The COVID-19 outbreak has disrupted healthcare systems across the United States and the world [1], mandating a self-assessment of workflows in order to reduce exposure risk among patients, staff, and the community at large. Social distancing has become an imperative in order to reduce community transmission of the virus. As a result, organizations are rapidly expanding utilization of video conferencing platforms, telehealth, and other tools to deliver remote care and abide by social distancing measures.
The imperative of reducing community spread and the number of non-urgent visits to healthcare centers, has several implications for research institutions implementing therapeutic cancer clinical trials. For one, patients who can be safely monitored remotely may be given the option for a remote-visit if possible. Secondly, facilities have to redirect resources and staff to attend to a surge of acute cases associated with COVID-19 which may limit the capacity to deliver elective procedures involved in clinical research. Third, non-essential staff, including clinical research staff are increasingly being required to work remotely in order to reduce exposure risk.
These measures, while necessary in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, also serve as an opportunity to reconsider the utility of frequent in-person visits, rather than remote monitoring, for patients enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials, particularly when the therapeutic is an oral therapy that can be dispensed to the patient by mail or a courier service.
Less than 5% of therapeutic cancer clinical trials adequately accrue a representative sample of racial/ethnic minorities [2]. Travel remains a major burden associated with cancer clinical trials participation [3], and may contribute to disparities in whom they serve [4], and may be amplified in patients who live in rural areas [5]. Efforts to address this potential barrier to participation have largely focused on addressing indirect costs, such as lodging and gas [6,7]. However, there is also an urgent need to re-consider the need for high frequency in-person safety monitoring. The level of safety monitoring that is considered “good practice” may be unnecessary for certain investigational therapeutics or a subset of low risk clinical trial participants [8]. Uren and colleagues observed that remote monitoring for complex phase III clinical trials was feasible and led to an overall cost saving for the sponsor and reduced burden on facility resources [9]. Importantly, reducing intensity of in-person visits for cancer clinical trials may help promote equity in recruitment and improved access.
COVID-19 is forcing our hand. It is demanding research institutions to undertake care of patients on clinical trials remotely, when possible. It is pointing out that in some cases, we place undue, and unnecessary burdens on our patients if they wish to avail themselves of clinical trials. And it suggests that in the right circumstances, less may be more. This challenging time in our history may permanently inform the way we think about and design therapeutic cancer clinical trials in order to make them more patient-centered and inclusive.
Author contributions
Drafting of the manuscript: Borno, Small.
Critical revision of manuscript: Borno, Small.
Statistical analysis: N/A.
Obtained funding: N/A.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Acknowledgements
Borno receives funding from the Prostate Cancer Foundation and Lazarex Cancer Foundation.
References
- 1.Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) [updated March 14, 2020; cited 2020 MArch 15]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/world-map.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Flocations-confirmed-cases.html.
- 2.Murthy V.H., Krumholz H.M., Gross C.P. Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA. 2004;291(22):2720–2726. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.22.2720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Borno H.T., Zhang L., Siegel A., Chang E., Ryan C.J. At what cost to clinical trial enrollment? A retrospective study of patient travel burden in cancer clinical trials. Oncologist. 2018 doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0628. PubMed PMID: 29700209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Borno H.T., Small E.J., Zhang L. How current reporting practices may mask differences: A call for examining cancer-specific demographic enrollment patterns in cancer treatment clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications. 2019;16:100476. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100476. In press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Mollica M.A., Weaver K.E., McNeel T.S., Kent E.E. Examining urban and rural differences in perceived timeliness of care among cancer patients: a SEER-CAHPS study. Cancer. 2018;124(15):3257–3265. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31541. Epub 2018/06/08. PubMed PMID: 29878305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Nipp R.D., Powell E., Chabner B., Moy B. Recognizing the financial burden of cancer patients in clinical trials. Oncologist. 2015;20(6):572–575. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0068. PubMed PMID: 25986245; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4571792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Nipp R.D., Lee H., Powell E., Birrer N.E., Poles E., Finkelstein D. Financial burden of cancer clinical trial participation and the impact of a cancer care equity program. Oncologist. 2016;21(4):467–474. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0481. PubMed PMID: 26975867; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4828126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Duley L., Antman K., Arena J., Avezum A., Blumenthal M., Bosch J. Specific barriers to the conduct of randomized trials. Clin. Trials. 2008;5(1):40–48. doi: 10.1177/1740774507087704. Epub 2008/02/20. PubMed PMID: 18283079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Uren S.C., Kirkman M.B., Dalton B.S., Zalcberg J.R. Reducing clinical trial monitoring resource allocation and costs through remote access to electronic medical records. J. Oncol. Pract. 2012;9(1):e6–e13. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2012.000666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]