Perceptions of Cancer Patients and Their Physicians Involved in Phase I Trials
Overview
Affiliations
Purpose: In an attempt to understand some of the complex issues related to the participation of cancer patients in phase I trials, and the perceptions of patients toward these trials, we conducted a pilot survey study of 30 cancer patients who had given informed consent to participate in a phase I trial at our institution. Concurrently, the oncologists identified by the surveyed patients as responsible for their care were surveyed as well.
Patients And Methods: Twenty-seven of 30 consecutive patients agreed to and completed the survey. Patients were surveyed before they received any investigational agents. Eighteen oncologists participated in this survey study.
Results: Eighty-five percent of patients decided to participate in a phase I trial for reasons of possible therapeutic benefit, 11% because of advice/trust of physicians, and 4% because of family pressures. Ninety-three percent said that they understood all (33%) or most (60%) of the information provided about the trials in which they had decided to participate. Only 33% were able to state the purpose of the trial in which they were participating, with patients able to state the purpose of phase I trials being more educated (P = .01). Surveyed oncologists had wide-ranging beliefs regarding expectations of possible benefits and toxicities for their patients participating in phase I trials.
Conclusion: Cancer patients who participate in phase I trials are strongly motivated by the hope of therapeutic benefit. Altruistic feelings appear to have a limited and inconsequential role in motivating patients to participate in these trials. Cancer patients who participate in phase I trials appear to have an adequate self-perceived knowledge of the risks of investigational agents. However, only a minority of patients appear to have an adequate understanding of the purpose of phase I trials as dose-escalation/dose-determination studies.
Dose Finding in Oncology Trials Guided by Ordinal Toxicity Grades Using Continuous Dose Levels.
Tighiouart M, Rogatko A Entropy (Basel). 2024; 26(8).
PMID: 39202157 PMC: 11353494. DOI: 10.3390/e26080687.
Wu C, Wang N, Wang Q, Wang C, Wei Z, Wu Z PLoS One. 2024; 19(1):e0295784.
PMID: 38166097 PMC: 10760836. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295784.
Noorman M, de Wit J, Marcos T, Stutterheim S, Jonas K, den Daas C AIDS Behav. 2023; 27(11):3789-3812.
PMID: 37329470 PMC: 10589186. DOI: 10.1007/s10461-023-04095-z.
Shepherd R, Bradford A, Lieschke M, Shackleton K, Hyatt A Trials. 2023; 24(1):400.
PMID: 37312206 PMC: 10262501. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-023-07284-2.
Parsable Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria Representation Using Natural Language Processing.
Kim J, Izower M, Quintana Y AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2023; 2022:616-624.
PMID: 37128426 PMC: 10148319.