ASPO Abstracts
Attitudes about and factors associated with discussion and recommendation of cancer clinical trials: Results from a survey of 1,030 oncologists
Category: Behavioral Science & Health Communication
Conference Year: 2020
Abstract Body:
Purpose of the study: Accrual to cancer clinical trials is sub-optimal. To understand oncologist and practice-level
barriers to trial participation, we surveyed 1,030 oncology providers. Here we describe their perspectives about
current and expected trial-related responsibilities and factors associated with discussion and recommendation of
cancer clinical trials.
Methods: The survey measured physician demographics, practice characteristics, reported rates of discussion and
recommendation of trials, perceived barriers to enrollment, and beliefs about clinical trials. Descriptive statistics
were used to report demographic and practice characteristics, and beliefs about barriers and clinical trials. We
also used multivariate logistic regression to assess associations of oncologist and practice characteristics with
reported discussion and recommendation of clinical trials (to more than 25% patients in the past 5 years).
Results: Most important perceived barriers to enrollment included physician and staff time and effort, procedural
factors (assessing eligibility, access to archival tissue, informed consent process), and administrative activities.
Although 69% reported performing procedural activities such as identifying, matching, consenting, and enrolling
patients, 43% thought that, ideally, research staff would perform these tasks. However, 81% wanted to continue
their responsibility of explaining standard treatment and trial protocol to patients. 47% said their organizational
leadership encouraged trial recruitment and 59% perceived their leadership provided resources and infrastructure
for recruitment. There was near universal agreement (92%) that offering and discussing trials is an important
aspect of providing high-quality care. Higher odds of reporting both discussion and recommendation of trials were
associated with younger age, membership in professional societies, participation in cancer research cooperative
groups, and prior training on trial design. Surprisingly, neither patient insurance nor physician-reported barriers to
enrollment was associated with trial discussion or recommendation.
Conclusions: Results are useful to understand and improve organizational efforts to optimize integration of clinical
trial recruitment into oncologist best practices
Keywords: oncologist survey clinical trial recruitment