Abstract P6-05-12: Understanding Patient Perspectives on Window of Opportunity Clinical Trial Participation in Breast Cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Window of opportunity (WOO) clinical trials take advantage of the waiting period between a patient’s cancer diagnosis and standard treatment (usually surgery) to evaluate novel cancer therapies and their biologic effects in vivo. These types of trials are being increasingly harnessed in the clinical setting for the safe and rapid evaluation of novel therapeutic strategies in treatment naive patients, thereby expediting drug development. Distinct from neoadjuvant trials, no therapeutic benefit is envisaged and the patient’s standard treatments are not intentionally delayed. The purpose of this study was to understand the patient motivations and perspectives for participating in WOO trials. Methods: This study was conducted at an academic cancer center where two breast cancer WOO trials were ongoing (NCT04781725 and NCT04676516). Eligible patients with newly diagnosed operable invasive breast cancers participating in either of these WOO trials were recruited to this separate study. Patients were provided with a questionnaire that surveyed their motivation and perspectives for participation or lack of participation in the WOO trial Results: From April 2021- May 2022, the study recruited 89 patients with age ranging from of 40-78 yrs with tumors ranging from 1.5-4.3 cm. Surgical wait times ranged from 2-8 weeks. Of the 83 patients that participated in a WOO trial, the most common reasons for participation included (a) the potential to benefit other patients in the future (90%) (b) trust in their treating doctor (88%), (c) desire to contribute to scientific research (62%) and (d) a belief that they may benefit from the therapy (39%). For these patients, 49% reported that the possibility of a repeat biopsy would not deter them from trial participation; whereas 11% said that it definitely would. Of the 6 patients that chose not to participate in a WOO trial the most common reasons included (a) travel or transportation issues (50%) and (b) lack of belief of potential benefit to them (33%). For these patients, when asked whether the participation of a cancer patient in the design of the WOO trial would change their mind, all reported that it would not make a difference. Conclusion: WOO trials are becoming increasingly common in oncology research. Understanding patient perspectives for WOO trial participation is useful to inform trial design and communication approaches in future WOO trial efforts. Citation Format: Vanessa Lopez Ozuna, Gregory R. Pond, John MS Bartlett, Lazlo Radvanyi, Melanie Spears, Teresa Petrocelli, Carol Gordon, Rebecca J. Rose, Angel Arnaout. Understanding Patient Perspectives on Window of Opportunity Clinical Trial Participation in Breast Cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-05-12.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».