Cook, Kathryn

PURPOSE:This randomized, double-blind study sought to understand whether cancer clinical trial consent form verbosity detracts from patients' decision making on trial enrollment.METHODS:This trial tested mock consent forms of 2,000, 4,000, and 6,000 words. The first two comprised the two experimental arms and the third the control arm. Phase II was conducted to identify the promising arm, which, in phase III, was compared with the control arm. Each consent form described the same trial. Eligible adult patients reported a cancer history and English literacy. The primary end point used a patient-reported Likert scale to assess the relationship between information in the consent form and trial decision making.RESULTS:In phase II, 93 patients were accrued and prompted the selection of the 2,000-word consent form for phase III. In phase III, 182 patients were recruited, resulting in 240 total evaluable patients to compare the 2,000-word versus the 6,000-word arm (control). For the primary end point, 103 (84%) and 107 (91%) patients in the 2,000- and 6,000-word arms, respectively, strongly agreed or agreed with the following: “The information in this consent form helped me make a decision about whether or not to enroll in the trial” (two-sided, P = .14). Median time to read each consent form was 8 and 12 minutes, respectively (two-sided, P < .0001). Among those assigned these consent forms, 84% and 73%, respectively (two-sided, P = .04) signed or expressed a willingness to sign.CONCLUSION:This study's primary end point was not met. However, secondary outcomes suggest a need to further study the efficiency and efficacy of shorter consent forms for cancer clinical trial enrollment.

PURPOSE New technology might pose problems for older patients with cancer. This study sought to understand how a trial in older patients with cancer (Alliance A171603) was successful in capturing electronic patient-reported data. METHODS Study personnel were invited via e-mail to participate in semistructured phone interviews, which were audio-recorded and qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS Twenty-four study personnel from the 10 sites were interviewed; three themes emerged. The first was that successful patient-reported electronic data capture shifted work toward patients and toward study personnel at the beginning of the study. One interviewee explained, “I mean it kind of lost all advantages…by being extremely laborious.” Study personnel described how they ensured electronic devices were charged, wireless internet access was up and running, and login codes were available. The second theme was related to the first and dealt with data filtering. Study personnel described high involvement in data gathering; for example, one interviewee described, “I answered on the iPad, whatever they said. They didn't even want to use it at all.” A third theme dealt with advantages of electronic data entry, such as prompt data availability at study completion. Surprisingly, some remarks described how electronic devices brought people together, “Some of the patients, you know, it just gave them a chance to kinda talk about, you know, what was going on.” CONCLUSION High rates of capture of patient-reported electronic data were viewed favorably but occurred in exchange for increased effort from patients and study personnel and in exchange for data that were not always patient-reported in the strictest sense.

402 Background: Pancreas cancer is an aggressive malignancy with limited therapeutic options. Nanoliposomal irinotecan (Nal-IRI) is a preferred second-line treatment, and current guidelines recommend its use in the absence of prior irinotecan. This study aimed to assess whether patients who had received regular irinotecan derive benefit from Nal-IRI. Methods: Medical records of metastatic pancreas cancer patients who had received regular irinotecan and then Nal-IRI were reviewed. The following information was extracted from each medical record: patient demographics, confirmation of a diagnosis of exocrine pancreas cancer, initial cancer stage, dates of administration of the drugs of interest, adverse events that occurred with Nal-IRI treatment, reasons for stopping regular irinotecan, and reasons for starting and stopping Nal-IRI. The primary endpoint was overall survival after the initiation of Nal-IRI (an a priori threshold of > 4 months defined success). Survival data were censored based on date of last follow up. Direct quotes from the medical record were documented to provide insight on prescribing Nal-IRI when guidelines advised the contrary. Results: Sixty four patients met eligibility criteria with a median age of 65 years (range: 36, 80 years). Prior to Nal-IRI, 61 patients had received FOLFIRINOX, and 3 FOLFIRI. Of these, 32 patients manifested progressive disease on regular irinotecan-based therapy. Nal-IRI was prescribed with a fluoropyrimidine; only one patient received monotherapy. At time of analysis, 54 patients had died. Median overall survival from initiation of Nal-IRI was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 5.6, 4.3, months). An exploratory comparison, based on no cancer progression with regular irinotecan versus progression, showed improved survival with Nal-IRI in the former group: 6.1 months (95% CI: 9.3, 5.1 months) versus 4.3 months (95% CI: 4.8, 2.3 months); p=0.0006. Nal-IRI adverse events occurred as expected. Qualitative data illustrated several themes, including “limited treatment options,” which appeared to drive the decision to prescribe Nal-IRI. Conclusions: Nal-IRI might be considered in pancreas cancer patients who had received regular irinotecan, particularly in the absence of disease progression with the latter.