3418 - National Cancer Trial Network (NCTN) Gynecologic Trial Mentions across Physician Facing Platforms

N. Narasimha¹, H. N. Allen², and A. E. Curtis²; ¹Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Spartanburg, SC, ²Gibbs Cancer Center, Spartanburg Medical Center, Spartanburg, SC

Purpose/Objective(s): Physicians increasingly rely on physician-facing platforms (PFPs) to inform their medical decisions and stay abreast of current medical practices, including available clinical trial options. Despite the public accessibility of information on clinical trials, there is a lack of data regarding the extent to which PFPs incorporate details about these trials. This study aims to assess the recency and comprehensiveness with which PFPs mention open clinical trials in gynecologic oncology within the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN). Materials/

Methods: The list of open gynecologic oncology trials from National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) was obtained on 11/15/2023­. The following physician facing platforms (PFP) were queried - UpToDate, theMednet, Dynamed, ClinicalKey, Medscape, and WebMD. The long name of trial, the protocol number, and the NCTN trial ID were used as search terms within the platforms. The presence of a mention of the clinical trial was recorded as “Yes” followed by the month and year of how recently it was mentioned. These results were then compared across trials and across platforms. The data from these inquiries were organized and analyzed into graphs using a spreadsheet software.
Results: The 16 trials were found to be mentioned a total of 9 times across all PFPs. Average mentions across PFPs were 9% with a range of 0%-27%. ClinicalKey had the highest percentage of mentioned at 27% with DynaMed and WebMD having the least mentions at 0%. Most of the mentions were primarily found through mention of the study ID numbers. TheMedNet showed to have the most recent data regarding mentions of clinical trials, as well as the oldest mentions of trials showing that they had consistency over time compared to other platforms.
Conclusion: In conclusion, this study reveals that access to information about open clinical trials on the studied PFPs is minimal. The incorporation of open clinical trials into these platforms represents an opportunity for improvement. Furthermore, the format of the platform may impact the visibility of recent mentions of clinical trials, highlighting an area for potential enhancement in information dissemination.

Abstract 3418 – Table 1

TRIAL NUMBER	UpToDate	DynaMed	WebMed	theMednet	Clinical Key
NRG-GY019	YES	NO	NO	YES	NO
NRG-GY026	NO	NO	NO	YES	NO
EAY191-N4	NO	NO	NO	NO	YES
EAY191-S3	NO	NO	NO	NO	YES
EAY191-E4	NO	NO	NO	NO	YES
EAY191-A3	NO	NO	NO	NO	YES
The following trials had no mention of any open clinical trials across all PFPs: NRG-GY027, NRG-GY031, NRG-GY025, NRG-GY028, NRG-GY024, S2012, AGCT1531, AGCT1532, A092104
Percent Mentions	7%	0%	0%	13%	27%