Search Results

Background: During the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FDA and NIH altered clinical trial requirements to protect participants and manage study conduct. Given their detailed knowledge of research protocols and regular contact with patients, clinicians, and sponsors, clinical research professionals offer important perspectives on these changes. Methods: We developed and distributed an anonymous survey assessing COVID-19–related clinical trial adjustment experiences, perceptions, and recommendations to Clinical Research Office personnel at the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center. Responses were compared using the Fisher exact test. Results: A total of 94 of 109 contacted research personnel (87%) responded. Among these individuals, 58% had >5 years’ professional experience in clinical research, and 56% had personal experience with a COVID-19–related change. Respondents perceived that these changes had a positive impact on patient safety; treatment efficacy; patient and staff experience; and communication with patients, investigators, and sponsors. More than 90% felt that positive changes should be continued after COVID-19. For remote consent, telehealth, therapy shipment, off-site diagnostics, and remote monitoring, individuals with personal experience with the specific change and individuals with >5 years’ professional experience were numerically more likely to recommend continuing the adjustment, and these differences were significant for telehealth (P=.04) and therapy shipment (P=.02). Conclusions: Clinical research professionals perceive that COVID-19–related clinical trial adjustments positively impact multiple aspects of study conduct. Those with greatest experience—both specific to COVID-19–related changes and more generally—are more likely to recommend that these adjustments continue in the future.

Background: Although low-dose, CT–based lung cancer screening (LCS) can decrease lung cancer mortality in high-risk individuals, the process may be complex and pose challenges to patients, particularly those from minority underinsured and uninsured populations. We conducted a randomized controlled trial of telephone-based navigation for LCS within an integrated, urban, safety-net health care system. Patients and Methods: Patients eligible for LCS were randomized (1:1) to usual care with or without navigation at Parkland Health in Dallas, Texas. The primary endpoint was completion of the first 3 consecutive steps in a patient’s LCS process. We explored differences in completion of LCS steps between navigation and usual care groups, controlling for patient characteristics using the chi-square test. Results: Patients (N=447) were randomized to either navigation (n=225) or usual care (n=222). Mean patient age was 62 years, 46% were female, and 69% were racial/ethnic minorities. There was no difference in completion of the first 3 steps of the LCS algorithm between arms (12% vs 9%, respectively; P=.30). For ordered LCS steps, completion rates were higher among patients who received navigation (86% vs 79%; P=.03). The primary reason for step noncompletion was lack of order placement. Conclusions: In this study, lack of order placement was a key reason for incomplete LCS steps. When orders were placed, patients who received navigation had higher rates of completion. Clinical team education and enhanced electronic health record processes to simplify order placement, coupled with patient navigation, may improve LCS in safety-net health care systems.

Background: Recent modifications to low-dose CT (LDCT)–based lung cancer screening guidelines increase the number of eligible individuals, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities. Because these populations disproportionately live in metropolitan areas, we analyzed the association between travel time and initial LDCT completion within an integrated, urban safety-net health care system. Methods: Using Esri’s StreetMap Premium, OpenStreetMap, and the r5r package in R, we determined projected private vehicle and public transportation travel times between patient residence and the screening facility for LDCT ordered in March 2017 through December 2022 at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas. We characterized associations between travel time and LDCT completion in univariable and multivariable analyses. We tested these associations in a simulation of 10,000 permutations of private vehicle and public transportation distribution. Results: A total of 2,287 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 1,553 (68%) completed the initial ordered LDCT. Mean age was 63 years, and 73% were underrepresented minorities. Median travel time from patient residence to the LDCT screening facility was 17 minutes by private vehicle and 67 minutes by public transportation. There was a small difference in travel time to the LDCT screening facility by public transportation for patients who completed LDCT versus those who did not (67 vs 66 min, respectively; P=.04) but no difference in travel time by private vehicle for these patients (17 min for both; P=.67). In multivariable analysis, LDCT completion was not associated with projected travel time to the LDCT facility by private vehicle (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82–1.25) or public transportation (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.89–1.44). Similar results were noted across travel-type permutations. Black individuals were 29% less likely to complete LDCT screening compared with White individuals. Conclusions: In an urban population comprising predominantly underrepresented minorities, projected travel time is not associated with initial LDCT completion in an integrated health care system. Other reasons for differences in LDCT completion warrant investigation.