Scoping to analyze oncology trial participation in Australia.

Equity in oncology clinical trial participation has been declared a global priority. Australia is a key stakeholder in the global clinical trials sphere and managed to maintain high clinical trial activity during the COVID pandemic. Despite these successes, there is paucity of understanding about what influences clinical trial participation in Australia. In the international context, systematic reviews have highlighted that sociodemographic barriers, access to health care, clinical trial inclusion criteria, and attitudes of physicians and patients are factors which influence oncology trial participation. Exploring the factors in Australian health services which influence trial participation is now of significant importance. The lack of clear evidence directly highlights a need to assess the factors that influence oncology trial participation in Australia. We call for review of existing data to identify future directions in Australia which will potentially give deeper insights for the international clinical trial community.

Factors that influence clinical trial participation by patients with cancer in Australia: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials are the backbone of research. It is well recognised that patient participation in clinical trials can be influenced by a myriad of factors such as access to a clinical trial, restrictive trial eligibility criteria and perceptions held by patients or physicians about clinical trials. Australia is a key stakeholder in the global clinical trials sphere. This scoping review protocol aims to identify and map the current literature describing factors that influence clinical trial participation of patients with cancer, in Australia. METHODS AND ANALYSES: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews will be used to conduct this review. Four electronic databases will be systematically searched for relevant published literature on this topic, as a collaborative process involving the lead investigator and a health science librarian. We will hand search of citations and reference lists of the included papers, and a grey literature search through Google scholar, Grey Literature Report, Web of Science Conference Proceedings. All published papers pertaining to patients diagnosed with solid organ or haematological malignancies will be included. Studies which did not involve patients from Australia will also be excluded. A customised data extraction tool will be pilot tested and refined, and subsequently two independent reviewers will perform data screening and extraction. Results will be collated and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews: PRISMA-Scoping Reviews. Quantitative data will be presented using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be synthesised using thematic analyses. This scoping review does not require ethical approval as the methodology focuses on analysing information from available published data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results will be disseminated to relevant stakeholders including consumers, clinicians, professional organisations and policy-makers through peer-reviewed publications and national and international conferences.

The importance of smoking status at diagnosis in human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Smoking status at point of diagnosis is not used in defining risk groups for human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) despite its prognostic value in head and neck cancer. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients treated with chemoradiotherapy between January 2005 and July 2017 was performed with multivariable analysis to explore the impact of smoking status at diagnosis (current/former/never) on overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 61 months. Four hundred and four patients were included. Current smokers had inferior OS versus never and former smokers [adjusted HR 2.37 (95% CI 1.26-4.45, p < 0.01) and 2.58 (95% CI 1.40-4.73, p < 0.01), respectively] and inferior PFS versus never smokers [adjusted HR 1.83 (95% CI 1.00-3.35, p = 0.04)]. Smoking status did not predict for CSS. CONCLUSION: Detailed smoking behavior should be considered in refining risk groups in HPV-associated OPC treated with radiotherapy and in future trial design eligibility and stratification.