Search

Background: Cancer patients want access to reliable information about currently recruiting clinical trials., Patients and Methods: Oncologists and their patients were randomly assigned to access a consumer-friendly cancer clinical trials web site [Australian Cancer Trials (ACT), www.australiancancertrials.gov.au] or to usual care in a cluster randomized controlled trial. The primary outcome, measured from audio recordings of oncologist-patient consultations, was the proportion of patients with whom participation in any clinical trial was discussed. Analysis was by intention-to-treat accounting for clustering and stratification., Results: Thirty medical oncologists and 493 patients were recruited. Overall, 46% of consultations in the intervention group compared with 34% in the control group contained a discussion about clinical trials (P=0.08). The mean consultation length in both groups was 29 min (P=0.69). The proportion consenting to a trial was 10% in both groups (P=0.65). Patients' knowledge about randomized trials was lower in the intervention than the control group (mean score 3.0 versus 3.3, P=0.03) but decisional conflict scores were similar (mean score 42 versus 43, P=0.83)., Conclusions: Good communication between patients and physicians is essential. Within this context, a web site such as Australian Cancer Trials may be an important tool to encourage discussion about clinical trial participation.

Objective: To quantify and describe current cancer clinical trial activity in Australia and help guide future trials research using trial registries., Design and Setting: Data from cancer trials recruiting in Australia at 31 March 2009 were extracted from the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov. A regression model was used to identify factors associated with industry sponsorship., Main Outcome Measures: The proportion of cancer trials compared with estimated burden of disease for each cancer., Results: There were 368 interventional cancer trials open to recruitment. The most-researched cancer was breast cancer, accounting for 17% of trials. Only 7% of trials were in lung cancer, yet lung cancer is responsible for the greatest burden of disease. Industry was the primary sponsor in 43% of trials. Drug treatments were tested in most trials (69%). Trials were more likely to be industry sponsored if they tested systemic rather than local treatments (OR, 16.71; 95% CI, 4.70-59.43), included patients with advanced rather than early disease (OR, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.78-7.94) and used random rather than non-random allocation (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.06-3.00)., Conclusion: There is variation in the number of trials according to cancer site, with some cancers being underrepresented relative to their burden of disease. Industry sponsorship is more likely for trials that investigate systemic therapy, recruit patients with advanced disease and are randomised.

Objective: To investigate the frequency, goals and outcomes of second-opinion consultations at the Sydney Cancer Centre., Design, Setting and Participants: A questionnaire-based study of patients who registered to see a medical oncologist at the Sydney Cancer Centre between January 2006 and January 2008 and who were seeking a second opinion., Main Outcome Measures: Proportion and demographic characteristics of patients who had previously seen a medical oncologist and who stated they were seeking a second opinion., Results: 123 of 1892 new patients (6.5%) stated that they were seeking a second opinion, of whom 22 declined study participation, were excluded from study participation or had been referred specifically for enrolment in a particular clinical trial. Of the remaining 101 patients, 77 completed a questionnaire; 59 were women and 26 had a university degree. Reasons for seeking second opinions included: to obtain information related to treatment (54 patients), for reassurance about diagnosis or treatment (47), and dissatisfaction with the information given by the first medical oncologist (24). Sixty-four patients reported that they received new information at the second-opinion consultation, with 45 identifying discussion of treatment options and 34 identifying discussion of future or prognosis. Fifty-one patients reported how the second-opinion consultation differed from the first, identifying it as longer (24), and indicating that the oncologist answered concerns (26). Most patients were aware of multidisciplinary teams and treatment guidelines, but fewer had read guidelines., Conclusions: Patients seeking a second opinion from a medical oncologist are typically more educated, younger and female, probably due to preferences for more detailed information. The most common reasons for seeking a second opinion were to obtain additional information or reassurance about recommended management.