Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 588

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prospective Evaluation of Cancer Clinical Trial Accrual Patterns: Identifying Potential Barriers to Enrollment

Lara, Primo N., Higdon, Roger, Lim, Nelson, Kwan, Karen, Tanaka, Michael, Lau, Derick H.M., Wun, Ted, Welborn, Jeanna, Meyers, Frederick J., Christensen, Scott, O’Donnell, Robert, Richman, Carol, Scudder, Sidney A., Tuscano, Joseph, Gandara, David R., Lam, Kit S.·2001·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: Well-conducted cancer clinical trials are essential for improving patient outcomes. Unfortunately, only 3% of new cancer patients participate in clinical trials. Barriers to patient accrual in cancer clinical trials must be identified and overcome to increase patient participation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively tracked factors that potentially affected patient accrual into cancer clinical trials at the University of California Davis Cancer Center. Oncologists seeing new outpatients were asked to complete questionnaires regarding patient characteristics and the physician’s decision-making on patient eligibility, protocol availability, and patient opinions on participation. Statistical analysis was performed to correlate these parameters with subsequent protocol accrual. RESULTS: There were 276 assessable patients. At the initial visits, physicians did not consider clinical trials in 38% (105/276) of patients principally because of a perception of protocol unavailability and poor performance status. Physicians considered 62% (171/276) of patients for participation in clinical trials. Of these, only 53% (91/171) had an appropriate protocol available for site and stage of disease. Seventy-six of 90 patients (84%) with available protocols met eligibility criteria for a particular study. Only 39 of 76 patients (51%) agreed to participate in cancer clinical trials, for an overall accrual rate of 14% (39/276). The remainder (37/76, 49%) declined trial participation despite meeting eligibility criteria. The most common reasons were a desire for other treatment (34%), distance from the cancer center (13%), patient refusal to disclose reason (11%), and insurance denial (8%). Patients with private insurance were less likely to enroll in clinical trials compared to those with government-funded insurance (OR, 0.34; P = .03; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.9). CONCLUSION: Barriers to cancer clinical trial accrual can be prospectively identified and addressed in the development and conduct of future studies, which may potentially lead to more robust clinical trials enrollment. Investigation of patient perceptions regarding the clinical trials process and the role of third party–payers is warranted.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2001.19.6.1728

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 588

Metadata

Authors
Lara, P. N., Higdon, R., Lim, N., Kwan, K., Tanaka, M., Lau, D. H. M., Wun, T., Welborn, J., Meyers, F. J., Christensen, S., O’Donnell, R., Richman, C., Scudder, S. A., Tuscano, J., Gandara, D. R., & Lam, K. S.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2001-03-15
Volume
19
Issue
6
Pages
1728-1733
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2226419169
Cited by
588
References
0
FWCI
12.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prospective Evaluation of Cancer Clinical Trial Accrual Patterns: Identifying Potential Barriers to Enrollment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2001.19.6.1728
The paper
Lara, P. N., Higdon, R., Lim, N., Kwan, K., Tanaka, M., Lau, D. H. M., Wun, T., Welborn, J., Meyers, F. J., Christensen, S., O’Donnell, R., Richman, C., Scudder, S. A., Tuscano, J., Gandara, D. R., & Lam, K. S. (2001). Prospective Evaluation of Cancer Clinical Trial Accrual Patterns: Identifying Potential Barriers to Enrollment. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.6.1728

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.