Search

PURPOSE: This randomized, double-blind study sought to understand whether cancer clinical trial consent form verbosity detracts from patients' decision making on trial enrollment. METHODS: This trial tested mock consent forms of 2,000, 4,000, and 6,000 words. The first two comprised the two experimental arms and the third the control arm. Phase II was conducted to identify the promising arm, which, in phase III, was compared with the control arm. Each consent form described the same trial. Eligible adult patients reported a cancer history and English literacy. The primary end point used a patient-reported Likert scale to assess the relationship between information in the consent form and trial decision making. RESULTS: In phase II, 93 patients were accrued and prompted the selection of the 2,000-word consent form for phase III. In phase III, 182 patients were recruited, resulting in 240 total evaluable patients to compare the 2,000-word versus the 6,000-word arm (control). For the primary end point, 103 (84%) and 107 (91%) patients in the 2,000- and 6,000-word arms, respectively, strongly agreed or agreed with the following: “The information in this consent form helped me make a decision about whether or not to enroll in the trial” (two-sided, P = .14). Median time to read each consent form was 8 and 12 minutes, respectively (two-sided, P < .0001). Among those assigned these consent forms, 84% and 73%, respectively (two-sided, P = .04) signed or expressed a willingness to sign. CONCLUSION: This study's primary end point was not met. However, secondary outcomes suggest a need to further study the efficiency and efficacy of shorter consent forms for cancer clinical trial enrollment.

Purpose: Flavopiridol, a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, transcription inhibitor, and DNA-interacting agent, was combined with cisplatin or carboplatin to establish toxicities, evaluate pharmacokinetics, and examine its effects on patient cancers and levels of selected polypeptides in patient peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). Experimental Design: Therapy was given every 3 weeks. Stage I: cisplatin was fixed at 30 mg/m2 with escalating flavopiridol. Stage II: flavopiridol was fixed at the stage I maximum tolerated dose (MTD) with escalation of cisplatin. Stage III: flavopiridol was fixed at the stage I MTD with escalation of carboplatin. Results: Thirty-nine patients were treated with 136 cycles of chemotherapy. Neutropenia was seen in only 11% of patients. Grade 3 flavopiridol/CDDP toxicities were nausea (30%), vomiting (19%), diarrhea (15%), dehydration (15%), and neutropenia (10%). Flavopiridol combined with carboplatin resulted in unexpectedly high toxicities and one treatment-related death. Stable disease (>3 months) was seen in 34% of treated patients, but there were no objective responses. The stage II MTD was 60 mg/m2 cisplatin and 100 mg/m2/24 hours flavopiridol. As given, CDDP did not alter flavopiridol pharmacokinetics. Flavopiridol induced increased p53 and pSTAT3 levels in patient PBMCs but had no effects on cyclin D1, phosphoRNA polymerase II, or Mcl-1. Conclusions: Flavopiridol and cisplatin can be safely combined in the treatment of cancer patients. Unexpected toxicity in flavopiridol/carboplatin-treated patients attenuates enthusiasm for this alternative combination. Analysis of polypeptide levels in patient PBMCs suggests that flavopiridol may be affecting some, but not all, of its known in vitro molecular targets in vivo.