Home  |  About us  |  Editorial board  |  Ahead of print  | Current issue  |  Archives  |  Submit article  |  Instructions |  Search  |   Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |  Login 
  Users Online: 153Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 190-193

Reasons why patients fail screening in Indian breast cancer trials


1 Department of Clinical Operations, Clininvent Research Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, India
2 Department of Medical and Regulatory Affairs, Clininvent Research Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, India
3 Department of Clinical Operations, Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai, India
4 President, Clininvent Research Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, India

Correspondence Address:
A Kulkarni
A-302, Everest Chambers, Marol Naka, Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai - 400 059, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2229-3485.167100

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: An increased number of screen failure patients in a clinical trial increases time and cost required for the recruitment. Assessment of reasons for screen failure can help reduce screen failure rates and improve recruitment. Materials and Methods: We collected retrospective data of human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) positive Indian breast cancer patients, who failed screening for phase 3 clinical trials and ascertained their reasons for screen failure from screening logs. Statistical comparison was done to ascertain if there are any differences between private and public sites. Results: Of 727 patients screened at 14 sites, 408 (56.1%) failed screening. The data on the specific reasons for screen failures was not available at one of the public sites (38 screen failures out of 83 screened patients). Hence, after excluding that site, further analysis is based on 644 patients, of which 370 failed screening. Of these, 296 (80%) screen failure patients did not meet selection criteria. The majority -266 were HER2 negative. Among logistical issues, 39 patients had inadequate breast tissue sample. Sixteen patients withdrew their consent at private sites as compared to six at public sites. The difference between private and public sites for the above three reasons was statistically significant. Conclusion: Use of prescreening logs to reduce the number of patients not meeting selection criteria and protocol logistics, and patient counseling to reduce consent withdrawals could be used to reduce screen failure rate.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1604    
    Printed31    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded241    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal