↓ Skip to main content

Low Enrollment of Adolescents and Young Adults Onto Cancer Trials: Insights From the Community Clinical Oncology Program.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Oncology Practice, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Low Enrollment of Adolescents and Young Adults Onto Cancer Trials: Insights From the Community Clinical Oncology Program.
Published in
Journal of Oncology Practice, March 2016
DOI 10.1200/jop.2015.009084
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Given the importance of cancer clinical trials and the fact that most adolescents and young adults (AYAs) are treated in the community setting, did historical Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) sites enroll a higher proportion of AYAs to Children's Oncology Group (COG) studies than non-CCOP sites? Over the 10-year period studied, CCOP sites enrolled a significantly lower proportion of AYAs onto COG studies than non-CCOP sites. Further, while proportional enrollment of AYAs declined over time at both CCOP and non-CCOP sites, the decline was greater at CCOP sites. This was a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of clinical trial enrollment onto COG trials utilizing the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Division of Cancer Prevention database. For the period 2004 through 2013, the proportional enrollment of AYAs (number of AYA enrollments divided by total enrollments) onto relevant COG studies was compared between CCOP and non-CCOP sites and potential changes over time were evaluated. All sites were COG member institutions. During the study period, a total of 9,821 and 81,164 patients were enrolled onto COG trials at CCOP and non-CCOP sites, respectively. In aggregate, a significantly lower proportion of AYAs was enrolled onto applicable COG studies at CCOP than at non-CCOP sites (24.1% [1,606/6,672] v 28.2% [16,357/58,059], P < .001). During the intervals 2004 through 2008 and 2009 through 2013, the proportional enrollment of AYAs at CCOP sites and non-CCOP sites declined significantly (from 26.7% [844/3,156] to 21.7% [762/3,516], P < .001 and from 29.1% [8,189/28,115] to 27.3% [8,168/29,944], P < .001, respectively). Between those intervals, proportional enrollment of AYAs at CCOP sites declined for acute lymphoblastic leukemia studies (33.9% [108/319] v 23.6% [144/611], P = .001) but not for other cancers (Fig). A major strength of this study is the use of proportional rather than absolute AYA enrollment because this is less dependent on the changing availability of trials for AYA patients. Limitations of this study include being (1) restricted to enrollments onto COG and not adult cooperative group trials; and (2) unable to account for the observed differences between CCOP and non-CCOP sites and within site categories over time. This study suggests that despite many CCOPs being located in the community where AYAs tend to be treated, having a commitment to serving disparity populations, and having a clinical research infrastructure involving both medical and pediatric oncologists, these characteristics alone are not enough to result in higher AYA enrollment than in traditional treatment settings. However, the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), which replaced the CCOP in 2014, is well-positioned to leverage these advantages through development and study of targeted interventions aimed at increasing AYA clinical trial accrual. Within NCORP sites, pediatric and medical oncologists should collaborate more actively in the recruitment and management of AYAs on clinical trials to improve care and outcomes.jop;JOP.2015.009084v1/F01F1F01FIG.(A) Proportion of Children's Oncology Group (COG) study enrollments categorized as cancer control or AYA, by institution type (2004 through 2013). Whereas proportional enrollment in COG cancer control studies was significantly greater at CCOP than non-CCOP sites, the proportional enrollment of AYA patients was significantly lower (see Methods for calculation of cancer control and AYA proportional enrollments). The P value represents the difference in proportional cancer control or AYA enrollment between sites. (B) Proportion of CCOP and non-CCOP study enrollments that were AYA, by study type and time interval. The proportional enrollment of AYAs in all COG studies and in therapeutic studies, in particular, decreased significantly during the intervals 2004 through 2008 and 2009 through 2013 (see Methods for calculation of AYA proportional enrollment). AYA, adolescent and young adult; CCOP, Community Clinical Oncology Program.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 24%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Master 5 11%
Other 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 17%
Psychology 6 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2016.
All research outputs
#21,975,499
of 34,297,219 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Oncology Practice
#1,288
of 1,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,000
of 339,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Oncology Practice
#52
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,297,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,691 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.