Sources of referral to early phase clinical trials: a case for putting all your eggs in one basket.
Authors: Fintak PA , Goodell V , Bolding M , Higgins D , Childs J , Wallace D , Coveler A , Salazar LG , Link J , Waisman JR , Disis ML 
Published: December 2010

Abstract #3116

Background: Studies suggest that only 2% to 3% of all adult cancer patients and approximately 5% of breast cancer patients enroll in clinical trials. To better understand the factors that contribute to enrollment we collected data from patients on sources that prompted them to contact us.&#x2028; Methods: From Jan 2005 to Apr 2008 we screened nearly 400 patients for 8 Phase I/II clinical trials focused on immunotherapy of breast and ovarian cancer. We queried subjects about informational sources that led them to consider our clinical studies. Patients learned about our trials from sources including: Clinicians, the Internet (advocacy group websites, search engines, government/university sites), Other patients, Family/friends, Media, Community events and Postings seeking research participants. Many patients who cited a clinician as their referral source specifically referenced a private, multi-site breast cancer clinic in Southern California with which our clinical group has formed a partnership, or consortium. To ensure that this was represented in the data and because the clinician category comprised a large percentage of the referral sources we split the category into 2 groups-one being the private practice in California (to be referred to as “consortium”) and the other being all other clinicians.&#x2028; Results: Of the 399 patients screened, 336 (84%) were considered potentially eligible for study. A total of 72 patients, or 18% of those screened have enrolled in one of our trials to date.&#x2028; Among patients screened, most learned about our trials from clinicians outside the consortium (34%), the Internet (27%), and consortium clinicians (15%). Patients most often named her2support.org (35%) and clinicaltrials.gov (23%) as their specific Internet sources. The remaining sources, family/friends, patients, media sources, community events and postings in medical facilities, were each cited by &lt;5% of patients.&#x2028; Although consortium clinicians were responsible for only 15% of referrals, 50% of their referrals enrolled in a study. Only 16% of patients referred by other clinicians and 9% referred via the Internet were enrolled. Though other clinicians and the Internet are the most common referral sources, referrals from our consortium were significantly more likely to enroll than any other source (p&lt;0.001).&#x2028; This may be due to the fact that patients referred by the consortium were more likely to meet eligibility criteria. Relative to 93% of consortium referrals, 87% of other clinician and 79% of Internet referrals were potentially eligible for trial (p&lt;0.05). Patients referred by our consortium were significantly more likely to meet study criteria relative to those referred by other sources.&#x2028; Discussion: Physician referrals often lead to higher accrual to clinical trials relative to other referral sources. Our data reveal that accrual can be further improved by forming a close collaborative relationship with a single select practice of clinicians.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 3116.