Novel AI Tool Helps Patients to Find, Understand Clinical Trials

Article

Cancertrialsearch.com helped to match patients with gastrointestinal cancers to clinical trials using 7 different criteria, possibly paving the way for patients to find, understand, and enroll in oncology clinical trials.

According to an ongoing study presented at the 2020 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Gastrointestinal Cancer Symposium, a novel artificial intelligence (AI)-based search tool is now making it easier for patients to find and understand oncology clinical trials, while simultaneously offering more clarity on how patients can enroll in them.

Cancertrialsearch.com helped to match patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers to clinical trials using 7 different criteria, including trial sponsor, trial phase, tumor type, cancer stage, across solid tumors, by genetic mutations, and by previous treatment.

“Patients have limited access to an understanding of clinical trials and the online search tools that we have available – not only for patients, but even for providers – can be very hard to navigate,” study author Pashtoon Kasi, MD, MS, clinical assistant professor of internal medicine, hematology, oncology and blood and marrow transplantation at the University of Iowa Health Care, said during a virtual presentation at the symposium.

Improving understanding and access to clinical trials may result in more representative trial enrollment. Lack of diversity in clinical trials has been an issue that many researchers are facing, and can result in, “sometimes devastating medical consequences,” the researchers wrote.

After utilizing cancertrialsearch.com, participants were asked to complete a 20-minute survey evaluating both clinicaltrials.gov – which is commonly used for searching for trials – and the novel tool cancertrialsearch.com. Patients used a 5-point Likert scale to rate aspects of usability for each platform.

“We took GI clinical trials as an example of how this would be applicable to several other tumor types,” Kasi said. “The trial information is restructured based on key eligibility differentiators, [and] is patient-focused in terms of providing questionnaires that have been based on eligibility differentiators, which could be further personalized, and a value for institutions as well as patient advocacy groups.”

At baseline, the average rating for participants’ understanding of clinical trials was 3.1 (±1.2). Patient associations and the internet were their main sources of information about trials. Finding clinical trials was easier for patients using cancertrialsearch.com, compared to not using the tool (3.7±0.9 vs. 2.7±1.3, respectively).

Additionally, the researchers said that the tool improved patients’ understanding of information presented (3.8±1.1 vs. 2.6±1.3); and directionally provided more clarity on how to enroll in trials (4.2±0.8 vs. 3.7±1.4). Ultimately, these factors led to improved patient satisfaction (3.4±1.1 vs. 2.3±0.5).

Cancertrialsearch.com also could lead to better connection among principal investigators, patients and caregivers, and advocacy groups.

“In summary, with this cancertrialsearch.com tool, personalizing and simplifying client information can lead to better patient comprehension, as well as ease of access and navigation, leading to better patient satisfaction and an increased trial pool,” Kasi said. “This could mean broader and more diverse patient pool.”

Reference:

Kasi PM, Jordan E, Jahreiss L. Deploying an AI-based online search tool to increase patients’ access to and understanding of solid tumor GI clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39 (suppl 3). Abstract #: 456.

Recent Videos
A third of patients had a response [to lifileucel], and of the patients who have a response, half of them were alive at the 4-year follow-up.
We are seeing that, in those patients who have relapsed/refractory melanoma with survival measured as a few weeks and no effective treatments, about a third of these patients will have a response.
We have the current CAR [T-cell therapies], which target CD19; however, we need others.
“Every patient [with multiple myeloma] should be offered CAR T before they’re offered a bispecific, with some rare exceptions,” said Barry Paul, MD.
Barry Paul, MD, listed cilta-cel, anito-cel, and arlo-cel as 3 of the CAR T-cell therapies with the most promising efficacy in patients with multiple myeloma.
Jose Sandoval Sus, MD, discussed standard CAR T-cell therapies in patients across multiple high-risk lymphoma indications.
Elucidating nonresponses to bispecific T-cell engagers may be an important research consideration in the multiple myeloma field.
Barriers to access and financial toxicities are challenges that must be addressed for CAR T-cell therapies in LBCL, according to Jose Sandoval Sus, MD.
Fixed treatment durations with bispecific antibodies followed by observation may help in mitigating infection-related AEs, according to Shebli Atrash, MD.
Epistemic closure, broad-scale distribution, and insurance companies are the 3 largest obstacles to implementing new peritoneal surface malignancy care guidelines into practice.
Related Content