levels (8.5%). Only 4 (2.8%) trials collected postintervention anti-müllerian hormone levels, and 3 (2.1%) trials collected antral follicle count. Of 22 trials investigating immunotherapy, cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors, or poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors, none specified ovarian function as an endpoint, but 4 (18.2%) collected postintervention ovarian function data.ConclusionsThe impact of pharmacologic interventions on ovarian function is infrequently assessed in phase III breast cancer (neo)adjuvant trials that include premenopausal women. Trialists should consider inclusion of ovarian function endpoints when designing clinical trials, given its importance for informed decision making.

Project description:IntroductionUnderrepresentation of disabled groups in clinical trials results in an inadequate evidence base for their clinical care, which drives health inequalities. This study aims to review and map the potential barriers and facilitators to the recruitment of disabled people in clinical trials to identify knowledge gaps and areas for further extensive research. The review addresses the question: 'What are the barriers and facilitators to recruitment of disabled people to clinical trials?'.MethodsThe Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Scoping review guidelines were followed to complete the current scoping review. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched via Ovid. The literature search was guided by a combination of four key concepts from the research question: (1) disabled populations, (2) patient recruitment, (3) barriers and facilitators, and (4) clinical trials. Papers discussing barriers and facilitators of all types were included. Papers that did not have at least one disabled group as their population were excluded. Data on study characteristics and identified barriers and facilitators were extracted. Identified barriers and facilitators were then synthesised according to common themes.ResultsThe review included 56 eligible papers. The evidence on barriers and facilitators was largely sourced from Short Communications from Researcher Perspectives (N = 22) and Primary Quantitative Research (N = 17). Carer perspectives were rarely represented in articles. The most common disability types for the population of interest in the literature were neurological and psychiatric disabilities. A total of five emergent themes were determined across the barriers and facilitators. These were as follows: risk vs benefit assessment, design and management of recruitment protocol, balancing internal and external validity considerations, consent and ethics, and systemic factors.ConclusionsBoth barriers and facilitators were often highly specific to disability type and context. Assumptions should be minimised, and study design should prioritise principles of co-design and be informed by a data-driven assessment of needs for the study population. Person-centred approaches to consent that empower disabled people to exercise their right to choose should be adopted in inclusive practice. Implementing these recommendations stands to improve inclusive practices in clinical trial research, serving to produce a well-rounded and comprehensive evidence base.

Project description:BackgroundConventional clinical trials are essential for generating high-quality evidence by measuring the efficacy of interventions in rigorously controlled clinical environments. However, their execution can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, clinical trials face several logistical challenges regarding the identification, recruitment, and retention of participants; consistent data collection during trials; and adequate patient follow-up. This might lead to inefficient resource utilization. In order to partially address the current problems with conventional clinical trials, there exists the need for innovations. One such innovation is the virtual clinical trial (VCT). VCTs allow for the collection and integration of diverse data from multiple information sources, such as electronic health records, clinical and demographic data, patient-reported outcomes, anthropometric and activity measurements, and data collected by digital biomarkers or (small) samples that participants can collect themselves. Although VCTs have the potential to provide substantial value to clinical research and patients because they can lower clinical trial costs, increase the volume of data collected from patients' daily environment, and reduce the burden of patient participation, so far VCT adoption is not commonplace.ObjectiveThis paper aims to better understand the barriers and facilitators to VCT adoption by determining the factors that influence individuals' considerations regarding VCTs from the perspective of various stakeholders.MethodsBased on online semistructured interviews, a qualitative study was conducted with pharmaceutical companies, food and health organizations, and an applied research organization in Europe. Data were thematically analyzed using Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory.ResultsA total of 16 individuals with interest and experience in VCTs were interviewed, including persons from pharmaceutical companies (n=6), food and health organizations (n=4), and a research organization (n=6). Key barriers included a potentially low degree of acceptance by regulatory authorities, technical issues (standardization, validation, and data storage), compliance and adherence, and lack of knowledge or comprehension regarding the opportunities VCTs have to offer. Involvement of regulators in development processes, stakeholder exposure to the results of pilot studies, and clear and simple instructions and assistance for patients were considered key facilitators.ConclusionsCollaboration among all stakeholders in VCT development is crucial to increase knowledge and awareness. Organizations should invest in accurate data collection technologies, and compliance of patients in VCTs needs to be ensured. Multicriteria decision analysis can help determine if a VCT is a preferred option by stakeholders. The findings of this study can be a good starting point to accelerate the development and widespread implementation of VCTs.

Project description:IntroductionFully informed consent is essential for ethical trial conduct, yet gaps in participant comprehension and recall can occur, particularly among underserved groups, for example, ethnic minorities. This Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) project explored the engagement of ethnic minority communities in trial recruitment discussions, particularly their views about audio recording discussions with healthcare professionals.MethodsThis PPIE project engaged ethnic minority communities in Bristol, collaborating with community partners to facilitate access to then foster dialogue among Somali, South Asian and Chinese groups. Separate workshops for men and women from these ethnic groups were held to introduce community members to clinical trial processes. Discussions, both audio recorded and not, simulated real recruitment scenarios. To ensure cultural relevance and accessibility, discussions were partly facilitated by our PPIE community partners in native languages.ResultsThe insights gained during workshops were organised into key themes. Gaps in understanding regarding clinical trial participation were highlighted. A key finding was that trust played an important role and was facilitated by engaging community leaders and ensuring cultural and linguistic sensitivity during discussions. To address gaps in knowledge about trials and streamline the educational process, we developed storyboards and multilingual video resources. These explained the importance of clinical trials generally and the importance of recruiting diverse patient populations in particular. The materials were co-created with community partners and refined through iterative feedback to ensure accuracy and cultural appropriateness. The challenge of language barriers necessitated skilled interpreters, especially when discussions were audio recorded, to optimise understanding among people from diverse ethnic backgrounds. The video, available in English, Urdu, Mandarin, Cantonese and Bangla, facilitates understanding of trial purposes and processes, with the aim of widening trial participation in these groups.ConclusionOur PPIE activities highlighted gaps in understanding, the critical role of trust and the challenge of language barriers. The co-created resources have been made available for those wanting to address and overcome some of these issues. The initial feedback from the clinical trials community on the video resources has been promising, underscoring their potential to impact future recruitment efforts and PPIE activities.Patient or public contributionTo foster a co-creation process, this project included the active involvement of our PPIE collaborators and co-applicants 'Khaas' for funding. They also helped us reach contributors from the South Asian community (mainly of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin) and arrange workshops. Our two PPIE contributors from Somali Resource Centre and Barton Hill Activity Club helped us reach the Somali community at the Wellspring Settlement. Similarly, the Chinese Community Wellbeing Society helped us reach people from the Chinese community. These PPIE partners also helped us run the workshop by providing live translation of discussion. They also helped translate video scripts and do voiceovers in videos. Also, PPIE contributors Tom Yardley and Amanda Roberts helped with the script development.

Dataset Information

Understanding the barriers to, and facilitators of, ovarian toxicity assessment in breast cancer clinical trials.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Understanding the barriers to, and facilitators of, ovarian toxicity assessment in breast cancer clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets