Differences in cancer clinical trial activity and trial characteristics at metropolitan and rural trial sites in Victoria, Australia.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer clinical trials (CCTs) provide access to emerging therapies and extra clinical care. We aimed to describe the volume and characteristics of CCTs available across Victoria, Australia, and identify factors associated with rural trial location. METHODS: Quantitative analysis of secondary data from Cancer Council Victoria's Clinical Trials Management Scheme dataset. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study design was used. SETTING: CCTs were available Victoria-wide in 2018. PARTICIPANTS: There were 1669 CCTs and 5909 CCT participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rural CCT location was assessed as a binary variable with categories of 'yes' (modified Monash [MM] categories 2-7) and 'no' (MM category 1). MM categories were determined from postcodes. The highest ('least rural') MM category was used for postcodes with multiple MM categories. RESULTS: Of 1669 CCTs, 168 (10.1%) were conducted in rural areas. Of 5909 CCT participants, 315 (5.3%) participated in rural CCTs. There were 526 CCTs (31.5%) with 1907 (32.3%) newly enrolled participants. Of 1892 newly enrolled participants with postcode data, 488 (25.8%) were rural residents. Of them, 368 (75.4%) participated in metropolitan CCTs. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis for all 1669 CCTs, odds of a rural rather than metropolitan CCT location were significantly (p-value <0.05) lower for early-phase than late-phase trials and non-solid than solid tumour trials but significantly (p-value <0.05) higher for non-industry than industry-sponsored trials. CONCLUSIONS: In Victoria, 10% of CCTs are at rural sites. Most rural-residing CCT participants travel to metropolitan sites, where there are more late-phase, non-solid-tumour and industry-sponsored trials. Approaches to increase the volume and variety of rural CCTs should be considered.

A capability framework to inform the fundamental requirements for clinical trial unit development, growth and long term success in outer metropolitan and rural areas.

Background: Participation in clinical trials is linked to improved patient outcomes. Despite this, most trial participants either reside in, or are treated in metropolitan areas. TrialHub developed hub-and-spoke models to support and grow clinical trial units in outer metropolitan and regional/rural centres in order to boost clinical trial engagement and reduce demands of trial participation on patients from outer metropolitan and regional/rural areas. The aim of this project was to establish a capability framework for clinical trial unit growth and development. Methods: An integrative methods study design was used to inform the co-design and development of the capability framework based on data collected in Victoria during 2020-21. This included reviews of the literature and of existing local resources, infrastructure, and staffing; as well as education, mentoring and support, and a needs assessment through multidisciplinary working groups. Results: We developed a capability framework based on the level of support required for outer metropolitan and regional/rural centres with diverse existing capabilities across Victoria. The framework applies a maturity model to assess resources, processes and practices which impact the capacity and capability of centres to conduct trials safely and sustainably. Each level of the model uses a consistent set of factors to describe the core elements required for safe clinical trial delivery. This benchmarking allows targeted investment to ensure safe and high-quality delivery of trials at newly establishing trial units. Conclusion: The capability framework developed by TrialHub provides a basis for staged, planned and successful trial unit development and trial implementation. Further validation of the framework is required.

Exploring Australian regional cancer patients' experiences of clinical trial participation via telehealth.

INTRODUCTION: Regional cancer patients face various barriers in accessing specialist cancer services. Teletrials are a new model of care that utilise communications technologies to enable access to and participation in clinical trials close to home. The present study aimed to explore the experiences of regional cancer patients and their carers while participating in a teletrial, and those of regional patients who travelled to a metropolitan centre for trial participation. METHODS: A concurrent, mixed methods study design was used to address the study aim. Patient quality of life data were gathered for both groups and an audio-recorded semi-structured interview undertaken to explore patients' and carers' experiences of the two modes of trial participation. Greater weighting was given to the qualitative data. RESULTS: Participants described teletrials as an acceptable and valuable initiative that reduced overall burden of trial participation. Irrespective of mode of delivery, patients and carers identified access to trials and specialist cancer services as an important equity issue for regional cancer patients. DISCUSSION: From the perspective of regional cancer patients and carers, a teletrial offers convenient, acceptable access to a clinical trial. Although not all patients may want to engage in a teletrial, patients and carers agree that it offers equity of opportunity for trial participation, irrespective of where people live.

Prospective study of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes versus nasogastric tubes for enteral feeding in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing (chemo)radiation.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes have largely replaced nasogastric tubes (NGTs) for nutritional support of patients with head and neck cancer undergoing curative (chemo) radiotherapy without any good scientific basis. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted to compare PEG tubes and NGTs in terms of nutritional outcomes, complications, patient satisfaction, and cost. RESULTS: There were 32 PEG and 73 NGT patients. PEG patients sustained significantly less weight loss at 6 weeks post-treatment (median 0.8 kg gain vs 3.7 kg loss, p < .001), but had a high insertion site infection rate (41%), longer median duration of use (146 vs 57 days, p < .001), and more grade 3 dysphagia in disease-free survivors at 6 months (25% vs 8%, p = .07). Patient self-assessed general physical condition and overall quality of life scores were similar in both groups. Overall costs were significantly higher for PEG patients. CONCLUSION: PEG tube use should be selective, not routine, in this patient population.