|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Definition of tertiary care
open access
Results
Sixty patients with ovarian carcinoma were evaluated; 30 were treated on trial and were matched with 30 patients who had received the same chemotherapy (carboplatin and paclitaxel or carboplatin alone) off trial. Patient baseline characteristics are shown in table 1.Table 1Characteristics of patients with ovarian cancer
Key questions
What is already known about this subject?
- Trial effect describes the phenomenon whereby patients receiving standard of care (SOC) as part of a clinical trial have superior survival compared to those on SOC off trial.
- Systematic reviews to date do not support trial effect but were performed before many SOC regimens were adopted.
What does this study add?
- It is the first cohort study performed in the era of modern therapy for patients with ovarian carcinoma.
- It does not support the phenomenon of trial effect in a tertiary centre.
- It highlights the need for more research into the differences (if any) of core components of care that patients receiving SOC treatment on clinical trials receive compared to those off trial.
How might this impact on clinical practice?
- Once defined, the core components or principles of care could be applied in all settings to promote the highest SOC for all patients regardless of centre of care.
- At the current time, participation in a trial even if a SOC arm is offered is still considered beneficial.
Introduction
Participation
in clinical trials is often promoted as the best treatment option for
patients with cancer. While some clinical trials have the potential to
offer more effective treatments than standard of care (SOC)—BRAF
inhibitors and checkpoint inhibitor antibodies in metastatic melanoma
being prominent examples1–4—most
randomised clinical trials (RCTs) do not produce positive outcomes. In a
systematic review of 253 RCTs, two-thirds of clinical trials failed to
meet their primary endpoints.5
Furthermore, in large phase III trials where SOC is used as a control
arm, up to half of enrolled patients will not experience any additional
therapeutic benefit. It is important to ask, therefore, whether
receiving SOC on trial results in improved outcomes for these patients.
‘Trial
effect’ describes the phenomenon of improved health outcomes in
patients treated with SOC on trial compared to those receiving SOC
outside of a clinical trial setting. A number of variables have been
posited as contributors to this so-called effect but it is unclear
whether these are attributable to the treatment setting (which tends to
be tertiary centres with greater expertise and resources than hospitals
that are not research-intensive) or explainable by other
psychologically-mediated factors such as patients' or clinicians'
increased expectations of success. The trial effect may, moreover,
simply be an illusion created by selection bias, as stringent
eligibility criteria that exclude less fit patients may mean trial
participants are already likely to fare better than their counterparts
receiving SOC outside of the research context.
If health
outcomes are superior in patients receiving SOC on trial, then the push
to enrol patients into trials may be justified even if some patients
will be disappointed when they are deemed ineligible to participate.
From an ethical perspective, a better understanding of trial effect is
essential because it challenges a concern of those involved in the
research ethics review process. Since Appelbaum et al6
first introduced the concept of the therapeutic misconception in 1982,
clinician-researchers have been urged to avoid descriptions of their
trials that may conflate research and therapeutic aims; however, despite
decades of work on the language of informed consent, the distinction is
quickly blurred when participants are desperate for cures and
researchers are eager to confer benefits on them.
There is a paucity of evidence in the literature on ‘trial effect’......If outcomes are better in tertiary centres of excellence with active research environments, it is necessary to ask, what are the essential components of these centres that need to be introduced to peripheral sites or is this indeed possible or cost effective? Patients may like the convenience of treatment closer to home but they should be made aware that they may not receive the best care if local facilities are limited in specialist expertise.Our study supports patient enrolment in clinical trials. The benefits of trial participation extend beyond their effects on individual trial entrants. There is a potential for providing best practice to all patients with cancer.
0 comments :
Post a Comment
Your comments?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.