Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Cancer clinical trials have been based on low accrual rates. Barriers to recruitment of minority populations affect the generalizability and impact of trial findings for those populations. The authors undertook a mixed-methods approach to understanding levels of awareness and experiences with cancer clinical trials. A survey was administered to new cancer patients and their caretakers (family, close friends, or other social support) at outpatient oncology clinics. Field observations of the trial accrual process also were conducted by employing the grounded theory approach in qualitative methods. Comparison of survey results for Asian-American respondents and non-Asian respondents indicated that Asians were less likely to have heard the term "clinical trial" and were more likely to define a clinical trial as "an experiment" or "a test procedure in a clinic" than non-Asians. Asians were more likely to have employer-based insurance and to report understanding issues related to cost reimbursement. Asians were less likely to have been involved in or to know someone in a trial and reported less willingness than white respondents to consider trial participation. Qualitative observations suggested that Asians who presented for a potential trial were interested in the availability of a novel cancer therapy but were not eligible for available trials. Multiple strategies will be necessary to enhance awareness of and experience with accrual to cancer clinical trials for Asians, including richer understanding and increased involvement of Asians in cancer clinical trials and greater attention to the location and diversity of the Asian population in structuring study centers and evaluating trial results.
Cancer clinical trials have been based on low accrual rates. Barriers to recruitment of minority populations affect the generalizability and impact of trial findings for those populations. The authors undertook a mixed-methods approach to understanding levels of awareness and experiences with cancer clinical trials. A survey was administered to new cancer patients and their caretakers (family, close friends, or other social support) at outpatient oncology clinics. Field observations of the trial accrual process also were conducted by employing the grounded theory approach in qualitative methods. Comparison of survey results for Asian-American respondents and non-Asian respondents indicated that Asians were less likely to have heard the term "clinical trial" and were more likely to define a clinical trial as "an experiment" or "a test procedure in a clinic" than non-Asians. Asians were more likely to have employer-based insurance and to report understanding issues related to cost reimbursement. Asians were less likely to have been involved in or to know someone in a trial and reported less willingness than white respondents to consider trial participation. Qualitative observations suggested that Asians who presented for a potential trial were interested in the availability of a novel cancer therapy but were not eligible for available trials. Multiple strategies will be necessary to enhance awareness of and experience with accrual to cancer clinical trials for Asians, including richer understanding and increased involvement of Asians in cancer clinical trials and greater attention to the location and diversity of the Asian population in structuring study centers and evaluating trial results.
BACKGROUND. There are very limited data concerning survival from prostate cancer among Asian subgroups living in the U.S., a large proportion of whom reside in California. There do not appear to be any published data on prostate cancer survival for the more recently immigrated Asian subgroups (Korean, South Asian [SA], and Vietnamese). METHODS. A study of prognostic factors and survival from prostate cancer was conducted in non‐Hispanic whites and 6 Asian subgroups (Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, SA, and Vietnamese), using data from all men in California diagnosed with incident prostate cancer during 1995–2004 and followed through 2004 (n = 116,916). Survival was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS. Whites and Asians demonstrated significant racial differences in all prognostic factors: age, summary stage, primary treatment, histologic grade, socioeconomic status, and year of diagnosis. Every Asian subgroup had a risk factor profile that put them at a survival disadvantage compared with whites. Overall, the 10‐year risk of death from prostate cancer was 11.9%. However, in unadjusted analyses Japanese men had significantly better survival than whites; Chinese, Filipino, Korean, and Vietnamese men had statistically equal survival; and SA men had significantly lower survival. On multivariate analyses adjusting for all prognostic factors, all subgroups except SA and Vietnamese men had significantly better survival than whites; the latter 2 groups had statistically equal survival. CONCLUSIONS. Traditional prognostic factors for survival from prostate cancer do not explain why most Asian men have better survival compared with whites, but they do explain the poorer survival of SA men compared with whites. Cancer 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.