Cancer clinical trials have long been hailed as offering a “top shelf” level of care, largely due to the access they provide to cutting-edge therapies and leading specialists. The perception is that patients who participate in these trials may receive superior treatment, potentially extending their lives.
However, a recent study published in JAMA has challenged this notion, revealing that individuals enrolled in clinical trials for anti-cancer drugs do not experience a longer lifespan compared to those receiving standard cancer treatment. This finding raises important questions about the true benefits of clinical trial participation and underscores the need for accurate information when making healthcare decisions.
The allure of clinical trials is often amplified by cancer patient advocacy websites and funding platforms, which sometimes suggest that clinical trials offer medical advantages over standard treatments. These perceived benefits are often attributed to closer monitoring and higher quality care within the trial setting.
However, as Jonathan Kimmelman, PhD, co-author of the study and associate professor in the division of experimental medicine at McGill University, points out, “But that’s not what we found in our paper – instead, there doesn’t seem to be any survival advantage for cancer patients participating in clinical trials.”
Informed Decisions Are Essential When Considering Clinical Trial Participation
The study was not designed to dissuade cancer patients from participating in clinical trials, but rather to provide them with accurate and transparent information, allowing them to make informed decisions. Dr. Kimmelman emphasizes that making the decision to participate in a clinical trial requires a clear understanding of the potential outcomes, risks, and sacrifices involved.
Beyond the side effects of an unapproved medication, patients may need to consider other factors such as the time commitment and the personal sacrifices required, especially when time is limited in the last year of life.
The authors write, “When time is limited (in the last year of life) and treatments have small potential benefits, how and where patients spend their time becomes increasingly relevant.”
The research team conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis, examining 39 studies that included a total 85 comparisons between trial participants and patients receiving routine care.
The objective was to determine whether cancer patients truly benefit from participating in clinical trials, regardless of whether they receive the experimental treatment or the control.
Dr. Kimmelman explains, “If you’re a patient and you’re getting a given treatment, let’s call it treatment A, do you have better outcomes if you receive that treatment in a trial versus if you receive that same treatment outside of a trial? Treatment A could be the experimental drug or it could be the control drug — the point is, if you receive a drug in a trial, do you have different outcomes compared with receiving the exact same drug outside of a trial?”
Initially, the analysis suggested a statistically significant survival benefit for trial participants. However, when the researchers focused solely on high-quality studies, the perceived survival advantage diminished. It became evident that lower-quality studies had failed to control for various factors that could influence the results, such as the presence of comorbidities, the patient’s race, or the stage of cancer at diagnosis.
These uncontrolled variables could potentially skew the results, creating the illusion of a survival benefit that might not actually exist.
Furthermore, when the researchers adjusted for publication bias, the survival benefit for clinical trial participants disappeared entirely. Publication bias occurs when studies with negative or inconclusive results are less likely to be published, leading to an overrepresentation of positive findings in the literature.
By accounting for this bias, the researchers were able to provide a more accurate assessment of the true impact of clinical trial participation on patient survival.
Why Do Drugs Appear More Effective in Clinical Trials?
One of the reasons drugs may appear to perform better in clinical trials is the stringent selection criteria used to enroll participants.
Dr. Kimmelman notes, “That gap between effectiveness and efficacy might lead someone to think that patients have better outcomes in trials, when in reality, a lot of that is because trials tend to enroll ‘the healthiest of the sick’ and so they tend to have better outcomes.”
In other words, patients who are younger, fitter, and have fewer comorbidities are more likely to be selected for clinical trials, which can lead to better outcomes that may not be replicable in the general population.
Additionally, trial participants often when socioeconomic advantages, such as higher levels of education and income, which can also contribute to better adherence to treatment and overall outcomes.
“They also tend to be more motivated in adhering to their medications,” says Dr. Kimmelman.
Survival Is Just One of Many Reasons People Choose to Join Clinical Trials
Despite these findings, the reasons people choose to participate in clinical trials are varied and multifaceted. For some, the hope of extending their life or improving their health outcomes is a motivating factor.
However, as Norah Crossnohere, PhD, assistant professor and patient-centered outcomes researcher at The Ohio State University, who was not involved in the study, explains, “But even when folks don’t expect clinical trials to bring them improvements in health outcomes, they often still continue to sign up.”
This persistence may be driven by altruism, a desire to contribute to scientific research, or a sense of community with others who are facing similar health challenges. “Plus, in some cases, especially if the condition is rare, these trials could offer some community and connection with other people who are dealing with the same things they are,” she adds.
It’s Time to Retire the Belief that ‘Trial Participation Is the Best Treatment Option’
The study’s findings also offer a degree of reassurance to those who are unable to participate in clinical trials due to logistical or eligibility barriers.
Dr. Kimmelman emphasizes, “That can be incredibly disappointing for patients, especially for cancer patients who are desperate to have more options available for them. Our findings should reassure those patients that they are not medically disadvantaged, at least with respect to survival, merely because they are unable to access a clinical trial.”
For some individuals, the decision not to enroll in a clinical trial may be driven by a preference to focus on palliative care and symptom management rather than pursuing aggressive treatments.
The authors of the accompanying JAMA editorial note that these individuals may feel pressure from family or society to “keep fighting” despite their desire to prioritize quality of life. For these patients, the study’s results may be validating, affirming that their decision to forgo clinical trial participation does not compromise their survival prospects.
While there are many valid reasons to participate in clinical trials, the benefit that such participation guarantees life-extending benefits should be reconsidered. The findings of this study challenge the long-held mantra that “Trial participation is the best treatment option,” suggesting that this notion may need to be retired.
Patients should be encouraged to make decisions based on accurate, evidence-based information, considering both the potential benefits and the sacrifices involved in clinical trial participation.
Ultimately, the choice to join a clinical trial is deeply personal and should be made in the context of each individual’s unique circumstances and values.
Recommended For You
