Physician-Reported Experience and Understanding of Adverse Event Attribution in Cancer Clinical Trials
Objectives: To report the results of a survey conducted among Mayo Clinic medical oncologists, hematologists, and cancer prevention specialists to better understand the current practice of determining whether an adverse event that a patient experience in a clinical trial is related to the drug under...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2019-06-01
|
| Series: | Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542454819300074 |
| _version_ | 1819062901859680256 |
|---|---|
| author | Jennifer G. Le-Rademacher, PhD Elizabeth M. Storrick, BA Aminah Jatoi, MD Sumithra J. Mandrekar, PhD |
| author_facet | Jennifer G. Le-Rademacher, PhD Elizabeth M. Storrick, BA Aminah Jatoi, MD Sumithra J. Mandrekar, PhD |
| author_sort | Jennifer G. Le-Rademacher, PhD |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objectives: To report the results of a survey conducted among Mayo Clinic medical oncologists, hematologists, and cancer prevention specialists to better understand the current practice of determining whether an adverse event that a patient experience in a clinical trial is related to the drug under investigation, a process commonly known as attribution, as well as to formulate recommendations for an improved system. Patients and Methods: An electronic survey was developed and conducted (from August 2 through 29, 2017) among 165 medical oncologists, hematologists, and cancer prevention specialists at the 3 Mayo Clinic sites: Rochester, Minnesota; Scottsdale, Arizona; and Jacksonville, Florida. The survey included 21 items that queried clinicians about their clinical practice and trial experience, their training and process in adverse event attribution assignment, and their recommendations for improving the current attribution system. Results: Thirty-seven percent (61 of 165) of physicians responded to the survey. The median number of years in clinical practice was 15 (range, 1-64) and that of clinical trial experience 12. Eighty-nine percent (54 of 61) had served as a trial principal investigator. Only 15% (9 of 60) of responders reported having received any formal attribution training. Eighty percent (48 of 60) were confident about their ability to assign attribution. Seventy-five percent (45 of 60) consulted their colleagues or study chair when assigning attribution. Sixty-seven percent (40 of 60) recommended formal training to improve attribution accuracy. Conclusion: Very few clinical trialists in our survey received any formal training for adverse event attribution, yet most identified formal training as effective means to improve attribution accuracy. These data underscore an unmet need of formal adverse event attribution training among clinical trialists. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T15:06:09Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ba08914ecf734c9ab22521d113e17415 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2542-4548 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T15:06:09Z |
| publishDate | 2019-06-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes |
| spelling | doaj.art-ba08914ecf734c9ab22521d113e174152022-12-21T18:59:25ZengElsevierMayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes2542-45482019-06-0132176182Physician-Reported Experience and Understanding of Adverse Event Attribution in Cancer Clinical TrialsJennifer G. Le-Rademacher, PhD0Elizabeth M. Storrick, BA1Aminah Jatoi, MD2Sumithra J. Mandrekar, PhD3Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Correspondence: Address to Jennifer G. Le-Rademacher, PhD, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905.Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MNDepartment of Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MNDepartment of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MNObjectives: To report the results of a survey conducted among Mayo Clinic medical oncologists, hematologists, and cancer prevention specialists to better understand the current practice of determining whether an adverse event that a patient experience in a clinical trial is related to the drug under investigation, a process commonly known as attribution, as well as to formulate recommendations for an improved system. Patients and Methods: An electronic survey was developed and conducted (from August 2 through 29, 2017) among 165 medical oncologists, hematologists, and cancer prevention specialists at the 3 Mayo Clinic sites: Rochester, Minnesota; Scottsdale, Arizona; and Jacksonville, Florida. The survey included 21 items that queried clinicians about their clinical practice and trial experience, their training and process in adverse event attribution assignment, and their recommendations for improving the current attribution system. Results: Thirty-seven percent (61 of 165) of physicians responded to the survey. The median number of years in clinical practice was 15 (range, 1-64) and that of clinical trial experience 12. Eighty-nine percent (54 of 61) had served as a trial principal investigator. Only 15% (9 of 60) of responders reported having received any formal attribution training. Eighty percent (48 of 60) were confident about their ability to assign attribution. Seventy-five percent (45 of 60) consulted their colleagues or study chair when assigning attribution. Sixty-seven percent (40 of 60) recommended formal training to improve attribution accuracy. Conclusion: Very few clinical trialists in our survey received any formal training for adverse event attribution, yet most identified formal training as effective means to improve attribution accuracy. These data underscore an unmet need of formal adverse event attribution training among clinical trialists.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542454819300074 |
| spellingShingle | Jennifer G. Le-Rademacher, PhD Elizabeth M. Storrick, BA Aminah Jatoi, MD Sumithra J. Mandrekar, PhD Physician-Reported Experience and Understanding of Adverse Event Attribution in Cancer Clinical Trials Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Innovations, Quality & Outcomes |
| title | Physician-Reported Experience and Understanding of Adverse Event Attribution in Cancer Clinical Trials |
| title_full | Physician-Reported Experience and Understanding of Adverse Event Attribution in Cancer Clinical Trials |
| title_fullStr | Physician-Reported Experience and Understanding of Adverse Event Attribution in Cancer Clinical Trials |
| title_full_unstemmed | Physician-Reported Experience and Understanding of Adverse Event Attribution in Cancer Clinical Trials |
| title_short | Physician-Reported Experience and Understanding of Adverse Event Attribution in Cancer Clinical Trials |
| title_sort | physician reported experience and understanding of adverse event attribution in cancer clinical trials |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542454819300074 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jenniferglerademacherphd physicianreportedexperienceandunderstandingofadverseeventattributionincancerclinicaltrials AT elizabethmstorrickba physicianreportedexperienceandunderstandingofadverseeventattributionincancerclinicaltrials AT aminahjatoimd physicianreportedexperienceandunderstandingofadverseeventattributionincancerclinicaltrials AT sumithrajmandrekarphd physicianreportedexperienceandunderstandingofadverseeventattributionincancerclinicaltrials |