4.1 Article

Participation and survival of geriatric patients in Phase I clinical trials: The Karrnanos Cancer Institute (KCI) experience

期刊

JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC ONCOLOGY
卷 2, 期 1, 页码 18-24

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2010.09.004

关键词

Elderly; Phase I clinical trials; Barriers; Survival

资金

  1. NIH [U01 CA-62487]
  2. Cancer Center [CA-22453]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Geriatric cancer patients (age 65 or older) comprise a majority of cancer cases in the United States, yet they are underrepresented in therapeutic clinical trials. It is therefore important to increase our understanding of their participation, survival outcomes, and recruitment barriers. This study aims to describe the demographics, treatment, toxicity, and overall survival (OS) of all patients >= 65 years of age who presented to the Phase I Clinical Trials service at Karmanos Cancer Institute (KCI). Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed of all referred and seen patients >= 65 years of age at Phase I clinical service at KCI between 1995 and 2005. Data on demographics, Comorbidities, tumor type, reason not enrolled, toxicities and OS were obtained. Results: A total of 216 patients met the study criteria. The median age was 71 years. 114(59%) patients were performance status 1. 102 (47%) patients were enrolled and of those 95 (44%) patients were treated. More than half of the patients failed to enroll with predominant reasons being protocol ineligibility (30%), loss to follow up (12%), patient refusal (8%), or unavailability of trial (2%). The median OS duration of treated patients was 8.4 months (95% CI: 6.2-10.5). This was significantly longer than the patients who failed to enroll or did not receive treatment (p<0.0001). Conclusion: This study suggests that elderly patients who were treated on a Phase I clinical trial(s) at our institution survived significantly longer than our elderly patients who did not receive treatment. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据