BackgroundThe performance of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is often hindered by recruitment difficulties. This study aims to explore the pre-screening phase of four prostate cancer RCTs to identify the impact of a systematic pre-selection of eligible patients for RCT recruitment.MethodsThe pre-screening of four RCTs opened at the Comprehensive Cancer Center in Rennes was analyzed retrospectively (French Genitourinary Tumor Group (GETUG) 14, 15, 16, and 17). Data were extracted from electronic multidisciplinary cancer (MDC) reports and manually completed by physicians and medical secretaries. These data were the main source of information for clinicians to discuss treatment alternatives during MDC sessions. The pre-screening decisions made by the clinicians during these MDC meetings were compared with those made after a systematic review of the MDC reports by a clinical research assistant (CRA). Any inconsistencies in decisions between the CRA and the MDC physicians were corrected by the principal investigator (PI).ResultsThe pre-screening rate was 9.1% during the MDC meetings, while it was estimated to be 12.9% after the final review by the PI, and 29% after the systematic review by the CRA. The study showed that 77% and 67% of the MDC reports did not mention clinical and pathological Tumor, lymph node and metastasis classification of malignant tumors (TNM) staging, respectively, and that 35 of the CRA’s 47 proposals rejected by the PI concerned implicit information (not specified in the MDC reports). Only one patient was proposed by the PI, and none by the CRA.ConclusionsThese results confirm that pre-screening could be improved by a systematic review of the medical reports. They also highlight the fact that missing data in electronic MDC reports leads to over-enrollment of non-eligible patients, but not to over-exclusion of eligible patients. Thus, our study confirms the potential gain in using semi-automated pre-selection of MDC reports, in order to avoid missing out on patients eligible for RCTs.Trial registrationThe trials evaluated in this study were previously registered with clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT00104741 on 3 March 2005; NCT00104715 on 3 March 2005; NCT00423475 on 16 January 2007; and NCT00667069 on 24 April 2008).
[1]
E. Mohammadi,et al.
Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of a physiological track and trigger system: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence
,
2017,
International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.
[2]
P. O'Brien,et al.
Obstacles to participation in randomised cancer clinical trials: A systematic review of the literature
,
2012,
Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology.
[3]
Kumanan Wilson,et al.
Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors.
,
2006,
The Lancet. Oncology.
[4]
Harlan M Krumholz,et al.
Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities.
,
2004,
JAMA.
[5]
W. Al-Refaie,et al.
Does enrollment in cancer trials improve survival?
,
2013,
Journal of the American College of Surgeons.
[6]
R Core Team,et al.
R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
,
2014
.
[7]
J.-M. Behier,et al.
Place de la France dans la recherche clinique internationale : enquête 2010 du Leem France et recherche clinique internationale
,
2011
.
[8]
Jonathan C. Craig,et al.
Strategies for Increasing Recruitment to Randomised Controlled Trials: Systematic Review
,
2010,
PLoS medicine.
[9]
A. Bleyer,et al.
National survival trends of young adults with sarcoma
,
2005,
Cancer.
[10]
Anita Burgun-Parenthoine,et al.
Using Semantic Web Technologies for Clinical Trial Recruitment
,
2010,
International Semantic Web Conference.