Table 4.
Distribution of clinical trials by cancer site comparing post-Tumor Board physician discussion and research team awareness of patient trial eligibility.
| Cancer site | Trial(s) | Eligible total N | MD, n (%) | Research, n (%) | Both, n (%) | p-valuea | Differenceb (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cervix | 4 | 22 | 11 (50) | 6 (27) | 4 (18) | 0.2 | 23% (−7 to 52%) |
| Diagnostic | 3 | 8 | 2 (25) | 2 (25) | 1 (13) | ||
| Therapeutic | 2 | 14 | 9 (64) | 4 (29) | 3 (21) | ||
| Prognostic | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Ovarian | 14 | 105 | 38 (36) | 16 (15) | 10 (26) | 0.0002 | 21% (10–32%) |
| Diagnostic | 3 | 56 | 13 (23) | 10 (18) | 5 (9) | ||
| Therapeutic | 10 | 45 | 22 (49)c | 6 (13) | 5 (11) | ||
| Prognostic | 1 | 4 | 3 (75) | 0 | 0 | ||
| Fallopian tube | 7 | 12 | 3 (25) | 1 (8) | 0 | 0.6 | 17% (−23 to 56%) |
| Diagnostic | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Therapeutic | 5 | 5 | 3 (60) | 0 | 0 | ||
| Prognostic | 2 | 7 | 0 | 1 (14) | 0 | ||
| Primary peritoneal | 8 | 10 | 4 (40) | 2 (20) | 2 (20) | 0.5 | 20% (−15% to 55%) |
| Diagnostic | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Therapeutic | 7 | 10 | 4 (40)* | 2 (20) | 2 (20) | ||
| Prognostic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Uterus | 6 | 141 | 75 (53) | 43 (30) | 34 (24) | 0.0001 | 28% (19–36%) |
| Diagnostic | 4 | 113 | 54 (48) | 37 (33) | 29 (26) | ||
| Therapeutic | 2 | 28 | 21 (75) | 6 (21) | 5 (18) | ||
| Prognostic | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Vulva | 4 | 20 | 10 (50) | 3 (15) | 2 (10) | 0.04 | 35% (5–65%) |
| Diagnostic | 2 | 8 | 3 (38) | 0 | 0 | ||
| Therapeutic | 2 | 12 | 7 (58) | 3 (25) | 2 (17) | ||
| Prognostic | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Solid tumor/pelvic mass | 4 | 48 | 15 (31) | 17 (35) | 7 (15) | 0.8 | −4% (−24% to 15%) |
| Diagnostic | 3 | 46 | 15 (33)* | 17 (37) | 7 (15) | ||
| Therapeutic | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| Prognostic | 1 | 2 | 0* | 0 | 0 | ||
| Total | 48 | 358 | 156 (44) | 88 (25) | 59 (16) | <0.0001 | 19% (13–25%) |
Abbreviations: Eligible—number of potential trial enrollments from Tumor Board recommendations; MD—post-Tumor Board discussion with physician; Research—Research team awareness; Both—Patient who received both physician discussion and were also known to the research team.
a
p-value by McNemar's test.
b
Difference in proportion of total MD discussed vs. research team aware (95% CI).
c
Missing/unknown data (total 6).