The National Cancer Institute and Department of Veterans Affairs Interagency Group to Accelerate Trials Enrollment (NAVIGATE): A federal collaboration to improve cancer care.

Cancer clinical trials represent an important option for patients with a diagnosis of cancer and the clinician-investigators involved in their care who seek options for their disease. For all who are impacted by cancer, these studies offer opportunities for greater learning. Conducting these important studies involves several challenges, including recruiting eligible participants. To address barriers that arise over the course of these activities, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) have partnered to increase Veteran participation in oncology clinical trials. This initiative, the NCI And VA Interagency Group to Accelerate Trials Enrollment, or NAVIGATE, is focused on addressing recruitment across the VA healthcare system and finding systematic solutions related to activating, recruiting for and conducting oncology clinical trials at VA Medical Centers. Additional goals include (1) establishing a sustainable network that can serve as a model for other VA sites interested in doing cancer clinical trials, (2) recruitment of minority patients, and (3) developing best practices and policies that can be deployed across the VA healthcare system. In this manuscript, we describe the scope, organization, activities, and future directions of NAVIGATE while also highlighting key needs for successfully conducting cancer clinical trials within the VA system. This partnership between 2 large federal agencies with a shared commitment to improving cancer care may provide lessons to others who are also dedicated to helping those affected by the disease.

Feasibility of a Centralized Clinical Trials Coverage Analysis: A Joint Initiative of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Cancer Institute.

PURPOSE: Clinical trial billing compliance is a challenge that is faced by overburdened clinical trials sites. The requirements place institutions and research sites at increased potential for financial risk. To reduce their risk, sites develop a coverage analysis (CA) before opening each trial. For multisite trials, this translates into system-wide redundancies, inconsistencies, trial delays, and potential costs to sites and patients. These factors exacerbate low accrual rates to cancer clinical trials. ASCO and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) collaborated to address this problem. METHODS: An ASCO Research Community Forum working group proposed the concept of providing centrally developed CAs to research sites at protocol startup. The group collaborated with NCI and billing compliance experts to hold a symposium for key stakeholders to share knowledge, build skills, provide tools to conduct centralized CAs, and strategize about the next steps. RESULTS: Forty-eight attendees, who represented a range of stakeholders, participated in the symposium. As a result of this initiative, NCI directed the Cancer Trials Support Unit to convene a working group with NCI's National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) to develop tools and processes for generating CAs for their trials. A CA template with core elements was developed and is being adapted in a pilot project across NCTN Group and NCORP Research Bases. CONCLUSION: Centralized CAs for multisite trials-using standardized tools and templates-are feasible. They have the potential to reduce risk for patients and sites, forecast budget needs, and help decrease trial startup times that impede patient access and accrual to clinical trials.

Assessing Clinical Trial-Associated Workload in Community-Based Research Programs Using the ASCO Clinical Trial Workload Assessment Tool.

PURPOSE: Clinical research program managers are regularly faced with the quandary of determining how much of a workload research staff members can manage while they balance clinical practice and still achieve clinical trial accrual goals, maintain data quality and protocol compliance, and stay within budget. A tool was developed to measure clinical trial-associated workload, to apply objective metrics toward documentation of work, and to provide clearer insight to better meet clinical research program challenges and aid in balancing staff workloads. A project was conducted to assess the feasibility and utility of using this tool in diverse research settings. METHODS: Community-based research programs were recruited to collect and enter clinical trial-associated monthly workload data into a web-based tool for 6 consecutive months. Descriptive statistics were computed for self-reported program characteristics and workload data, including staff acuity scores and number of patient encounters. RESULTS: Fifty-one research programs that represented 30 states participated. Median staff acuity scores were highest for staff with patients enrolled in studies and receiving treatment, relative to staff with patients in follow-up status. Treatment trials typically resulted in higher median staff acuity, relative to cancer control, observational/registry, and prevention trials. Industry trials exhibited higher median staff acuity scores than trials sponsored by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, academic institutions, or others. CONCLUSION: The results from this project demonstrate that trial-specific acuity measurement is a better measure of workload than simply counting the number of patients. The tool was shown to be feasible and useable in diverse community-based research settings.

Clinical Trial Assessment of Infrastructure Matrix Tool to Improve the Quality of Research Conduct in the Community.

PURPOSE: Several publications have described minimum standards and exemplary attributes for clinical trial sites to improve research quality. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed the clinical trial Best Practice Matrix tool to facilitate research program improvements through annual self-assessments and benchmarking. The tool identified nine attributes, each with three progressive levels, to score clinical trial infrastructural elements from less to more exemplary. The NCCCP sites correlated tool use with research program improvements, and the NCI pursued a formative evaluation to refine the interpretability and measurability of the tool. METHODS: From 2011 to 2013, 21 NCCCP sites self-assessed their programs with the tool annually. During 2013 to 2014, NCI collaborators conducted a five-step formative evaluation of the matrix tool. RESULTS: Sites reported significant increases in level-three scores across the original nine attributes combined (P<.001). Two specific attributes exhibited significant change: clinical trial portfolio diversity and management (P=.0228) and clinical trial communication (P=.0281). The formative evaluation led to revisions, including renaming the Best Practice Matrix as the Clinical Trial Assessment of Infrastructure Matrix (CT AIM), expanding infrastructural attributes from nine to 11, clarifying metrics, and developing a new scoring tool. CONCLUSION: Broad community input, cognitive interviews, and pilot testing improved the usability and functionality of the tool. Research programs are encouraged to use the CT AIM to assess and improve site infrastructure. Experience within the NCCCP suggests that the CT AIM is useful for improving quality, benchmarking research performance, reporting progress, and communicating program needs with institutional leaders. The tool model may also be useful in disciplines beyond oncology.

Organizational and physician factors associated with patient enrollment in cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to identify physicians' individual characteristics, attitudes, and organizational contextual factors associated with higher enrollment of patients in cancer clinical trials among physician participants in the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP). We hypothesized that physicians' individual characteristics, such as age, medical specialty, tenure, CCOP organizational factors (i.e. policies and procedures to encourage enrollment), and attitudes toward participating in CCOP would directly determine enrollment. We also hypothesized that physicians' characteristics and CCOP organizational factors would influence physicians' attitudes toward participating in CCOP, which in turn would predict enrollment. METHODS: We evaluated enrollment in National Cancer Institute-sponsored cancer clinical trials in 2011 among 481 physician participants using Structural Equation Modeling. The data sources include CCOP Annual Progress Reports, two surveys of CCOP administrators and physician participants, and the American Medical Association Masterfile. RESULTS: Physicians with more positive attitudes toward participating in CCOP enrolled more patients than physicians with less positive attitudes. In addition, physicians who practiced in CCOPs that had more supportive policies and practices in place to encourage enrollment (i.e. offered trainings, provided support to screen and enroll patients, gave incentives to enroll patients, instituted minimum accrual expectations) also significantly enrolled more patients. Physician status as CCOP Principal Investigator had a positive direct effect on enrollment, while physician age and non-oncology medical specialty had negative direct effects on enrollment. Neither physicians' characteristics nor CCOP organizational factors indirectly influenced enrollment through an effect on physician attitudes. CONCLUSION: We examined whether individual physicians' characteristics and attitudes, as well as CCOP organizational factors, influenced patient enrollment in cancer clinical trials among CCOP physicians. Physician attitudes and CCOP organizational factors had positive direct effects, but not indirect effects, on physician enrollment of patients. Our results could be used to develop physician-directed strategies aimed at increasing involvement in clinical research. For example, administrators may want to ensure physicians have access to support staff to help screen and enroll patients or institute minimum accrual expectations. Our results also highlight the importance of recruiting physicians for volunteer clinical research programs whose attitudes and values align with programmatic goals. Given that physician involvement is a key determinant of patient enrollment in clinical trials, these interventions could expand the overall number of patients involved in cancer research. These strategies will be increasingly important as the CCOP network continues to evolve.

Measuring clinical trial-associated workload in a community clinical oncology program.

PURPOSE: The ability to quantify clinical trial-associated workload can have a significant impact on the efficiency and success of a research organization. However, methods to effectively estimate the number of research staff needed for clinical trial recruitment, maintenance, compliance, and follow-up are lacking. To address this need, the Wichita Community Clinical Oncology Program (WCCOP) developed and implemented an acuity-based workload assessment tool to facilitate assessment and balancing of workload among its research nursing staff. METHODS: An acuity-based measurement tool was developed, assigning acuity scores for individual clinical trials using six trial-related determinants. Using trial acuity scores and numbers of patients per trial, acuity scores for individual research nursing staff were then calculated and compared on a monthly basis. RESULTS: During the 11 years that data were collected, acuity scores increased from 65% to 181%. However, during this same period, WCCOP was able to decrease individual research nurse staff full-time equivalent (FTE) acuity scores and number of patients per FTE. These trends reflect the use of the acuity-based measurement tool to determine actual workload and use of the acuity data to direct hiring decisions. CONCLUSION: Clinical trial workload has been successfully measured and used to guide staffing by one community clinical oncology program. Further research is needed regarding its applicability to other research programs.

Achieving high cancer control trial enrollment in the community setting: an analysis of the Community Clinical Oncology Program.

Determining the factors that lead to successful enrollment of patients in cancer control clinical trials is essential as cancer patients are often burdened with side effects such as pain, nausea, and fatigue. One promising intervention for increasing enrollment in cancer control trials is the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP). In this article, we examined CCOP staffing, policies, and procedures associated with enrollment in control trials. Data were obtained from three sources: the online CCOP, MB-CCOP, and Research Base Management System, CCOP Annual Progress Reports, and a survey of CCOP Administrators conducted in 2011. We analyzed cancer control trial accrual in 2011 among 46 CCOPs using multivariate regression. Three factors were significant predictors of accrual. First, having a team of staff dedicated to enrolling patients in control and prevention trials, compared to having no dedicated staff, was associated on average with an additional 30 patients enrolled in control trials (p<0.05). Second, CCOPs that recognized physicians for enrolling a large number of patients compared to CCOPs that did not recognize high enrolling physicians enrolled on average an additional 25 patients in control trials (p<0.05). Lastly, the number of cancer control trials available was also associated with enrollment (ß=5.50, p<0.00). Our results indicate that CCOPs looking to increase enrollment in control trials should consider dedicating a team of staff to enroll patients in these types of trials. In addition, CCOPs or other volunteer research systems looking to increase physician participation should consider recognizing high enrolling physicians.

Engaging referring physicians in the clinical trial process.

By building relationships with referring physicians and educating them about the clinical trial process, oncologists can help increase trial accrual among patients with cancer.

Organizational designs for achieving high treatment trial enrollment: a fuzzy-set analysis of the community clinical oncology program.

PURPOSE: To examine the organizational design features that were consistently associated in 2010 with high levels of patient enrollment onto National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer treatment trials among the oncology practices and hospitals participating in the NCI Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP). METHODS: Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis was used to identify the recipes (ie, combinations of organizational design features) that CCOPs used to achieve high levels of patient enrollment onto NCI treatment trials in 2010. Four organizational design features were examined: number of open treatment trials with at least one patient enrolled, number of newly diagnosed patients with cancer, number of CCOP-affiliated physicians, and number of CCOP-affiliated hospitals or practices where patient enrollment could occur. Data were obtained from NCI data systems and CCOP grant progress reports. RESULTS: Two recipes were consistently associated with high levels of patient enrollment onto NCI treatment trials in 2010: having many open treatment trials and many new patients with cancer, and having many open treatment trials and many affiliated hospitals or practices. Together, these recipes accounted for nearly two thirds of CCOP membership in the high-performance set in 2010. CONCLUSION: No single organizational design feature, by itself, was consistently associated with high levels of patient enrollment onto NCI treatment trials in 2010. Having a large menu of active treatment trials may be necessary to achieve high-patient enrollment performance, but this is not sufficient unless combined with either large patient volume or many participating sites.

Kansas office-based nurses' evaluation of patient tobacco cessation activities.

In this study, we examined the tobacco cessation efforts of nurses working in primary care settings. A 43-item questionnaire was mailed to 1,036 office-based nurses located throughout Kansas. With a response rate of 50.1%, 415 questionnaires were available for analysis. Although 89% of respondents encountered patients who smoked on a daily or weekly basis, only 51% reported documenting their patients' tobacco use, and 38% assessed patients' readiness to quit. Two thirds (66%) of nurses believed that tobacco management was part of their role but only 35% provided cessation advice, 23% recommended nicotine replacement therapy, and 14% provided coping techniques. Nurses cited barriers such as perceiving patients as disinterested or unmotivated to quit (65%) and having little time (55%), skills (32%), or knowledge (25%). Most (91%) agreed that they needed additional tobacco control education. Nurses who were advanced registered nurse practitioners or clinical nurse specialists were more likely to feel confident about their smoking cessation counseling skills compared to nurses with less education (66.7 vs. 31.2%, p =.010). Office-based nurses identified specific barriers that could be addressed through professional education about tobacco management.