0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letter |

Geographic Accessibility to Clinical Trials for Advanced Cancer in the United States FREE

Matthew D. Galsky, MD1; Kristian D. Stensland, MD1; Russell B. McBride, PhD2; Asma Latif, MD1; Erin Moshier, MS1; William K. Oh, MD1; Juan Wisnivesky, MD, DrPH3
[+] Author Affiliations
1Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Tisch Cancer Institute, New York, New York
2Institute for Translational Epidemiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
3Divisions of General Internal Medicine and Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(2):293-295. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6300.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Clinical trials yield critical evidence to guide the care of patients with cancer. According to commonly used practice guidelines, “...the best management of any cancer patient is in a clinical trial.”1 Nonetheless, only about 2% to 7% of US adult patients with cancer participate in clinical trials.2 Poor accrual to clinical trials has far-reaching implications in the way it affects the pace of progress, cost of drug development, and generalizability of study findings.

Prior studies exploring trial enrollment have identified several barriers.3 However, geographic barriers to participation in clinical trials remain underexplored. A survey of patients with cancer revealed that most were not willing to travel for trial participation.4 We sought to estimate the geographic accessibility of clinical trials for advanced cancer in the United States.

Data regarding clinical trials and associated sites were derived from ClinicalTrials.gov.5 We identified all actively accruing trials that evaluated first-line treatments for metastatic breast, prostate, colorectal, and non–small cell lung cancers. Inclusion was limited to these malignant neoplasms because they are the most commonly diagnosed and most frequent causes of cancer death in the United States. Institutional review board approval was waived by Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

ClinicalTrials.gov was queried on September 16, 2012, and 227 trials associated with 5011 sites met the criteria for inclusion. The 1-way driving time from each US zip code to the nearest breast, prostate, colorectal, or non–small cell lung cancer trial site was calculated using MapPoint 2013 (Microsoft Corporation). Calculations for each cancer type were performed with each zip code in the contiguous United States as the point of origin and the zip code of the nearest trial site as the destination.

The proportion of patients with metastatic breast, prostate, colorectal, or non–small cell lung cancer residing within x minutes of the nearest trial site was calculated by weighting each origin zip code by the estimated proportion of the total number of people in the United States with metastatic cancer represented within that zip code. Because data regarding the geographic distribution of patients with metastatic disease in the US are not available, we used cancer-specific mortality data (wonder.cdc.gov) to approximate the number and distribution of patients with metastatic disease because most of these patients die of their illness; cancer-related deaths are uncommon at earlier stages of disease.

We found that 45.6%, 50.2%, 52.2%, and 38.4% of patients with metastatic breast, prostate, colorectal, and non–small cell lung cancer, respectively, would need to drive more than 60 minutes 1 way to access a clinical trial site (Table). The Mountain, West North Central, and West South Central regions were generally associated with the longest travel times (Figure).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable.  Proportion of US Patients With Metastatic Disease Across Categories of Driving Time to the Nearest Clinical Trial Sitea
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.
Geographic Accessibility of Cancer Clinical Trials by US Region

Heat maps demonstrating the proportion of patients with metastatic breast (A), prostate (B), colorectal (C), or non–small cell lung (D) cancer in each US Census division requiring (1-way) driving times of more than 1 hour to access a clinical trial site. The Mountain, West North Central, and West South Central regions were associated with the longest travel times.

Graphic Jump Location

We found that clinical trials for advanced cancer have poor geographic accessibility for many people in the United States. According to a 2010 Institute of Medicine report, “Sites for clinical trials are frequently selected on the basis of where the investigators are located, as opposed to where the patients are, creating difficulties in patient recruitment.”6(p21)

There are limitations to our analysis. The minimum travel time that affects the decisions that patients with cancer make about their care is not known. Patients living in metropolitan and rural areas may value travel time differently. We likely underestimated travel time, and many patients will not meet eligibility criteria for the trial that is nearest to them. We also examined the most common cancer types; for rare cancers, trial accessibility is likely worse. We limited our analysis to metastatic cancers. Although travel time is only one aspect of the accessibility of trials, it may be the most important factor for many patients.

Our findings suggest that innovative approaches are needed to improve the geographic accessibility of trials for patients with advanced cancer in the United States.

Corresponding Author: Matthew D. Galsky, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY 10029 (matthew.galsky@mssm.edu).

Published Online: December 1, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6300.

Author Contributions: Dr Galsky had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Galsky, Stensland, McBride, Latif.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Galsky, Stensland, McBride, Latif, Moshier.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Galsky, Stensland, McBride, Latif, Moshier, Wisnivesky.

Obtained funding: Galsky.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Galsky, Stensland, McBride, Latif.

Study supervision: Galsky, Oh.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by a Prostate Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award (Dr Galsky) and a Clinical and Translational Science Award KL2 Faculty Scholars Award (Dr McBride).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding institutions had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contributions: We thank Ryan Hendricks, BS, Tisch Cancer Institute, for his assistance in compiling data for the current analysis. Mr Hendricks was not financially compensated.

National Comprehensive Cancer Center website.www.nccn.org. Accessed May 13, 2014.
Murthy  VH, Krumholz  HM, Gross  CP.  Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2720–2726.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lara  PN  Jr, Higdon  R, Lim  N,  et al.  Prospective evaluation of cancer clinical trial accrual patterns. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(6):1728-1733.
PubMed
Meropol  NJ, Buzaglo  JS, Millard  J,  et al.  Barriers to clinical trial participation as perceived by oncologists and patients. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2007;5(8):655-664.
PubMed
Zarin  DA, Tse  T, Williams  RJ, Califf  RM, Ide  NC.  The ClinicalTrials.gov results database: update and key issues. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(9):852-860.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
English  R, Lebovitz  Y, Griffin  R. Transforming Clinical Research in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010.

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.
Geographic Accessibility of Cancer Clinical Trials by US Region

Heat maps demonstrating the proportion of patients with metastatic breast (A), prostate (B), colorectal (C), or non–small cell lung (D) cancer in each US Census division requiring (1-way) driving times of more than 1 hour to access a clinical trial site. The Mountain, West North Central, and West South Central regions were associated with the longest travel times.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable.  Proportion of US Patients With Metastatic Disease Across Categories of Driving Time to the Nearest Clinical Trial Sitea

References

National Comprehensive Cancer Center website.www.nccn.org. Accessed May 13, 2014.
Murthy  VH, Krumholz  HM, Gross  CP.  Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2720–2726.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lara  PN  Jr, Higdon  R, Lim  N,  et al.  Prospective evaluation of cancer clinical trial accrual patterns. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(6):1728-1733.
PubMed
Meropol  NJ, Buzaglo  JS, Millard  J,  et al.  Barriers to clinical trial participation as perceived by oncologists and patients. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2007;5(8):655-664.
PubMed
Zarin  DA, Tse  T, Williams  RJ, Califf  RM, Ide  NC.  The ClinicalTrials.gov results database: update and key issues. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(9):852-860.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
English  R, Lebovitz  Y, Griffin  R. Transforming Clinical Research in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010.

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

1,037 Views
0 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs