Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp 1571–1579 | Cite as

Planning phase III multi-site clinical trials in palliative care: the role of consecutive cohort audits to identify potential participant populations

  • David Christopher CurrowEmail author
  • Tania M. Shelby-James
  • Meera Agar
  • John Plummer
  • Deborah Rowett
  • Paul Glare
  • Odette Spruyt
  • Janet Hardy
Original Article

Abstract

Goals of work

Multiple sites enable more successful completion of adequately powered phase III studies in palliative care. Audits of the frequency and distribution of the symptoms of interest can better inform research planning by determining realistic recruitment goals for each site. The proposed studies are to improve the evidence-base for registration and subsidy applications for frequently encountered symptoms where current pharmacological interventions are being used ‘off-licence’.

Methods

Six services participated in a standardised, retrospective, consecutive cohort audit of five symptoms of their inpatient populations to inform the design of double blind randomised controlled phase III studies to which each site would recruit simultaneously. The audit covered all deaths in a 3-month period for people who were referred to a specialist palliative care service who had at least one inpatient admission between referral and death, regardless of when the person was referred to the service. The audits were based around inclusion and exclusion criteria for the proposed studies.

Main results

Of the 468 people whose medical records were reviewed, potential study participant rates varied by symptom having accounted for general and specific inclusion and exclusion criteria: pain 17.7%; delirium 5.8%; anorexia 5.1%; bowel obstruction 2.8% and cholestatic itch 0%. For those people with a symptom of interest, it was noted at the beginning of the inpatient admission more than half the time. Of all inpatients, fewer than one third would be eligible to participate in at least one study.

Conclusions

These data provide a baseline estimate of potential people to approach about clinical trials in supportive care but do not account for clinician ‘gate-keeping’, lack of interest in participating nor withdrawal from the study once initiated. The data are retrospective and therefore, limited by clinical documentation. The audit directly informed an increase in the number of participating sites.

Keywords

Palliative care Audit Clinical trials methodology Participant recruitment Randomised controlled trials Phase III studies 

Notes

Complete funding declaration

Direct costs of this study were provided through a grant from the Palliative Care Branch of the Australian Department of Health and Ageing (Canberra, Australia) under the National Palliative Care Strategy. Flinders University is technically the sponsor organisation for the individual studies proposed. The design, conduct, analysis and write-up of the study were performed independently from any funding or sponsoring agency.

Research support

Palliative Care Branch of the Australian Department of Health and Ageing (Canberra, Australia)

References

  1. 1.
    Currow DC, Agar M, Tieman J, Abernethy AP (2008) Multisite research allows adequately powered palliative care trials; web-based data management makes it achievable today. Pall Med 22(1):91–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rowett D, Ravenscroft PJ, Hardy J, Currow DC (2009) Using national health policies to improve access to palliative care medications in the community. J Pain Symptom Manage 37(3):395–402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1997) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Ann Intern Med 126:36–47Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, V3.0, DCTD, NCI, NIH, DHHS, March 31 2003, published August 9 2006Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abernethy AP, Currow DC (2008) Culture and financing influence palliative care services, study populations, and generalizabiliy of research findings. J Pall Med 11(2):146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simpson F, Doig GS. The novel use of site selection surveys to improve sub-optimal recruitment. International Clinical Trials Symposium, Sydney 24th September 2007 (abstr page 31)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perkins P, Booth S, Vowler SL, Barclay S (2008) What are patients’ priorities for palliative care research? A questionnaire study. Palliat Med 22(1):7–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Solano JP, Gomes B, Higginson IJ (2006) A comparison of symptom prevalence in far advanced cancer, AIDS, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and renal disease. J Pain Symptom Manage 31(1):58–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Teunissen SC, Wesker W, Kruitwagen C, de Haes HC, Voest EE, de Graeff A (2007) Symptom prevalence in patients with incurable cancer: a systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manage 34(1):94–104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson CE, Girgis A, Paul CL, Currow DC (2008) Cancer specialists' palliative care referral practices and perceptions: results of a national survey. Palliat Med 22(1):51–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buss MK, DuBenske LL, Dinauer S, Gustafson DH, McTavish F, Cleary JF (2008) Patient/caregiver influences for declining participation in supportive oncology trials. J Support Oncol 6(4):168–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    White C, Hardy JR, Gilshenan K, Charles MA, Pinkerton CR (2008) Randomised controlled trials of palliative care—a survey of the views of advanced cancer patients and their relatives. Eur J Cancer 44(13):1820–1828CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grbich C, Abernethy AP, Shelby-James T, Fazekas B, Currow DC (2008) Creating a research culture in a palliative care service environment: a qualitative study of the evolution of staff attitudes to research during a large longitudinal controlled trial (ISRCTN81117481). J Palliat Care 24(2):100–109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    White C, Gilshenan K, Hardy J (2008) A survey of the views of palliative care healthcare professionals towards referring cancer patients to participate in randomized controlled trials in palliative care. Support Care Cancer 16(12):1397–1405CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Currow DC, Abernethy AP, Shelby-James T, Phillips PA (2006) The impact of conducting a regional palliative care clinical trial. Palliat Med 20(8):735–743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Higginson IJ, Hart S, Burman R, Silber E, Saleem T, Edmonds P (2008) Randomised controlled trial of a new palliative care service: compliance, recruitment and completeness of follow-up. BMC Palliat Care 28(7):7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jordhøy MS, Kaasa S, Fayers P, Ovreness T, Underland G, Ahlner-Elmqvist M (1999) Challenges in palliative care research; recruitment, attrition and compliance: experience from a randomized controlled trial. Palliat Med 13(4):299–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ehranberg A, Ehnfors M (2001) The accuracy of patients records in Swedish nursing homes: congruence of record content and nurses’ and patients’ descriptions. Scand J Caring Sci 15(4):303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Currow DC, Eagar K, Aoun S, Fildes D, Yates P, Kristjanson LJ (2008) Is it feasible and desirable to collect voluntary quality data nationally in palliative oncology care? J Clin Oncol 26(23):3853–3859CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lawlor PG, Gagnon B, Mancini IL, Pereira LJ, Hanson J, Suarez-Almazar ME, Bruera ED (2000) Occurrence, causes, and outcome of delirium in patients with advanced cancer: a prospective study. Arch Intern Med 27;160(6):786–794Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Breitbart W (1997) The memorial delirium assessment scale. J Pain Symptom Manage 13(3):128–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gaudreau JD, Gagnon P, Harel F, Tremblay A, Roy MA (2005) Fast, systematic, and continuous delirium assessment in hospitalized patients: the nursing delirium screening scale. J Pain Symptom Manage 29(4):368–375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Christopher Currow
    • 1
    • 8
    Email author
  • Tania M. Shelby-James
    • 1
  • Meera Agar
    • 1
    • 2
  • John Plummer
    • 3
  • Deborah Rowett
    • 4
  • Paul Glare
    • 5
  • Odette Spruyt
    • 6
  • Janet Hardy
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Palliative and Supportive ServicesFlinders UniversityBedford ParkAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Palliative CareBraeside HospitalWetherill ParkAustralia
  3. 3.Pain Management UnitFlinders Medical CentreAdelaideAustralia
  4. 4.Drug and Therapeutic Information ServiceRepatriation General HospitalAdelaideAustralia
  5. 5.Department of Palliative Care, Sydney Cancer CentreRoyal Prince Alfred HospitalSydneyAustralia
  6. 6.Peter MacCallum Cancer CentreEast MelbourneAustralia
  7. 7.Mater Health ServicesBrisbaneAustralia
  8. 8.Department of Palliative and Supportive ServicesFlinders UniversityDaw ParkAustralia

Personalised recommendations