Must patients with advanced cancer choose between a Phase I trial and hospice?
β Scribed by David J. Casarett; Jason H. T. Karlawish; Michelle I. Henry; Karen B. Hirschman
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2002
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 53 KB
- Volume
- 95
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0008-543X
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
β¦ Synopsis
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Phase I oncology trials offer no meaningful chance for direct medical benefit and they may prevent patients with advanced cancer from receiving palliative care in a hospice program. However, it is not known whether dual enrollment in a Phase I trial and hospice is feasible.
METHODS
Five hundred thirtyβfour Phase I trials were identified in a national online database, of which 179 (34%) accepted patients with a life expectancy of less than 6 months. Of these, 50 were selected randomly. Their principal investigators were surveyed by fax, with followβup telephone calls and eβmails. Ninetyβtwo hospices were selected randomly from a national database. Surveys were conducted by telephone with intake coordinators. Principal investigators were asked whether patients enrolled in hospice could also enroll in their trials if they were eligible in all other respects. Hospice intake coordinators were asked whether a patient with advanced cancer who met hospice eligibility criteria could also enroll in a Phase I trial.
RESULTS
Surveys were completed by 45 of 50 principal investigators (90%) and by 89 of 92 hospices (97%). Although both groups were in favor of dual enrollment, principal investigators (41 of 45; 91%) were more likely to support dual enrollment than hospices (60 of 89; 67%; chiβsquare test, P = 0.004). Most hospices that did not support dual enrollment cited reasons that were based on concerns about payment or misunderstandings about the nature of Phase I trials.
CONCLUSIONS
Most hospices and Phase I principal investigators believe that eligible patients should be allowed to enroll simultaneously in hospice and Phase I trials. These results suggest that the choice between hospice and a Phase I trial is a false dilemma and that greater collaboration in this area is needed. Cancer 2002;95:1601β4. Β© 2002 American Cancer Society.
DOI 10.1002/cncr.10820
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
Background. Hydroxyurea is an S-phase specific drug. Constant exposure of tumor cells with a low Sphase fraction to the agent may result in improved cell kill. Because of its short half-life, a continuous intravenous infusion may result in better tumor exposure than intake by mouth. The goal of this
Adenosine 5'-triphosphate (ATP) has antineoplastic activity in vitro and in murine tumor systems, but there are no data in humans defining its potential use as an antineoplastic agent. We conducted a Phase I study to determine the spectrum of toxicity, maximum safely tolerated dose (MTD), and pharma
Eighteen patients with advanced malignancies refractory to other forms of treatment were given dactinomycin (Act D) as continuous intravenous infusions. Their median age was 51 years (range, 36-67); their median performance status was 50 (range, 40-90) on the Karnofsky scale. Act D was administered
## Abstract ## BACKGROUND. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that the inhibition of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway restores gefitinib sensitivity in resistant cancer cell lines. A phase 1 study was conducted of the combination of everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, and gefitinib to determine a daily dos