Participation in surgical oncology clinical trials: gender-, race/ethnicity-, and age-based disparities

Age specific recruitment and retention to a large multicentre observational breast cancer trial in older women: The Age Gap Trial

Introduction

Recruitment and retention are two of the most important factors in successfully running clinical trials. Many trials encounter problems with both, causing delays or preventing study progress. These issues are greater in older adults and patients with cancer.

Materials and methods

We assessed recruitment and retention in a large, multicentre, observational breast cancer study in older female patients (>70 years, N = 3440). Data collected by the Age Gap study were used to assess rates of, and reasons for, patients not being recruited or retained. Statistical analysis assessed the impact of age as a predictor of recruitment and retention.

Results

Between February 2013 and June 2018, 6876 patients were screened and 3456 were consented across 56 United Kingdom (UK) breast units. Reasons for non-recruitment included ineligibility, clinician issues, staffing resource issues, patients' lack of interest or time and trial burden. In comparison with the age demographics of patients with breast cancer in the UK, women aged 70–75 years were over-represented compared to older age groups. Logistic regression demonstrated that older age significantly reduced the odds of consent (OR = 0.96, CI: 0.938–0.982; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that age (p < 0.001), markers of poor functional ability (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (p = 0.011)) and instrumental activities of daily living (p = 0.026) were significant predictors of withdrawal.

Discussion

This study has demonstrated that selection and attrition bias for age are apparent despite a range of ‘age friendly’ study design measures. Exploration of the underlying reasons for this and development of measures to address this should be the focus of further research.

Clinical trials knowledge and attitudes of Vietnamese- and Anglo-Australian cancer patients: A cross-sectional study

AIM

Low participation in cancer clinical trials by culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) patients limits access to cutting-edge treatments and generalizability of results. This is the first study exploring trials knowledge/attitudes and their association with trial participation in Vietnamese- and Anglo-Australian cancer patients.

METHODS

Eligible patients diagnosed with cancer in the past 10 years were invited to complete a self-report questionnaire comprising validated measures of: trials knowledge and attitudes, preferred information amount, preferred decision-making involvement, health literacy, and past and future (i.e. hypothetical) trial participation. Multivariable linear regression evaluated correlates of trials knowledge/attitudes. Multinomial logistic regression estimated the relationship between trials knowledge/attitudes and possible future trial participation.

RESULTS

Vietnamese-Australian participants (n = 50) had more negative attitudes regarding trials than Anglo-Australians (n = 100; B = -9.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], -17.60 to -0.97; P = 0.029), but similar knowledge (B = -0.91; 95% CI, -2.27 to 0.44; P = 0.18). Future trial participation was associated with positive attitudes (odds ratio [OR] = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12; P < 0.001) and greater knowledge (OR = 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04-1.62; P = 0.02), but not Vietnamese background (OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.27-3.32; P = 0.93).

CONCLUSION

Despite poorer attitudes regarding trials in Vietnamese-Australians, Vietnamese background was not associated with less likely future trial participation, suggesting low trial participation by CALD patients may be more due to opportunity barriers. Improving knowledge and attitudes may increase trial participation generally.

A Picture of Modern Medicine: Race and Visual Representation in Medical Literature

BACKGROUND

There has been a recent focus on the impact of race on health equity, which has revealed unsettling results. Multiple studies have shown that the underrepresentation of minorities in medical education such as course slides, pre-clinical lecture material, case studies, and textbooks impedes racial equity in the practice of medicine.

AIM OF STUDY

In this study, we aimed to survey the landscape of published imaging in modern medicine to understand the degree of racial diversity represented in current biomedical literature.

METHODS

We performed a photogrammetric analysis of medical images from the New England Journal of Medicine representing various medical fields and geographic regions to examine implicit biases with regards to human skin color.

RESULTS

Overall, 18% of images depicted non-white skin tone but there was considerable heterogeneity in the percentage of non-white medical images published from different geographic regions and specialties (ranging from 0% to 67%).

CONCLUSIONS

Unfortunately, these results suggest that there is an underlying implicit racial bias in published images from medical literature with an underrepresentation of minorities compared to the general population, which could also contribute to inequities in health care. It is critical that health care providers, educators, and trainees promote cultural competency and work to understand the multifaceted influence of race and culture on the daily experience of patients in the modern healthcare system. We hope this study will encourage authors to critically evaluate their medical images for implicit bias so that documented photography in scientific literature may better reflect the populations we serve.

Analysis of Heterogeneity in Survival Benefit of Immunotherapy in Oncology According to Patient Demographics and Performance Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Overall Survival Data

OBJECTIVES

Immunotherapy (IO) has become standard of care (SOC) for many advanced malignancies, although identifying patients likely to benefit remains difficult. We sought to assess whether demographic factors are associated with response to IO, compared with SOC systemic therapy, using stratified meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from inception to October 2, 2018. Randomized controlled trials comparing IO to SOC in patients with advanced solid organ malignancies were included if results were stratified by age, performance status (PS), or race, assessing overall survival (OS). Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each group using random-effects models independently.

RESULTS

We identified 21 eligible randomized controlled trials, including 20 stratified by age, 17 by PS, and 4 by race. Patients with PS 0 (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.86) and PS≥1 (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.83) had similar OS benefits from IO compared with SOC (P=0.80). There was no difference on the basis of patient race (white vs. nonwhite) (P=0.46). IO demonstrated an OS benefit for younger (below 65 y: HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.82) and older (65 y and above: HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.88) patients with no difference between age groups (P=0.27). Among prespecified subgroup analyses, there was significant effect modification in 2 subgroups: younger patients in the first-line setting (P=0.03) and those receiving anti-CTLA-4 drugs (P=0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

When examining OS using stratified meta-analysis, we did not demonstrate significant differences in IO efficacy according to patient age, PS or race, though data on race were sparse.

Understanding and Attitudes toward Cancer Clinical Trials among Patients with a Cancer Diagnosis: National Study through Cancer Trials Ireland

Cancer clinical trials (CCTs) are critical to translation and development of better therapies to improve outcomes. CCTs require adequate patient involvement but accrual rates are low globally. Several known barriers impede participation and knowing how subpopulations differ in understanding of CCTs can foster targeted approaches to aid accrual and advance cancer treatments. We conducted the first nationwide survey of 1089 patients attending 14 Irish cancer centres, assessing understanding of fundamental concepts in CCT methodology and factors that influence participation, to help tailor patient support for accrual to CCTs. Two-thirds (66%) of patients reported never having been offered a CCT and only 5% of those not offered asked to participate. Misunderstanding of clinical equipoise was prevalent. There were differences in understanding of randomisation of treatment by age (p < 0.0001), ethnicity (p = 0.035) and marital status (p = 0.013), and 58% of patients and 61% previous CCT participants thought that their doctor would ensure better treatment in CCTs. Females were slightly more risk averse. Males indicated a greater willingness to participate in novel drug trials (p = 0.001, p = 0.003). The study identified disparities in several demographics; older, widowed, living in provincial small towns and fewer years-educated patients had generally poorer understanding of CCTs, highlighting requirements for targeted support in these groups.

Big Data vs. Clinical Trials in HPB Surgery

Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) are at the heart of "evidence-based" medicine. However, in surgical practice, RCTs remain uncommon. Conducting well-designed RCTs for surgical procedures is often challenged by inadequate recruitment accrual, blinding, or standardization of the surgical procedure, as well as lack of funding and evolution of the treatment strategy during the many years over which such trials are conducted. In addition, most clinical trials are performed in academic high-volume centers in highly selected patients, which may not necessarily reflect a "real-world" practice setting. Over the past decades, surgical outcomes research using nationwide administrative and registry databases has become increasingly common. Large databases provide easy and inexpensive access to data on a large and diverse patient population at a variety of treatment centers. Furthermore, large database studies provide the opportunity to answer questions that would be impossible or very arduous to answer using RCTs, including questions regarding health policy efficacy, trends in surgical practice, access to health care, impact of hospital volume, and adherence to practice guidelines, as well as research questions regarding rare disease, infrequent surgical outcomes, and specific subpopulation. Prospective data registries may also allow for quality benchmarking and auditing. This review outlines the role, advantages, and limitations of RCTs and large database studies in answering important research questions in surgery.

Variation in long-term oncologic outcomes by type of cancer center accreditation: An analysis of a SEER-Medicare population with pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer center accreditation is designed to identify centers that provide high-quality cancer care. This also guides patients and referring physicians towards centers of excellence for specialized care. We sought to examine if cancer center accreditation was associated with improved long-term oncologic outcomes in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Using the SEER-Medicare database, we identified patients who underwent pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 1996 to 2013. Hospitals were categorized into three groups: National Cancer Institute-designated (NCI-designated) centers, Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited centers, and "non-accredited" (NA) centers. Multilevel mixed-effects models were used to calculate adjusted examined lymph nodes, disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

We identified 5,118 patients who underwent pancreatectomy at 632 hospitals (41.0% NA, 49.6% CoC, 9.4% NCI). NCI-designated centers had a greater median number of lymph nodes examined compared with CoC-accredited or NA centers (14 vs. 10 vs. 11.0 nodes, respectively; p < 0.001). Patients treated at NCI centers had a higher 5-year DSS compared to those treated at CoC or NA centers (31.2% vs. 23.6% vs. 23.0%, respectively; p < 0.001). Finally, patients treated at NCI centers had a higher 5-year OS compared to those treated at CoC or NA centers (23.5% vs. 18.9% vs. 17.9%, respectively; p < 0.001). The associations held true when adjusted analyses were performed.

CONCLUSION

Patients with resected pancreatic cancer treated at NCI-designated centers were associated with improved long-term oncologic outcomes. There was no difference between CoC-accredited centers compared with NA centers. Meticulous validation of accreditation is warranted globally prior to implementation.

A Case-Control Study Examining Disparities in Clinical Trial Participation Among Breast Surgical Oncology Patients

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial participation among racial and ethnic minorities remains low despite national efforts. We sought to determine how participation in clinical trials by breast surgical oncology patients has changed over time and what characteristics are associated with participation.

METHODS

Women with breast cancer enrolled in National Cancer Institute-sponsored, cooperative-group trials from 2000 to 2012 and who underwent oncologic surgery (n = 17 125) were compared with trial-eligible women in the National Cancer Database diagnosed in 2000-2012 (n = 792 719). Race-specific trial participation was plotted over time by income and reported as a proportion of the combined cohorts. Factors associated with trial participation were estimated using logistic regression; we report odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A P value less than  .05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses. All tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Participation declined across all groups over time because of a decrease in the scale and number of trials. In 2000-2003, Asian-Pacific Islander (7.17%), Hispanic (3.48%), and white (7.13%) patients from the highest income group had higher participation than their lower-income counterparts (Asian-Pacific Islander: 3.95%; Hispanic: 2.67%; white: 5.96%), but by 2008-2012, only high-income white patients participated more than lower-income whites (0.32% vs 0.25%, all P < .01). Black (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.85) and Hispanic (OR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.77 to 0.92) patients were less likely to participate than whites, but there were statistically significant interactions between income and race and ethnicity, with high-income black patients being approximately 50% less likely to participate than lower-income blacks (all P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Multifaceted interventions addressing the intersectionality of race, ethnicity, and other patient characteristics are needed to address persistent disparities in trial participation among breast surgical oncology patients.

Project PLACE: Enhancing community and academic partnerships to describe and address health disparities

Achieving cancer health equity is a national imperative. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States and in North Carolina (NC), where the disease disproportionately impacts traditionally underrepresented race and ethnic groups, those who live in rural communities, the impoverished, and medically disenfranchised and/or health-disparate populations at high-risk for cancer. These populations have worse cancer outcomes and are less likely to be participants in clinical research and trials. It is critical for cancer centers and other academic health centers to understand the factors that contribute to poor cancer outcomes, the extent to which they impact the cancer burden, and develop effective interventions to address them. Key to this process is engaging diverse stakeholders in the development and execution of community and population health assessments, and the subsequent programs and interventions designed to address the need across the catchment area. This chapter describes the processes and lessons learned of the Duke Cancer Institute's (DCI) long standing community partnerships that led to Project PLACE (Population Level Approaches to Cancer Elimination), a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded community health assessment reaching 2315 respondents in 7 months, resulting in a community partnered research agenda to advance cancer equity within the DCI catchment area. We illustrate the application of a community partnered health assessment and offer examples of strategic opportunities, successes, lessons learned, and implications for practice.

Minority participation in phase 1 gynecologic oncology clinical trials: Three decades of inequity

OBJECTIVES

It is important to develop effective therapies in minorities to ensure equity in cancer care. Underrepresentation of minorities in early phase trials may cause therapies that are effective only in majority populations. We evaluated minority participation in gynecologic oncology phase 1 clinical trials.

METHODS

In peer-reviewed published articles of gynecologic oncology phase 1 clinical trials from years 1985 to 2018, we manually abstracted racial distribution of enrolled participants, cancer type, and year published. We calculated expected and observed ratios of racial participation on the basis of age-adjusted cancer incidence for race from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

RESULTS

We identified 357 articles of phase 1 trials (total, 9492 participants), including 213 articles on ovarian cancer (60%). Racial distribution of participants was available in 84 articles (23%) that included 2483 participants (26%): 1950 white (79%), 140 black (5%), and 393 other participants (16%). Other nonwhite races exceeded black enrollment in 46 of 84 trials (55%) that listed race. Enrollment of black participants was less than expected from disease incidence for ovarian (incidence-to-enrollment ratio, 18.5; P < .001), endometrial (3.6; P < .001), and cervical cancer (6.8; P < .001). No phase 1 study met expected enrollment for black participants. Frequency of black participants decreased 1.8-fold from 1995 to 1999 (8 of 70 participants [11%]) to 2015-2018 (55 of 892 participants [6%]; P < .025).

CONCLUSIONS

Major racial underrepresentation exists in gynecologic oncology phase 1 clinical trials. Enrollment of more black participants is needed to achieve racial equity.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Magnitude of Structural, Clinical, and Physician and Patient Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation

BACKGROUND

Barriers to cancer clinical trial participation have been the subject of frequent study, but the rate of trial participation has not changed substantially over time. Studies often emphasize patient-related barriers, but other types of barriers may have greater impact on trial participation. Our goal was to examine the magnitude of different domains of trial barriers by synthesizing prior research.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that examined the trial decision-making pathway using a uniform framework to characterize and quantify structural (trial availability), clinical (eligibility), and patient/physician barrier domains. The systematic review utilized the PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Ovid Medline search engines. We used random effects to estimate rates of different domains across studies, adjusting for academic vs community care settings.

RESULTS

We identified 13 studies (nine in academic and four in community settings) with 8883 patients. A trial was unavailable for patients at their institution 55.6% of the time (95% confidence interval [CI] = 43.7% to 67.3%). Further, 21.5% (95% CI = 10.9% to 34.6%) of patients were ineligible for an available trial, 14.8% (95% CI = 9.0% to 21.7%) did not enroll, and 8.1% (95% CI = 6.3% to 10.0%) enrolled. Rates of trial enrollment in academic (15.9% [95% CI = 13.8% to 18.2%]) vs community (7.0% [95% CI = 5.1% to 9.1%]) settings differed, but not rates of trial unavailability, ineligibility, or non-enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings emphasize the enormous need to address structural and clinical barriers to trial participation, which combined make trial participation unachievable for more than three of four cancer patients.

Factors associated with biomedical research participation within community-based samples across 3 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers

BACKGROUND

Engaging diverse populations in biomedical research, including biospecimen donation, remains a national challenge. This study examined factors associated with an invitation to participate in biomedical research, intent to participate in biomedical research in the future, and participation in biomedical research and biospecimen donation among a diverse, multilingual, community-based sample across 3 distinct geographic areas.

METHODS

Three National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers engaged in community partnerships to develop and implement population health assessments, reaching a convenience sample of 4343 participants spanning their respective catchment areas. Data harmonization, multiple imputation, and multivariable logistic modeling were used.

RESULTS

African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, and other racial minority groups were more likely to be offered opportunities to participate in biomedical research compared to whites. Access to care, history of cancer, educational level, survey language, nativity, and rural residence also influenced opportunity, intent, and actual participation in biomedical research.

CONCLUSIONS

Traditionally underserved racial and ethnic groups reported heightened opportunity and interest in participating in biomedical research. Well-established community partnerships and long-standing community engagement around biomedical research led to a diverse sample being reached at each site and may in part explain the current study findings. However, this study illustrates an ongoing need to establish trust and diversify biomedical research participation through innovative and tailored approaches. National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers have the potential to increase opportunities for diverse participation in biomedical research through community partnerships and engagement. Additional work remains to identify and address system-level and individual-level barriers to participation in both clinical trials and biospecimen donation for research.

A step towards equitable clinical trial recruitment: a protocol for the development and preliminary testing of an online prostate cancer health information and clinical trial matching tool

Background

Recruitment of a diverse participant pool to cancer clinical trials is an essential component of clinical research as it improves the generalizability of findings. Investigating and piloting novel recruitment strategies that take advantage of ubiquitous digital technologies has become an important component of facilitating broad recruitment and addressing inequities in clinical trial participation. Equitable and inclusive recruitment improves generalizability of clinical trial outcomes, benefiting patients, clinicians, and the research community. The increasing prevalence of online connectivity in the USA and use of the Internet as a resource for medical information provides an opportunity for digital recruitment strategies in cancer clinical trials. This study aims to measure the acceptability, preliminary estimates of efficacy, and feasibility of the Trial Library intervention, an Internet-based cancer clinical trial matching tool. This study will also examine the extent to which the Trial Library website, designed to address the linguistic and literacy needs of broader patient populations, influences patient-initiated conversations with physicians about clinical trial participation.

Methods

This is a study protocol for a non-randomized, single-arm pilot study. This is a mixed methods study design that utilizes the statistical analysis of quantitative survey data and the qualitative analysis of interview data to assess the participant experience with the Trial Library intervention. This study will examine (1) acceptability as a measure of participant satisfaction with this intervention, (2) preliminary measure of efficacy as a measure of proportion of participants with documented clinical trial discussion in the electronic medical record, and (3) feasibility of the intervention as a measure of duration of clinical visit.

Discussion

The principles that informed the design of the Trial Library intervention aim to be generalizable to clinical trials across many disease contexts. From the ground up, this intervention is built to be inclusive of the linguistic, literacy, and technological needs of underrepresented patient populations. This study will collect essential preliminary data prior to a multi-site randomized clinical trial of the Trial Library intervention.

Trial registration

This study has received institutional approval from the Committee of Human Subjects Research at the University of California, San Francisco.

Incorporating Digital Tools to Improve Clinical Trial Infrastructure: A White Paper From the Digital Engagement Committee of SWOG

Progress toward improvement in cancer therapy relies on clinical trials. Yet, only a minority of eligible patients with cancer enroll as a result of multiple barriers at the patient, investigator, center, and national level. However, the rise of the Internet and mobile technology has created a slew of tools with medical applications, from Web sites to apps to social media platforms, all of which may aide clinicians in our quest to improve the clinical research enterprise. SWOG is one of five members in the National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trials Network-the nation's oldest and largest publicly funded cancer research network-and is taking a leadership role in exploring and testing the promise of digital engagement through the empaneling of the Digital Engagement Committee. This article outlines the mission, principles, and priorities of the Digital Engagement Committee and proposes how this work may inform the use of digital tools for the cancer research community and, hopefully, translate to improved outcomes for our patients.

Testing plausible biopsychosocial models in diverse community samples: Common pitfalls and strategies

It is imperative that research interrogating the biological pathways linking stress processes to health continue to translate the results of basic, preclinical experimental research to diverse and under-represented populations, particularly those at elevated risk for morbidity and mortality. Conducting research within these populations and in community settings involves a number of challenges that ultimately contribute to their rarity and uneven quality in the scientific literature. In this review, we summarize the experiences and insights of members of an expert panel on this topic held at the 2018 meeting of the International Society of Psychoneuroendocrinology in Newport Beach, CA. The goals of the session were to identify challenges and share strategies for testing plausible biopsychosocial models within diverse community samples in order to encourage others and improve future research. The present paper is organized into three themes: 1) Recruitment and retention, 2) Collecting biological samples outside of the laboratory, 3) Data analysis, interpretation, and dissemination. Our goal in composing this overview of the conference session was to share within the field of psychoneuroendocrinology the challenges inherent in translating basic research to community populations.

The effect of treatment on patient-reported distress after breast cancer diagnosis

BACKGROUND

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Distress Thermometer (DT) uses a 10-point scale (in which 0 indicates no distress and 10 indicates extreme distress) to measure patient-reported distress. In the current study, the authors sought to examine the relationship between treatment and NCCN DT scores in patients with breast cancer over time.

METHODS

The authors included women aged ≥18 years who were diagnosed with stage 0 to stage IV breast cancer (according to the seventh edition of the American Joint Commission on Cancer staging system) at a 3-hospital health system from January 2014 to July 2016. Linear mixed effects models adjusted for covariates including stage of disease, race/ethnicity, insurance, and treatment sequence (neoadjuvant vs adjuvant) were used to estimate adjusted mean changes in the DT score (MSCs) per week for patients undergoing lumpectomy, mastectomy only, and mastectomy with reconstruction (MR).

RESULTS

The authors analyzed 12,569 encounters for 1029 unique patients (median score, 4; median follow-up, 67 weeks). Patients treated with MR (118 patients) were younger and more likely to be married, white, and privately insured compared with patients undergoing lumpectomy (620 patients) and mastectomy only (291 patients) (all P < .01). After adjusting for covariates, distress scores were found to decline significantly across all 3 surgical cohorts, with patients undergoing MR found to have both the most preoperative distress and the greatest decline in distress prior to surgery (MSC/week: -0.073 for MR vs -0.031 for lumpectomy vs -0.033 for mastectomy only; P = .001). Neoadjuvant therapy was associated with a longitudinal decline in distress for patients treated with lumpectomy (-1.023) and mastectomy only (-0.964). Over time, ductal carcinoma in situ (-0.503) and black race (-1.198) were found to be associated with declining distress among patients treated with lumpectomy and MR, respectively, whereas divorced patients who were treated with mastectomy only (0.948) and single patients treated with lumpectomy (0.476) experienced increased distress (all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

When examined longitudinally in consecutive patients, the NCCN DT can provide patient-reported data to inform expectations and guide targeted support for patients with breast cancer.

A community-academic partnership to explore informational needs of African American women as a primer for cancer clinical trial recruitment

Background: African Americans (AAs) are less likely to participate in cancer clinical trials (CCTs) despite experiencing disproportionately higher rates of cancer mortality. As a way to address these ongoing disparities, this study sought to qualitatively explore informational needs regarding CCTs among AA women and identify message considerations for educational information targeting AA women and their community. Methods: Three focus groups were conducted in which AA women viewed a DVD created as a decisional tool for CCT participation and provided feedback regarding content. Results: Results indicated general fear regarding CCTs, which is partially attributable to the impact of historic research abuses, lack of information regarding CCTs, and lack of cultural relevance of the education and outreach materials for AA communities. Recruitment of AAs to CCTs may be enhanced by educational and outreach approaches that increase awareness of CCTs as well as involvement of the AA community in developing such interventions. Conclusion: Interventions should include the perspectives of AA women, as key stakeholders and decision-makers for their family and provide research information in a multimedia format that will facilitate family discussion and decision-making regarding CCTs.

Quantifying Sex Bias in Clinical Studies at Scale With Automated Data Extraction

IMPORTANCE

Analyses of female representation in clinical studies have been limited in scope and scale.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a large-scale analysis of global enrollment sex bias in clinical studies.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cross-sectional study, clinical studies from published articles from PubMed from 1966 to 2018 and records from Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov from 1999 to 2018 were identified. Global disease prevalence was determined for male and female patients in 11 disease categories from the Global Burden of Disease database: cardiovascular, diabetes, digestive, hepatitis (types A, B, C, and E), HIV/AIDS, kidney (chronic), mental, musculoskeletal, neoplasms, neurological, and respiratory (chronic). Machine reading algorithms were developed that extracted sex data from tables in articles and records on December 31, 2018, at an artificial intelligence research institute. Male and female participants in 43 135 articles (792 004 915 participants) and 13 165 records (12 977 103 participants) were included.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Sex bias was defined as the difference between the fraction of female participants in study participants minus prevalence fraction of female participants for each disease category. A total of 1000 bootstrap estimates of sex bias were computed by resampling individual studies with replacement. Sex bias was reported as mean and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals from articles and records in each disease category over time (before or during 1993 to 2018), with studies or participants as the measurement unit.

RESULTS

There were 792 004 915 participants, including 390 470 834 female participants (49%), in articles and 12 977 103 participants, including 6 351 619 female participants (49%), in records. With studies as measurement unit, substantial female underrepresentation (sex bias ≤ -0.05) was observed in 7 of 11 disease categories, especially HIV/AIDS (mean for articles, -0.17 [95% CI, -0.18 to -0.16]), chronic kidney diseases (mean, -0.17 [95% CI, -0.17 to -0.16]), and cardiovascular diseases (mean, -0.14 [95% CI, -0.14 to -0.13]). Sex bias in articles for all categories combined was unchanged over time with studies as measurement unit (range, -0.15 [95% CI, -0.16 to -0.13] to -0.10 [95% CI, -0.14 to -0.06]), but improved from before or during 1993 (mean, -0.11 [95% CI, -0.16 to -0.05]) to 2014 to 2018 (mean, -0.05 [95% CI, -0.09 to -0.02]) with participants as the measurement unit. Larger study size was associated with greater female representation.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Automated extraction of the number of participants in clinical reports provides an effective alternative to manual analysis of demographic bias. Despite legal and policy initiatives to increase female representation, sex bias against female participants in clinical studies persists. Studies with more participants have greater female representation. Differences between sex bias estimates with studies vs participants as measurement unit, and between articles vs records, suggest that sex bias with both measures and data sources should be reported.

Gender disparities in head and neck cancer chemotherapy clinical trials participation and treatment

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the representation of women in clinical trials directing the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for chemotherapy use in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), as well as the relationship between gender and chemotherapy administration in the definitive treatment of HNSCC in the United States.

METHODS

A review of all HNSCC chemotherapy clinical trials cited by the 2018 NCCN guidelines was performed. Sex-based proportions were compared with the corresponding proportions in the general U.S. population of patients with HNSCC between 1985 and 2015, derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. A second analysis using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), identified 63,544 adult patients diagnosed with stages III-IVB HNSCC between 2004 and 2014 and treated with definitive radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify predictors of chemotherapy administration.

RESULTS

While women comprised 26.2% of U.S. patients with HNSCC between 1985 and 2015, they comprised only 17.0% of patients analyzed in U.S. NCCN-cited chemotherapy clinical trials between 1985 and 2017. On multivariable analysis, women had decreased odds of receiving chemotherapy (Odds Ratio [OR]: 0.875; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.821-0.931; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Women are underrepresented in HNSCC chemotherapy clinical trials cited by the national guidelines. Additionally, women are less likely than men to receive definitive chemoradiotherapy as oppose to definitive radiotherapy. Reasons for these disparities warrant further investigation as well as re-evaluation of eligibility criteria and enrollment strategies, in order to improve relevance of clinical trials to women with HNSCC.

Disparities in Compliance With National Guidelines for the Treatment of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines support cancer-directed surgery, chemotherapy, or active surveillance for clinical stages 1 to 3 of epithelial malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Definitive chemotherapy is recommended for sarcomatoid/biphasic histologies. Our objective is to assess compliance with recommendations, measuring their impact on overall survival.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database participant user file (2004 to 2014) was queried for patients diagnosed with MPM clinical stages 1 to 3. Multivariable logistic regression model identified factors independently associated with guideline compliance. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards were used for overall survival comparison with histologic subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 3419 patients with clinical stages 1 to 3 met criteria for analysis and comprised epithelial (68.5%), sarcomatoid (17.2%), and biphasic subtypes (14.3%). Cancer-directed surgery was significantly underutilized in epithelial MPM, with 29.3% having no treatment. On multivariable analysis, insurance status and facility type were the strongest predictors of guideline compliance. High-volume hospitals were the most compliant with guidelines (odds ratio 3.58, 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.34 to 5.49, P < .001). Median survival estimates for no treatment, chemotherapy alone, surgery plus chemotherapy, and trimodal therapy were 10.2, 15.4, 21.1, and 21.7 months, respectively (log rank P < .001). In epithelial MPM, a significant increase in overall survival was observed in surgery plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.62, 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.73, P < .001) and trimodality (hazard ratio 0.61, 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.76, P < .001; reference: no treatment).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a suboptimal compliance with national guidelines for the treatment of MPM, particularly in low-volume nonacademic settings. Adherence to recommended surgery-based multimodal therapy is associated with an overall survival improvement.

Association of Health Literacy and Numeracy with Interest in Research Participation

BACKGROUND

There is much attention to recruitment of diverse populations in research, but little is known about the influence of health literacy and numeracy skills.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if health literacy and numeracy affect individuals' interest to participate in research studies.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey data were pooled from 3 large studies conducted in the Mid-South Clinical Data Research Network.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients enrolled in 1 of 3 Mid-South Clinical Data Research Network studies.

MAIN MEASURES

The survey domains included demographic items, the 3-item Brief Health Literacy Screen (range 3-15), and the 3-item Subjective Numeracy Scale (range 3-18). The outcome was a sum index measure of a 7-item instrument (range 7-21) assessing individuals' interest in participating in different types of research, including research that involves taking surveys, giving a blood sample, participating via phone or internet, taking an investigational medication, meeting at a local community center or school, including family, or staying overnight at a hospital.

KEY RESULTS

Respondents (N = 15,973) were predominately women (65.5%), White (81.4%), and middle aged (M = 52.8 years, SD = 16.5); 32.4% previously participated in research. Self-reported health literacy was relatively high (M = 13.5 out of 15, SD = 2.1), and subjective numeracy skills were somewhat lower (M = 14.3 out of 18, SD = 3.6). After adjustment for age, gender, race, income, education, and other characteristics, lower health literacy and numeracy skills were each independently associated with less interest in research participation (p < 0.001 for each). Prior research participation was associated with greater interest in future research participation (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

After adjustment for factors known to be predictive of interest, individuals with lower health literacy or numeracy scores were less interested in participating in research. Additional work is needed to elucidate reasons for this finding and to determine strategies to engage these populations.

Closing the Disparity in Pancreatic Cancer Outcomes: A Closer Look at Nonmodifiable Factors and Their Potential Use in Treatment

OBJECTIVES

African Americans (AAs) have disproportionately higher incidence and lower survival rates from pancreatic cancer compared with whites. Historically, this disparity has been attributed to modifiable risk factors. Recent studies suggest that nonmodifiable aspects may also play an important role. We review these new contributions as potential targets for closing the disparity.

METHODS

A PubMed search was conducted to review studies of nonmodifiable elements contributing to pancreatic cancer disparities in AAs.

RESULTS

Several nonmodifiable risks are associated with the racial disparity in pancreatic cancer. SSTR5 P335L, Kaiso, and KDM4/JMJD2A demonstrate differential racial expression, increasing their potential as therapeutic targets. Many social determinants of health and their associations with diabetes, obesity, and the microbiome are partially modifiable risk factors that significantly contribute to outcomes in minorities. Barriers to progress include the low minority inclusion in research studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Genomics, epigenetics, the microbiome, and social determinants of health are components that contribute to the pancreatic cancer disparity in AAs. These factors can be researched, targeted, and modified to improve mortality rates. Closing the disparity in pancreatic cancer will require an integrated approach of personalized medicine, increased minority recruitment to studies, and advanced health care/education access.

Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment

Clinical trials are imperative for testing novel cancer therapies, advancing the science of cancer care, and determining the best treatment strategies to enhance outcomes for patients with cancer. However, barriers to clinical trial enrollment contribute to low participation in cancer clinical trials. Many factors play a role in the persistently low rates of trial participation, including financial barriers, logistical concerns, and the lack of resources for patients and clinicians to support clinical trial enrollment and retention. Furthermore, restrictive eligibility criteria often result in the exclusion of certain patient populations, which thus adds to the widening disparities seen between patients who enroll in trials and those treated in routine practice. Moreover, additional factors, such as difficulty by patients and clinicians in coping with the uncertainty inherent to clinical trial participation, contribute to low trial enrollment and represent key components of the decision-making process. Specifically, patients and clinicians may struggle to assess the risk-benefit ratio and may incorrectly estimate the probability and severity of challenges associated with clinical trial participation, thus complicating the informed consent process. Importantly, research has increasingly focused on overcoming barriers to clinical trial enrollment. A promising solution involves the use of patient navigators to help enhance clinical trial recruitment, enrollment, and retention. Although clinical trials are essential for improving and prolonging the lives of patients with cancer, barriers exist that can impede trial enrollment; yet, efforts to recognize and address these barriers and enhance trial enrollment are being investigated.

Disease and outcome disparities in multiple myeloma: exploring the role of race/ethnicity in the Cooperative Group clinical trials

Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable hematologic malignancy with disparities in outcomes noted among racial-ethnic subgroups, likely due to disparities in access to effective treatment modalities. Clinical trials can provide access to evidence-based medicine but representation of minorities on therapeutic clinical trials has been dismal. We evaluated the impact of patient race-ethnicity in pooled data from nine large national cooperative group clinical trials in newly diagnosed MM. Among 2896 patients enrolled over more than two decades, only 18% were non-White and enrollment of minorities actually decreased in most recent years (2002-2011). African-Americans were younger and had more frequent poor-risk markers, including anemia and increased lactate dehydrogenase. Hispanics had the smallest proportion of patients on trials utilizing novel therapeutic agents. While adverse demographic (increased age) and clinical (performance status, stage, anemia, kidney dysfunction) factors were associated with inferior survival, patient race-ethnicity did not have an effect on objective response rates, progression-free, or overall survival. While there are significant disparities in MM incidence and outcomes among patients of different racial-ethnic groups, this disparity seems to be mitigated by access to appropriate therapeutic options, for example, as offered by clinical trials. Improved minority accrual in therapeutic clinical trials needs to be a priority.

Older adults in phase I clinical trials: a comparative analysis of participation and clinical benefit rate among older adults versus middle age and AYA patients on phase I clinical trials with VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors

Background

Older adults aged 65 years and above remain underrepresented in cancer clinical trials. We hypothesized that older participation in early phase trials with VEGF/VEGFR (VEGF/R) inhibitors was lower than cancer prevalence in this group and lower than other age groups (middle age, adolescent/young adults [AYA]).

Results

Of 1489 patients, 278 were older adults (18%, median age 68.9y), 220 AYA (15%, median age 32.6 y), 991 middle age (67%, median age 53.8 y). Common malignancies included gastrointestinal (n = 438, 29%), gynecologic (n = 234, 16%), and thoracic/head/neck (n = 216, 15%). Median time to treatment failure did not vary significantly between the 3 age-based cohorts (3m in older adults, 3.5 m middle age, 3.3 m AYA). OR of achieving clinical benefit in older adults vs middle age (OR 1.10, p 0.19 [two-tailed], p 0.09 [one-tailed]) and AYA vs middle age (OR 0.85, p 0.31 [proportions z-test, two tailed], p 0.15 [one-tailed]) showed no significant differences.

Conclusions

Older adults accounted for <20% of participants on phase I clinical trials with VEGF/R inhibitors but those who participated were just as likely to achieve a clinical benefit as AYA and middle age patients. These findings merit further exploration into patient selection for early phase trials.

Methods

We identified and separated patients treated on VEGF/R-inhibitor-based phase I trials from 12/1/2004–07/31/2013 into 3 age-based cohorts, AYA (15–39y), middle age (40–64 y), older adults (65 y+). We analyzed clinical/treatment characteristics and response outcomes, calculating the odds ratios (OR) of clinical benefit (defined as SD ≥ 6months, PR, CR) for older adults and AYAs versus middle age participants.

The association between race and survival in glioblastoma patients in the US: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Glioblastoma is the most common primary brain cancer in adults with an incidence of 3.4 per 100,000, making up about 15% of all brain tumors. Inconsistent results have been published in regard differences in survival between white and black glioblastoma patients. The objective of this to study the association between race and in Glioblastoma patients in the USA during 2010-2014.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database were used to evaluate race/ethnicity (White non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islanders non-Hispanic (API)) and Hispanic) adults patients with first-time diagnosis of glioblastoma (International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition [ICD-O-3], codes C711-C714, and histology type 9440/3) from 2010-2014. The primary outcome was 3-year overall survival which was defined as months from diagnosis to death due to any cause and cancer, Kaplan-Meier (KM) and log-rank test were used to compare overall survival times across race groups. Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine the independent effect of race on 3-year survival. Age, gender, health insurance coverage, primary site, tumor size, extent of surgery and year of diagnosis were included in the adjusted model. The 3-year overall survival for API-non Hispanic (NH) patients decreased by 25% compared with White NH glioblastoma patients (hazard ratio (HR) 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.90)) after adjusting for age, gender, health insurance, primary site, tumor size, and extent of the surgery. Black NH (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80-1.13) and Hispanic (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84-1.21) exhibited similar mortality risks compared with White NH patients.

CONCLUSION

Compared with White NH, API NH with glioblastoma have a better survival. The findings from this study can help increase the accuracy of the prognostic outlook for white, black and API patients with GBM.

Race and Ethnicity in the Evidence for Integrating Palliative Care Into Oncology

Purpose:

ASCO recommends early involvement of palliative care for patients with advanced cancers on the basis of evidence from 18 randomized trials. We examined racial and ethnic minority representation in these trials and the role of race and ethnicity in the statistical analyses. The goal was to identify specific gaps in the palliative care evidence base for these individuals and potential strategies to address them.

Methods:

We reviewed the 18 trials cited in the 2012 and 2017 ASCO clinical statements on integrating palliative care into oncology. We extracted data on the reporting and categorization of race and ethnicity, on the enrollment of specific racial and ethnic minority groups, and on how race and ethnicity were addressed in the analyses.

Results:

One third of patient trials reported representation of specific racial and ethnic minority groups, one third reported rates of “white” versus “other,” and one third did not report race or ethnicity data. Among the patient trials with race and ethnicity data, 9.9% of participants were Asian, 8.8% Hispanic/Latino, and 5.7% African American. Analyses that used race and ethnicity were primarily baseline comparisons among randomized groups.

Conclusion:

Race and ethnicity were inconsistently reported in the trials. Among those that provided race and ethnicity data, representation of specific racial and ethnic minority groups was low. In addition to more research in centers with large minority populations, consistent reporting of race and ethnicity and supplementary data collection from minority patients who participate in trials may be strategies for improvement.

Effects of Affordable Care Act Marketplaces and Medicaid Eligibility Expansion on Access to Cancer Care

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to inform oncologists about how repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may affect their ability to provide cancer therapies for people with cancer enrolled in ACA health plans and why proposals to change Medicaid funding may make it even more difficult for Medicaid beneficiaries to access cancer treatments.

METHODS

We examined the regulations and provisions of the ACA related to how health insurance impacts access to diagnostic testing and treatments for people with cancer, including access to clinical trials. Similarly, we examined federal and state rules affecting Medicaid beneficiaries' access to cancer treatments.

RESULTS

Repealing various provisions of the ACA will restrict who has access to both current and new cancer treatments. Such changes also will impact oncology research that depends on having heterogeneous people in clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant changes to the ACA will affect oncology treatment choices of everyone with health insurance-not only the 10 million people newly covered by ACA health plans and the 70 million people with Medicaid coverage.

Partnering around cancer clinical trials (PACCT): study protocol for a randomized trial of a patient and physician communication intervention to increase minority accrual to prostate cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Cancer clinical trials are essential for testing new treatments and represent state-of-the-art cancer treatment, but only a small percentage of patients ever enroll in a trial. Under-enrollment is an even greater problem among minorities, particularly African Americans, representing a racial/ethnic disparity in cancer care. One understudied cause is patient-physician communication, which is often of poor quality during clinical interactions between African-American patients and non-African-American physicians. Partnering Around Cancer Clinical Trials (PACCT) involves a transdisciplinary theoretical model proposing that patient and physician individual attitudes and beliefs and their interpersonal communication during racially discordant clinical interactions influence outcomes related to patients' decisions to participate in a trial. The overall goal of the study is to test a multilevel intervention designed to increase rates at which African-American and White men with prostate cancer make an informed decision to participate in a clinical trial.

METHODS/DESIGN

Data collection will occur at two NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers. Participants include physicians who treat men with prostate cancer and their African-American and White patients who are potentially eligible for a clinical trial. The study uses two distinct research designs to evaluate the effects of two behavioral interventions, one focused on patients and the other on physicians. The primary goal is to increase the number of patients who decide to enroll in a trial; secondary goals include increasing rates of physician trial offers, improving the quality of patient-physician communication during video recorded clinical interactions in which trials may be discussed, improving patients' understanding of trials offered, and increasing the number of patients who actually enroll. Aims are to 1) determine the independent and combined effects of the two interventions on outcomes; 2) compare the effects of the interventions on African-American versus White men; and 3) examine the extent to which patient-physician communication mediates the effect of the interventions on the outcomes.

DISCUSSION

PACCT has the potential to identify ways to increase clinical trial rates in a diverse patient population. The research can also improve access to high quality clinical care for African American men bearing the disproportionate burden of disparities in prostate and other cancers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT02906241 (September 8, 2016).

Access to clinical trials among oncology patients: results of a cross sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are necessary for the advancement of cancer treatment and care, however low rates of participation in such trials limit the generalisability of findings. The objective of this study was to examine the proportion of medical oncology outpatients in Australia who are invited and consent to participate in clinical trials and the factors associated with this.

METHODS

A sample of adult medical oncology patients was recruited from three Australian cancer treatment centres. Consenting patients completed two paper-and-pencil surveys; one at the time of consent and another approximately 1 month later. A multivariate logistic regression was conducted to explore factors associated with invitation and participation in a trial.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight percent (n = 146) of the 383 participants reported they had been invited to take part in a clinical trial. Of those invited, 93% reported consenting to participate in the trial, with the majority indicating that they did not regret their decision (89%). Treatment centre and time since diagnosis were significantly associated with being invited to take part in a clinical trial. None of the factors examined were associated with clinical trial consent rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The main barrier to clinical trial participation is not being invited to do so, with the centre the patient attends being a modifiable determinant of whether or not they are invited. Increasing the resources available to treatment centres to ensure all patients are offered participation in trials they are eligible for may help to improve rates of trial participation.

Estimation of Population Average Treatment Effects in the FIRST Trial: Application of a Propensity Score-Based Stratification Approach

OBJECTIVE/STUDY QUESTION

To estimate and compare sample average treatment effects (SATE) and population average treatment effects (PATE) of a resident duty hour policy change on patient and resident outcomes using data from the Flexibility in Duty Hour Requirements for Surgical Trainees Trial ("FIRST Trial").

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Secondary data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the FIRST Trial (2014-2015).

STUDY DESIGN

The FIRST Trial was a cluster-randomized pragmatic noninferiority trial designed to evaluate the effects of a resident work hour policy change to permit greater flexibility in scheduling on patient and resident outcomes. We estimated hierarchical logistic regression models to estimate the SATE of a policy change on outcomes within an intent-to-treat framework. Propensity score-based poststratification was used to estimate PATE.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

This study was a secondary analysis of previously collected data.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Although SATE estimates suggested noninferiority of outcomes under flexible duty hour policy versus standard policy, the noninferiority of a policy change was inconclusively noninferior based on PATE estimates due to imprecision.

CONCLUSIONS

Propensity score-based poststratification can be valuable tools to address trial generalizability but may yield imprecise estimates of PATE when sparse strata exist.

Insurance Clearance for Early-Phase Oncology Clinical Trials Following the Affordable Care Act

Purpose: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) required that private insurance plans allow clinical trial participation and cover standard-of-care costs, but the impact of this provision has not been well-characterized. We assessed rates of insurance clearance for trial participation within our large early-phase clinical trials program, before and after implementation of the requirement.Experimental Design: We analyzed the departmental database for the Clinical Center for Targeted Therapy (CCTT) at MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX). Among patients referred for sponsored trials, we described rates of insurance clearance and prolonged time to clearance (at least 14 days) from July 2012 to June 2013 (baseline), July 2013-December 2013 (following CCTT staffing changes in July 2103), and January 2014-June 2015 (following implementation of the ACA). We used multivariable logistic regression models to compare rates across these time periods.Results: We identified 2,404 referrals for insurance clearance. Among privately insured patients, insurance clearance rates were higher for those referred from January 2014 to June 2015 than for those referred from July 2012 to June 2013 (OR, 4.72; 95% CI, 2.96-7.51). There was no association between referral period and clearance rates for Medicare/Medicaid patients (P = 0.25). Referral from January 2014 to June 2015 was associated with lower rates of prolonged clearance among both privately insured (OR 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) and Medicare/Medicaid patients (OR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19-0.83).Conclusions: Within our large early-phase clinical trials program, insurance clearance rates among privately insured patients improved following implementation of the ACA's requirement for coverage of standard-of-care costs. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4155-62. ©2017 AACR.

Primary care physicians' attitudes and beliefs about cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Cancer clinical trials give patients access to state-of-the-art treatments and facilitate the translation of findings into mainstream clinical care. However, patients from racial and ethnic minority groups remain underrepresented in clinical trials. Primary care physicians are a trusted source of information for patients, yet their role in decision-making about cancer treatment and referrals to trial participation has received little attention. The aim of this study was to determine physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about cancer clinical trials, their experience with trials, and their interest in appropriate training about trials.

METHODS

A total of 613 physicians in the New York City area primarily serving patients from ethnic and racial minority groups were invited via email to participate in a 20-min online survey. Physicians were asked about their patient population, trial knowledge and attitudes, interest in training, and personal demographics. Using calculated scale variables, we used descriptive statistical analyses to better understand physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about trials.

RESULTS

A total of 127 physicians completed the survey. Overall, they had low knowledge about and little experience with trials. However, they generally had positive attitudes toward trials, with 41.4% indicating a strong interest in learning more about their role in trials, and 35.7% indicating that they might be interested. Results suggest that Black and Latino physicians and those with more positive attitudes and beliefs were more likely to be interested in future training opportunities.

CONCLUSION

Primary care physicians may be an important group to target in trying to improve cancer clinical trial participation among minority patients. Future work should explore methods of educational intervention for such interested providers.

The role of functional, social, and mobility dynamics in facilitating older African Americans participation in clinical research

PURPOSE

Older African Americans experience disproportionately higher incidence of morbidity and mortality related to chronic and infectious diseases, yet are significantly underrepresented in clinical research compared to other racial and ethnic groups. This study aimed to understand the extent to which social support, transportation access, and physical impediments function as barriers or facilitators to clinical trial recruitment of older African Americans.

METHODS

Participants (N=221) were recruited from six African American churches in Atlanta and surveyed on various influences on clinical trial participation.

RESULTS

Logistic regression models demonstrated that greater transportation mobility (odds ratio [OR]=2.10; p=0.007) and social ability (OR=1.77; p=0.02) were associated with increased intentions of joining a clinical trial, as was greater basic daily living ability (OR=3.25; p=0.03), though only among single participants. Among adults age ≥65 years, those with lower levels of support during personal crises were more likely to join clinical trials (OR=0.57; p=0.04).

CONCLUSION

To facilitate clinical trial entry, recruitment efforts need to consider the physical limitations of their potential participants, particularly basic physical abilities and disabilities. Crisis support measures may be acting as a proxy for personal health issues among those aged >65 years, who would then be more likely to seek clinical trials for the personal health benefits. Outreach to assisted living homes, hospitals, and other communities is a promising avenue for improved clinical trial recruitment of older African Americans.

Building trust and diversity in patient-centered oncology clinical trials: An integrated model

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Trust is the cornerstone of clinical trial recruitment and retention. Efforts to decrease barriers and increase clinical trial participation among diverse populations have yielded modest results. There is an urgent need to better understand the complex interactions between trust and clinical trial participation. The process of trust-building has been a focus of intense research in the business community. Yet, little has been published about trust in oncology clinical trials or the process of building trust in clinical trials. Both clinical trials and business share common dimensions. Business strategies for building trust may be transferable to the clinical trial setting. This study was conducted to understand and utilize contemporary thinking about building trust to develop an Integrated Model of Trust that incorporates both clinical and business perspectives.

METHODS

A key word-directed literature search of the PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, and Google Search databases for entries dated between 1 January 1985 and 1 September 2015 was conducted to obtain information from which to develop an Integrated Model of Trust.

RESULTS

Successful trial participation requires both participants and clinical trial team members to build distinctly different types of interpersonal trust to effect recruitment and retention. They are built under conditions of significant emotional stress and time constraints among people who do not know each other and have never worked together before. Swift Trust and Traditional Trust are sequentially built during the clinical trial process. Swift trust operates during the recruitment and very early active treatment phases of the clinical trial process. Traditional trust is built over time and operates during the active treatment and surveillance stages of clinical trials. The Psychological Contract frames the participants' and clinical trial team members' interpersonal trust relationship. The "terms" of interpersonal trust are negotiated through the psychological contract. Contract renegotiation occurs in response to cyclical changes within the trust relationship throughout trial participation.

CONCLUSION

The Integrated Model of Trust offers a novel framework to interrogate the process by which diverse populations and clinical trial teams build trust. To our knowledge, this is the first model of trust-building in clinical trials that frames trust development through integrated clinical and business perspectives. By focusing on the process, rather than outcomes of trust-building diverse trial participants, clinical trials teams, participants, and cancer centers may be able to better understand, measure, and manage their trust relationships in real time. Ultimately, this may foster increased recruitment and retention of diverse populations to clinical trials.

Factors associated with non-participation and dropout among cancer patients in a cluster-randomised controlled trial

We investigated the impact of demographic and disease related factors on non-participation and dropout in a cluster-randomised behavioural trial in cancer patients with measurements taken between hospitalisation and 6 months thereafter. The percentages of non-participation and dropout were documented at each time point. Factors considered to be potentially related with non-participation and dropout were as follows: age, sex, marital status, education, income, employment status, tumour site and stage of disease. Of 1,338 eligible patients, 24% declined participation at baseline. Non-participation was higher in older patients (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.1, CI: 0.6-0.9) and those with advanced disease (OR 2.0, CI: 0.1-1.3). Dropout by 6 months was 25%. Dropout was more frequent with increased age (OR 2.8, CI: 0.8-1.2), advanced disease (OR 3.0, CI: 1.0-1.2), being married (OR 2.4, CI 0.7-1.1) and less frequent with university education (OR 0.4, CI -1.3 to -0.8) and middle income (OR 0.4, CI -0.9 to -0.7). When planning clinical trials, it is important to be aware of patient groups at high risk of non-participation or dropout, for example older patients or those with advanced disease. Trial designs should consider their special needs to increase their rate of participation.

Minority Representation in Migraine Treatment Trials

BACKGROUND

Minorities have historically been underrepresented in clinical research trials despite having comparatively poor health indicators. Recognizing the dual inequalities of increased disease burden and decreased research participation, the National Institute of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993 mandated the inclusion and reporting of women and minorities in NIH-funded research. While progress has been made in the subsequent decades, this underrepresentation of minorities in research trials persists and has been documented in multiple disciplines. However, the extent of adequate representation and reporting of minority inclusion in clinical trials for migraine remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

In this systematic review and study, we review the literature examining the representation of women and minorities in migraine clinical research trials METHODS: First we searched PubMed for pertinent articles examining the inclusion of women and minorities in migraine clinical research trials. Second, we identified controlled-trials for migraine published since 2011 in major neurology, headache, and general medicine journals using the terms "migraine randomized controlled trial." We then reviewed the results manually and excluded pilot studies and those with fewer than 50 participants. We next determined (a) how frequently representation of minorities and women were reported in these major trials; (b) what factors correlated with reporting; and (c) whether women and minority inclusion comprised their ratios in the general population.

RESULTS

We identified 128 relevant clinical trials, of which 36 met our inclusion criteria. All 36 trials (100%) reported gender frequency, and 25 of 36 (69.4%) reported ethnicity or race. Among all studies, women and Whites represented 84.2 and 82.9% of participants (mean), respectively. Studies conducted in the United States and funded by a private company were more likely to report race than studies conducted exclusively outside of the U.S. or with a public sponsor. No studies stratified efficacy or safety by ethnicity or gender. Men and non-Whites in the U.S. were statistically underrepresented.

CONCLUSIONS

Most recent headache studies comply with the NIH mandate to include women and minorities in research trials, particularly U.S.-based and industry-funded studies. Whites are overrepresented compared to both the general population and the population of migraineurs. Future studies should strive to increase minority participation and investigate race-based differences in migraine expression, treatment response, and medication toxicity.

The Role of Clinical Trial Participation in Cancer Research: Barriers, Evidence, and Strategies

Fewer than one in 20 adult patients with cancer enroll in cancer clinical trials. Although barriers to trial participation have been the subject of frequent study, the rate of trial participation has not changed substantially over time. Barriers to trial participation are structural, clinical, and attitudinal, and they differ according to demographic and socioeconomic factors. In this article, we characterize the nature of cancer clinical trial barriers, and we consider global and local strategies for reducing barriers. We also consider the specific case of adolescents with cancer and show that the low rate of trial enrollment in this age group strongly correlates with limited improvements in cancer population outcomes compared with other age groups. Our analysis suggests that a clinical trial system that enrolls patients at a higher rate produces treatment advances at a faster rate and corresponding improvements in cancer population outcomes. Viewed in this light, the issue of clinical trial enrollment is foundational, lying at the heart of the cancer clinical trial endeavor. Fewer barriers to trial participation would enable trials to be completed more quickly and would improve the generalizability of trial results. Moreover, increased accrual to trials is important for patients, because trials provide patients the opportunity to receive the newest treatments. In an era of increasing emphasis on a treatment decision-making process that incorporates the patient perspective, the opportunity for patients to choose trial participation for their care is vital.

Access to Accredited Cancer Hospitals Within Federal Exchange Plans Under the Affordable Care Act

Purpose The Affordable Care Act expanded access to health insurance in the United States, but concerns have arisen about access to specialized cancer care within narrow provider networks. To characterize the scope and potential impact of this problem, we assessed rates of inclusion of Commission on Cancer (CoC) -accredited hospitals and National Cancer Institute (NCI) -designated cancer centers within federal exchange networks. Methods We downloaded publicly available machine-readable network data and public use files for individual federal exchange plans from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the 2016 enrollment year. We linked this information to National Provider Identifier data, identified a set of distinct provider networks, and assessed the rates of inclusion of CoC-accredited hospitals and NCI-designated centers. We measured variation in these rates according to geography, plan type, and metal level. Results Of 4,058 unique individual plans, network data were available for 3,637 (90%); hospital information was available for 3,531 (87%). Provider lists for these plans reduced into 295 unique networks for analysis. Ninety-five percent of networks included at least one CoC-accredited hospital, but just 41% of networks included NCI-designated centers. States and counties each varied substantially in the proportion of networks listed that included NCI-designated centers (range, 0% to 100%). The proportion of networks that included NCI-designated centers also varied by plan type (range, 31% for health maintenance organizations to 49% for preferred provider organizations; P = .04) but not by metal level. Conclusion A large majority of federal exchange networks contain CoC-accredited hospitals, but most do not contain NCI-designated cancer centers. These results will inform policy regarding access to cancer care, and they reinforce the importance of promoting access to clinical trials and specialized care through community sites.