The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic Review of Barriers to the Recruitment of Older Patients With Cancer Onto Clinical Trials
Abstract
Purpose: Older patients are significantly underrepresented in cancer clinical trials. A literature review was undertaken to identify the barriers that impede the accrual of this vulnerable population onto clinical trials and to determine what specific strategies are needed to improve the representation of older patients in research studies. Methods: A systematic literature search was undertaken using several different strategies to identify relevant articles. Results: Nine of 31 relevant papers from 159 citations were included. Age is a significant barrier to recruitment; only a quarter to one third of potentially eligible older patients are enrolled onto trials. Physicians' perceptions, protocol eligibility criteria with restrictions on comorbid conditions, and functional status to optimize treatment tolerability are the most important reasons resulting in the exclusion of older patients. Other barriers include the lack of social support and the need for extra time and resources to enroll these patients. Conversely, older patients do not view their age as an important reason for refusing trials. Conclusion: Specific clinical trials confined to older patients should be conducted to evaluate tumor biology, treatment tolerability, and the effect of comorbid conditions. Protocol designs need to stratify for age and be less restrictive with respect to exclusions on functional status, comorbidity, and previous cancers, such that results are generalizable to older patients. Physician education to dispel unfounded perceptions, improved access to available clinical trials, and provision of personnel and resources to accommodate the unique requirements of an older population are possible solutions to remove the barriers of ageism.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Mills, N., Donovan, J. L., Smith, M., Jacoby, A., Neal, D. E., & Hamdy, F. C. (2003) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(03)00020-5 · Cited by 142
Cited by
SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials
Chan, A.-W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Gotzsche, P. C., Altman, D. G., Mann, H., Berlin, J. A., Dickersin, K., Hrobjartsson, A., Schulz, K. F., Parulekar, W. R., et al. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e7586 · Cited by 6,251
Bluethmann, S. M., Mariotto, A. B., & Rowland, J. H. (2016) · Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-16-0133 · Cited by 1,146
Fogel, D. B. (2018) · Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2018.08.001 · Cited by 1,035
The Role of Clinical Trial Participation in Cancer Research: Barriers, Evidence, and Strategies
Unger, J. M., Cook, E., Tai, E., & Bleyer, A. (2016) · American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book · doi:10.1200/edbk_156686 · Cited by 665
Recruiting Vulnerable Populations into Research: A Systematic Review of Recruitment Interventions
UyBico, S. J., Pavel, S., & Gross, C. P. (2007) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0126-3 · Cited by 384
Metadata
- Authors
- Townsley, C. A., Selby, R., & Siu, L. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2005-05-01
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 3112-3124
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2168272173
- Cited by
- 583
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.65
- 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: Systematic Review of Barriers to the Recruitment of Older Patients With Cancer Onto Clinical Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2005.00.141
- The paper
- Townsley, C. A., Selby, R., & Siu, L. L. (2005). Systematic Review of Barriers to the Recruitment of Older Patients With Cancer Onto Clinical Trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.00.141
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.