e23195 Background: Pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory malignancy have few options. The quality of life (QoL) impact for enrolling in a phase I or II trial compared to those not participating is unknown. This information is invaluable to the consenting process as well as to clinical trial design. The primary aim was to determine if those enrolled on a phase I or II trial had lower scores on the Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) total score compared to those not enrolled on a trial. Methods: This Canadian multi-site study had nine sites open for accrual. SSPedi was calculated based on patient reports for 8-18 years and parent-proxy reports for all children. The total score is the sum of 15 items’ 4 Likert scale scores, score ranges from 0 to 60 (worst possible). Scores from baseline, 4 weeks and 8 weeks of those enrolled on an early phase trial were compared to those who did not enroll in such trials. Results: Of the 54 49 patients, 21 (43%) patients were enrolled on an early phase trial and 28 (57%) patients were not enrolled in a study. For those enrolled on the study at enrollment time, 4 weeks and 8 weeks time points, the total SSPedi score for the participant mean was 11.1 (SD 8.1), 9.2 (SD 6.3) and 10.1 (8.3) respectively compared to those not enrolled on a study with mean scores at the same time points of 13.8 (SD 8.6), 13.5 (SD 9.4), and 15.4 (SD 12.6). Conclusions: These results suggest that it is feasible to evaluate patients enrolled and not enrolled on early phase trials, and to compare their symptom experience. Further efforts will focus on more recruitment and using the PedsQL 3.0 Acute Cancer Module to further define differences in QoL. The results suggest that those enrolled in an early phase trial had an improved quality of life compared to those non-enrolled. This research is supported through granting from the C17 Council and Kindred Foundation. [Table: see text]
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rodden et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: