Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 12/2020

01-12-2020 | Breast Cancer | Original Article

Do patients enrolled in observational studies have better outcomes than non-participants? A retrospective analysis

Authors: Gina Wong, Emily Lam, Edward Chow, Liying Zhang, Chun Nim Li, Gord Mawdsley, Irene Karam, Krista Ariello, Victoria McCarvell, Yasmeen Razvi, Mark Ruschin

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 12/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Patients are commonly enrolled into clinical trials. It has been reported that these patients may have better outcomes than those not enrolled into the study. The reasoning from these improvements could be attributable to closer follow-up, better patient adherence, more health aware patients have, or reaction to observation such as the Hawthorne effect.

Methods

Three hundred forty-six patients were approached for a prospective skin toxicity study in adjuvant breast cancer radiotherapy (RT) but declined participation between January 2018 and July 2019 (non-trial group). They were retrospectively reviewed and patient, treatment and RT-related characteristics, as well as the occurrence of skin reactions, and the usage of topical treatments were collected. This was compared with a comparison cohort of 349 patients who were enrolled into a previously conducted prospective study (trial group).

Results

More patients in the trial group had conventional RT (CFRT) versus hypofractionated RT (HFRT). Data was further stratified and there was no significant difference in moist desquamation, topical antibiotic usage, dressing application, home care use, topical corticoid steroid use, and oral analgesic use. There was a significantly lower pain score in the group compared with the non-trial group in both HFRT and CFRT (OR = 0.091 and OR = 0.348, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Our results demonstrated no differences other than pain between the trial group and non-trial group. Therefore, in this cohort, patients enrolled into an observational trial while undergoing adjuvant breast RT demonstrated similar experiences of skin reactions. There are challenges to assessing differences between these groups, as confounding is likely. Therefore, it is recommended for future studies to additionally assess the impact of study participation on outcomes such as quality of life, quality of care received, and/or anxiety levels.
Literature
1.
Canadian Cancer Clinical Trials Network. Participation in Clinical Trials in Ontario | Canadian Cancer Clinical Trials Network. 2018
2.
Downing A, Morris EJ, Corrigan N, Sebag-Montefiore D, Finan PJ, Thomas JD, Chapman M, Hamilton R, Campbell H, Cameron D, Kaplan R, Parmar M, Stephens R, Seymour M, Gregory W, Selby P (2017) High hospital research participation and improved colorectal cancer survival outcomes: a population-based study. Gut. 66(1):89–96CrossRef
3.
Bois A Du, Rochon J, Lamparter C, PFisterer J, AGO Organkommission OVAR PFisterer. Pattern of care and impact of participation in clinical studies on the outcome in ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2005;15(2):183–191
4.
McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR (2014) Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol 67(3):267–277CrossRef
5.
Gale EAM (2004) The Hawthorne studies--a fable for our times? QJM. 97(7):439–449CrossRef
6.
Drost L, Li N, Vesprini D, Sangha A, Lee J, Leung E, Rakovitch E, Yee C, Chow E, Ruschin M (2018) Prospective study of breast radiation dermatitis. Clin Breast Cancer 18(5):e789–e795CrossRef
7.
Harper JL, Franklin LE, Jenrette JM, Aguero EG (2004) Skin toxicity during breast irradiation: pathophysiology and management. South Med J 97(10):989–993CrossRef
8.
Kole AJ, Kole L, Moran MS (2017) Acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients: challenges and solutions. Breast Cancer Targets Ther 9:313–323CrossRef
9.
Chan S, Sutradhar R, Yao Z et al (2019) Fractionation in adjuvant radiotherapy for invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ in Ontario, Canada from 2009 to 2015. Breast J, September
10.
Jagsi R, Falchook AD, Hendrix LH, Curry H, Chen RC. Adoption of hypofractionated radiation therapy for breast cancer after publication of randomized trials. Int J Radiat Oncol • Biol • Phys. 2014;90(5):1001–1009
11.
Bekelman JE, Sylwestrzak G, Barron J, Liu J, Epstein AJ, Freedman G, Malin J, Emanuel EJ (2014) Uptake and costs of hypofractionated vs conventional whole breast irradiation after breast conserving surgery in the United States, 2008-2013. JAMA. 312(23):2542–2550CrossRef
12.
Parekh A, Dholakia AD, Zabranksy DJ, Asrari F, Camp M, Habibi M, Zellars R, Wright JL (2018) Predictors of radiation-induced acute skin toxicity in breast cancer at a single institution: role of fractionation and treatment volume. Adv Radiat Oncol 3(1):8–15CrossRef
13.
Tortorelli G, Di Murro L, Barbarino R et al (2013) Standard or hypofractionated radiotherapy in the postoperative treatment of breast cancer: a retrospective analysis of acute skin toxicity and dose inhomogeneities. BMC Cancer 13(1):230CrossRef
14.
Zhou Z-R, Mei X, Chen X-X, Yang ZZ, Hou J, Zhang L, Yu XL, Guo XM (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing hypofractionated with conventional fraction radiotherapy in treatment of early breast cancer. Surg Oncol 24(3):200–211CrossRef
15.
O’Sullivan I, Orbell S, Rakow T, Parker R (2004) Prospective research in health service settings: health psychology, science and the “Hawthorne” effect. J Health Psychol 9(3):355–359CrossRef
16.
De Amici D, Klersy C, Ramajoli F, Brustia L, Politi P (2000) Impact of the Hawthorne effect in a longitudinal clinical study: the case of anesthesia. Control Clin Trials 21(2):103–114CrossRef
17.
McCarney R, Warner J, Iliffe S, Van Haselen R, Griffin M, Fisher P (2007) The Hawthorne effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol 7
18.
Wickström G, Bendix T (2000) The &quot;Hawthorne effect&quot;-what did the original Hawthorne studies actually show? Scand J Work Environ Health 26(4):363–367CrossRef
19.
Greenwood R, Bolton A, Greenwood R (1983) Hawthorne a half century later: relay assembly participants remember. J Manage 9(2):217–231
20.
Greenberg RA, Wagner EH, Wolf SH, Cohen SB, Kleinbaum DG, Williams CA, Ibrahim MA (1978) Physician opinions on the use of antibiotics in respiratory infections. JAMA. 240(7):650–653CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Do patients enrolled in observational studies have better outcomes than non-participants? A retrospective analysis
Authors
Gina Wong
Emily Lam
Edward Chow
Liying Zhang
Chun Nim Li
Gord Mawdsley
Irene Karam
Krista Ariello
Victoria McCarvell
Yasmeen Razvi
Mark Ruschin
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 12/2020
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05417-w

Other articles of this Issue 12/2020

Supportive Care in Cancer 12/2020 Go to the issue

Original Article

Real-world experiences with acupuncture among breast cancer survivors: a cross-sectional survey study

Original Article

The impact of maintenance therapy on sleep-wake rhythms and cancer-related fatigue in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Original Article

Cost health literacy as a physician skill-set: the relationship between oncologist reported knowledge and engagement with patients on financial toxicity

Special Article

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) 2020 clinical practice recommendations for the management of severe gastrointestinal and hepatic toxicities from checkpoint inhibitors

Original Article

Team triathlon effects on physiological, psychological, and immunological measures in women breast cancer survivors

Commentary

Increasing access to psychosocial oncology services means becoming more person-centered and situation-responsive
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits