Clinical trial screening in gynecologic oncology: Defining the need and identifying best practices

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Gynecologic oncology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.11.009
T. Castellano , O.D. Lara , C. McCormick , D. Chase , V. BaeJump , A.L. Jackson , J.T. Peppin , S. Ghamande , K.N. Moore , B. Pothuri , T.J. Herzog , T. Myers
{"title":"Clinical trial screening in gynecologic oncology: Defining the need and identifying best practices","authors":"T. Castellano ,&nbsp;O.D. Lara ,&nbsp;C. McCormick ,&nbsp;D. Chase ,&nbsp;V. BaeJump ,&nbsp;A.L. Jackson ,&nbsp;J.T. Peppin ,&nbsp;S. Ghamande ,&nbsp;K.N. Moore ,&nbsp;B. Pothuri ,&nbsp;T.J. Herzog ,&nbsp;T. Myers","doi":"10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.11.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Evidence is limited in gynecologic cancers on best practices for clinical trial screening, but the risk of ineffective screening processes and subsequent under-enrollment introduces significant cost to patient, healthcare systems, and scientific advancement. Absence of a defined screening process makes determination of who and when to screen potential patients inconsistent allowing inefficiency and potential introduction of biases. This is especially germane as generative artificial intelligence (AI), and electronic health record (EHR) integration is applied to trial screening. Though often a requirement of cooperative groups such as the Cancer therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), and/or the Commission on Cancer (CoC), there are no standard practice guidelines on best practices regarding screening and how best to track screening data.</div></div><div><h3>Development of manuscript</h3><div>The authors provided a review of current clinical trial screening practices and the effect on enrollment and trial activation across a variety of disease and practice sites. Established clinical trial screening practices and evidence supporting emerging strategies were reviewed and reported. Due to lack of published literature in gynecologic oncology, authors sought to survey the members of current rostered GOG sites to provide perspectives on clinical trial screening practices. Survey results showed a variety of screening practices. Most respondents participate in some type of manual screening process, where approximately 13 % also report incorporating AI or EHR integration. Over half (60 %) of sites track screening data to use for feasibility when opening new trials. The rapid increase in generative AI, EHR integration, and site agnostic screening initiatives could provide a significant opportunity to improve screening efficiency, translating to improved enrollment, but limitations and barriers remain.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12853,"journal":{"name":"Gynecologic oncology","volume":"192 ","pages":"Pages 111-119"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecologic oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0090825824012150","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Evidence is limited in gynecologic cancers on best practices for clinical trial screening, but the risk of ineffective screening processes and subsequent under-enrollment introduces significant cost to patient, healthcare systems, and scientific advancement. Absence of a defined screening process makes determination of who and when to screen potential patients inconsistent allowing inefficiency and potential introduction of biases. This is especially germane as generative artificial intelligence (AI), and electronic health record (EHR) integration is applied to trial screening. Though often a requirement of cooperative groups such as the Cancer therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP), and/or the Commission on Cancer (CoC), there are no standard practice guidelines on best practices regarding screening and how best to track screening data.

Development of manuscript

The authors provided a review of current clinical trial screening practices and the effect on enrollment and trial activation across a variety of disease and practice sites. Established clinical trial screening practices and evidence supporting emerging strategies were reviewed and reported. Due to lack of published literature in gynecologic oncology, authors sought to survey the members of current rostered GOG sites to provide perspectives on clinical trial screening practices. Survey results showed a variety of screening practices. Most respondents participate in some type of manual screening process, where approximately 13 % also report incorporating AI or EHR integration. Over half (60 %) of sites track screening data to use for feasibility when opening new trials. The rapid increase in generative AI, EHR integration, and site agnostic screening initiatives could provide a significant opportunity to improve screening efficiency, translating to improved enrollment, but limitations and barriers remain.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
妇科肿瘤临床试验筛选:确定需求和确定最佳做法。
背景:妇科癌症临床试验筛查最佳实践的证据有限,但筛查过程无效和随后入组不足的风险给患者、医疗系统和科学进步带来了巨大的成本。由于缺乏明确的筛查过程,确定谁和何时筛查潜在患者的决定不一致,从而导致效率低下和潜在的偏见。当生成式人工智能(AI)和电子健康记录(EHR)集成应用于试验筛选时,这一点尤为重要。虽然癌症治疗评估项目(CTEP)和/或癌症委员会(CoC)等合作组织经常要求,但关于筛查的最佳实践以及如何最好地跟踪筛查数据,没有标准的实践指南。手稿的发展:作者提供了当前临床试验筛选实践的回顾,以及对各种疾病和实践地点的入组和试验激活的影响。对已建立的临床试验筛选做法和支持新战略的证据进行了审查和报告。由于缺乏已发表的妇科肿瘤学文献,作者试图调查目前登记的GOG站点的成员,以提供临床试验筛选实践的观点。调查结果显示了多种筛选方法。大多数受访者都参与了某种类型的人工筛选过程,其中约13%的受访者还报告整合了人工智能或电子病历。超过一半(60%)的站点跟踪筛选数据,以便在开展新试验时用于可行性。生成式人工智能、EHR集成和地点不确定筛查举措的快速增长可以为提高筛查效率提供重要机会,转化为提高入学率,但限制和障碍仍然存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Gynecologic oncology
Gynecologic oncology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
6.40%
发文量
1062
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: Gynecologic Oncology, an international journal, is devoted to the publication of clinical and investigative articles that concern tumors of the female reproductive tract. Investigations relating to the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of female cancers, as well as research from any of the disciplines related to this field of interest, are published. Research Areas Include: • Cell and molecular biology • Chemotherapy • Cytology • Endocrinology • Epidemiology • Genetics • Gynecologic surgery • Immunology • Pathology • Radiotherapy
期刊最新文献
Platinum-free interval and response to platinum retreatment or lenvatinib/pembrolizumab in patients with recurrent endometrial cancer: A real-world endometrial cancer molecularly targeted therapy consortium cohort study Ultrasound-based versus immediate biopsy-based management of postmenopausal bleeding in non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White individuals Predicting lymph node metastases in three different vulvar squamous cell carcinoma subgroups Efficacy of induction chemotherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic for treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer in Botswana Exosome transmit the ability of migration and invasion in heterogeneous ovarian cancer cells by regulating autophagy via targeting hsa-miR-328
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1