Willingness to Discuss Clinical Trials Among Black vs White Men With Prostate Cancer

Outcomes Among Racial and Ethnic Minority Patients With Advanced Cancers in Phase 1 Trials: A Meta-Analysis

Importance

Patients from racial and ethnic minority groups (eg, Asian, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic Black patients) have low representation in clinical trials, especially in phase 1 trials in cancer. These trials represent valuable options for patients with advanced cancer who experience disease progression with standard therapy.

Objective

To determine whether the benefit of enrollment to phase 1 cancer trials extends to Asian, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic Black patients as much as it does for non-Hispanic White patients.

Data Sources

Patient records at a single institution from January 1999 to December 2016 were reviewed. Treatment-related responses, toxic effects, and deaths were recorded.

Study Selection

All phase 1 studies were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data underwent independent extraction by multiple observers following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), assessed using univariate and multivariable time-to-event analyses.

Results

A total of 738 patients (median [range], 60 [22-93] years; 467 [63.3] female) including 197 Hispanic patients (26.7%), 238 non-Hispanic Black patients (32.2%), and 282 non-Hispanic White patients (38.2%), were enrolled in 64 phase 1 trials, including 33 cytotoxic trials (51.5%), 21 biologic trials (32.8%), and 10 combined therapy trials (15.6%). The primary cancer diagnoses were colorectal (187 patients [25.3%]), ovarian (141 patients [19.1%]), lung (58 patients [7.9%]), uterine (49 patients [6.6%]), and breast (41 patients [5.6%]). Patients underwent a median (range) of 3 (0-13) therapies prior to trial enrollment. Among 558 patients evaluated for response, the clinical benefit rate (ie, stable disease plus response rates) was 49.1%, and the overall response rate was 6.5%. Grade 3 or 4 nonhematological toxic effects were observed in 27.8% (95% CI, 24.6%-31.3%) of patients and grade 3 or 4 hematological toxic effects were observed in 19.7% (95% CI, 17.0%-22.8%) of patients. The treatment-related mortality rate was 0.9% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.9%). Median OS was 9.6 (95% CI, 8.2-11.0) months among Hispanic patients, 8.3 (95% CI, 6.7-10.4) months among non-Hispanic Black patients, and 9.8 (95% CI, 8.5-11.4) months among non-Hispanic White patients (P = .13). In a multivariable analysis, age older than 60 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 2 or greater, more than 2 metastatic sites, lactate dehydrogenase grade 1 or 2, grade 2 or greater low albumin, grade 1 or greater total bilirubin, and grade 2 or greater anemia were associated with worse prognosis, whereas leukocytosis greater than grade 1 was associated with better OS.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this meta-analysis assessing outcomes in phase 1 cancer trials among patients from racial and ethnic minority groups, Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black patients had benefits similar to those of non-Hispanic White patients.

Optimizing Informed Consent in Cancer Clinical Trials

The concept of informed consent has evolved considerably over the course of the 20th century, leading to its establishment as a foundational ethical principle for the conduct of biomedical research in the United States. Even though it is now a highly regulated part of cancer research, the process of obtaining informed consent is often impeded by systemic, clinician, and patient factors that require both small- and large-scale intervention. New challenges and considerations continue to emerge due to innovations in clinical trial design, increases in utilization of genomic sequencing, and advances in genomic editing and artificial intelligence. We present a review of the history, policy, pragmatic challenges, and evolving role of the central ethical tenet of informed consent in clinical trials.

Disparities in prostate cancer

Despite substantial advances in early detection/prevention and treatments, and improved outcomes in recent decades, prostate cancer continues to disproportionately affect Black men and is the secondleading cause of cancer death in this subgroup. Black men are substantially more likely to develop prostate cancer and are twice as likely to die from the disease compared with White men. In addition, Black men are younger at diagnosis and face a higher risk of aggressive disease relative to White men. Striking racial disparities endure along the continuum of prostate cancer care, including screening, genomic testing, diagnostic procedures, and treatment modalities. The underlying causes of these inequalities are complex and multifactorial and involve biological factors, structural determinants of equity (i.e., public policy, structural and systemic racism, economic policy), social determinants of health (including income, education, and insurance status, neighborhood/physical environment, community/social context, and geography), and health care factors. The objective of this article is to review the sources of racial disparities in prostate cancer and to propose actionable recommendations to help address these inequities and narrow the racial gap.

Health disparity in use of novel agents for first-line therapy in Black and White patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the Department of Veterans Affairs

BACKGROUND: Novel agents (NAs) (ibrutinib, idelalisib, and venetoclax) were first introduced in 2013 as therapeutic options to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). OBJECTIVES: To determine if the uptake of NAs for first-line treatment was similar in Black and White patients with CLL treated in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study including adults with CLL managed in the VA from October 1, 2013, to September 30, 2017. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic data, and appropriate bivariable statistical tests were used to compare NA use, baseline characteristics, health outcomes, and complications. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with uptake of NAs. The study included 565 patients; 86% were White and 14% were Black. Black patients were younger than White patients (median age [66 vs 69 years; P < 0.01]) but had similar median baseline Charlson comorbidity scores (4 vs 5). RESULTS: Overall, Black patients were less likely to receive NAs than White patients (14% vs 26%; P = 0.02). The gap narrowed over the study period: 4% vs 17% (2014), 13% vs 25% (2015), 17% vs 33% (2016), and 31% vs 33% (2017). Black race (P = 0.02) and fiscal year (P < 0.01) were the only variables significantly associated with NA use in the multivariable model. Health outcomes and most complications were similar for Black and White patients despite the difference in prescribing patterns. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to identify a potential health disparity with respect to use of NAs among Black and White patients with CLL treated in the VA. Fortunately, health outcomes and most complications were similar for Black and White patients despite the difference in prescribing patterns. DISCLOSURES: Funding for the study was provided by AstraZeneca as a research grant to the Foundation for Advancing Veterans' Health Research (FAVHR), a non-profit entity within the Audie L. Murphy Veterans Hospital, San Antonio, TX. Drs Nooruddin and Frei have received research grants (paid to FAVHR) from AstraZeneca in the last 3 years. Ms Ryan is an employee of AstraZeneca. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, or the authors' affiliated institutions.

Addressing multilevel barriers to clinical trial participation among Black and White men with prostate cancer through the PACCT study

BACKGROUND

Cancer clinical trial participation is low and inequitable. Partnering Around Cancer Clinical Trials (PACCT) addressed systemic and interpersonal barriers through an observational study of eligibility and an intervention to improve patient-physician communication and trial invitation rates.

METHODS

Physicians at two comprehensive cancer centers and Black and White men with prostate cancer participated. Patients were followed for 2 years to determine whether they became potentially eligible for an available therapeutic trial. Potentially eligible patients were randomized to receive a trials-focused Question Prompt List or usual care. Patient-physician interactions were video-recorded. Outcomes included communication quality and trial invitation rates. Descriptive analyses assessed associations between sociodemographic characteristics and eligibility and effects of the intervention on outcomes.

RESULTS

Only 44 (22.1%) of participating patients (n = 199) became potentially eligible for an available clinical trial. Patients with higher incomes were more often eligible (>$80,000 vs. <$40,000, adjusted OR = 6.06 [SD, 1.97]; $40,000-$79,000 vs. <$40,000, adjusted OR = 4.40 [SD, 1.81]). Among eligible patients randomized to the intervention (n = 19) or usual care (n = 25), Black patients randomized to the intervention reported participating more actively than usual care patients, while White intervention patients reported participating less actively (difference, 0.41 vs. -0.34). Intervention patients received more trial invitations than usual care patients (73.7% vs. 60.0%); this effect was greater for Black (80.0% vs. 30.0%) than White patients (80.0% vs. 66.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest the greatest enrollment barrier is eligibility for an available trial, but a communication intervention can improve communication quality and trial invitation rates, especially for eligible Black patients.

Physicians' use of plain language during discussions of prostate cancer clinical trials with patients

OBJECTIVE

This study described physicians' use of plain language during patient-physician cancer clinical trial discussions.

METHODS

Video-recorded clinical interactions and accompanying transcripts were taken from a larger study of communication and clinical trials (PACCT). Interactions (n = 25) were selected if they included invitations to participate in a clinical trial. We used descriptive, qualitative discourse analysis, a method that identifies language patterns at or above the sentence level. We first excerpted discussions of clinical trials, then identified instances of plain language within those discussions. Finally, we inductively coded those instances to describe physicians' plain language practices.

RESULTS

The analysis identified four plain language practices. Lexical simplification replaced medical terminology with simpler words. Patient-centered definition named, categorized, and explained complex medical terminology. Metaphor explained medical terminology by comparing it with known concepts. Finally, experience-focused description replaced medical terminology with descriptions of patients' potential physical experiences.

CONCLUSION

These plain language practices hold promise as part of effective information exchange in discussions of cancer clinical trials. Testing is needed to identify patient preferences and the extent to which these practices address patient health literacy needs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Pending further testing, these plain language practices may be integrated into physician clinical trial and other communication training.

Female Colon Cancer Metastasis Pattern and Prognosis: A SEER-Based Study

The purpose of this study was to compare the metastatic pattern and prognosis of female colon cancer (FCC) to that of male colon cancer (MCC) to ascertain the independent factors impacting the prognosis of patients with FCC. The data of the present study population were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Descriptive analysis, the Kaplan-Meier method, and the Cox regression were used to evaluated FCC characteristics and factors associated with prognosis. There were 56,442 patients diagnosed with FCC, of whom 8,817 had distant metastases. Compared to patients with nonmetastatic FCC, a greater proportion of metastatic FCC patients was less than 60 years of age, black race, and grade III-IV. The primary sites were mainly located on the left side and have more possibility to receive chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Compared to metastatic MCC, a higher proportion of metastatic FCC patients ranged over 60 years of age, black race, treated without chemotherapy, and insurance, while the primary site was located on the right side. Liver and lung were the two most common sites of solitary metastases in CC, and among patients with solitary metastases in CC, patients who had lung metastases had a better prognosis than those who developed other types of metastasizes. Patients with FCC with metastases of the liver had a worse prognosis than their MCC counterparts. Cox multivariate regression analysis showed that the risk ratio was higher in metastatic FCC patients compared to those without metastases. We report the survival comparison of metastatic FCC with nonmetastatic FCC through the SEER database. Our results suggest that it has unique clinicopathological features and differs from metastatic MCC. Furthermore, patients with liver metastatic FCC have a worse prognosis than those with MCC. Emphasis on screening for colon cancer in women and additional clinical care should be paid for, especially for patients with FCC with metastatic liver cancer.

Immune mechanisms behind prostate cancer in men of African ancestry: A review

BACKGROUND

Men of African ancestry (AA) with prostate cancer suffer from worse outcomes. However, a recent analysis of patients treated with the dendritic cell vaccine sipuleucel-T for prostate cancer suggested that AA patients could have improved outcomes relative to whites.

METHODS

We conducted a focused literature review of Medline-indexed articles and clinical trials listed on clinicaltrials.gov.

RESULTS

We identify several studies pointing to enrichment of inflammatory cellular infiltrates and cytokine signaling among AA patients with prostate cancer. We outline potential genomic and transcriptomic alterations that may contribute to immunogenicity. Last, we investigate differences in host immunity and vaccine responsiveness that may be enhanced in AA patients.

CONCLUSIONS

AA patients with prostate cancer may be enriched for an immunogenic phenotype. Dedicated studies are needed to better understand the immune mechanisms that contribute to existing cancer disparities and test immune-based therapies in this population.

Clinical trial participation in America: The roles of eHealth engagement and patient-provider communication

Objective

Public participation in a clinical trial is the foundation of clinical research and the cornerstone for the discovery of new treatment and improving health outcomes. This study aims to examine how eHealth engagement, patient–provider communication, and clinical trial knowledge are associated with clinical trial participation in the United States.

Methods

Data were drawn from the Health Information National Trends Survey Iteration 5 Cycle 4 conducted in 2020. The sample included 3865 American adults aged 18 years and above. Path analysis using structural equation modeling and hierarchical linear regression was performed to examine the effects of eHealth engagement and patient–provider communication on clinical trial participation.

Results

About 5% of American adults have ever participated in a clinical trial. Younger adults, males, minorities, and people with lower education, less clinical trial knowledge, and less eHealth engagement were less likely to participate. After controlling for demographic variables, we found that more eHealth engagement led to a better knowledge of clinical trials, which was strongly associated with participation. Further, patient-centered communication did not directly lead to clinical trial participation; instead, it positively moderated the relationship between clinical trial knowledge and participation.

Conclusions

The national survey data indicate that American participation in clinical trials remains low and a significant disparity exists. Within the context of the eHealth movement, it is critical to implement targeted interventions to improve clinical trial knowledge, address the digital divide, and enhance patient-centered communication.

Comparison of Response to Definitive Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer in Black and White Men: A Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Black men have a 2-fold increased risk of dying from prostate cancer compared with White men. However, race-specific differences in response to initial treatment remain unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare overall and treatment-specific outcomes of Black and White men with localized prostate cancer receiving definitive radiotherapy (RT).

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search was performed of relevant published randomized clinical trials conducted by the NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2010. This meta-analysis was performed from July 1, 2019, to July 1, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials of definitive RT for patients with localized prostate cancer comprising a substantial number of Black men (self-identified race) enrolled that reported on treatment-specific and overall outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Individual patient data were obtained from 7 NRG Oncology/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group randomized clinical trials evaluating definitive RT with or without short- or long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Unadjusted Fine-Gray competing risk models, with death as a competing risk, were developed to evaluate the cumulative incidences of end points. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate differences in all-cause mortality and the composite outcome of distant metastasis (DM) or death. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Subdistribution hazard ratios (sHRs) of biochemical recurrence (BCR), DM, and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM).

RESULTS

A total of 8814 patients (1630 [18.5%] Black and 7184 [81.5%] White) were included; mean (SD) age was 69.1 (6.8) years. Median follow-up was 10.6 (IQR, 8.0-17.8) years for surviving patients. At enrollment, Black men were more likely to have high-risk disease features. However, even without adjustment, Black men were less likely to experience BCR (sHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-0.91), DM (sHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.91), or PCSM (sHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97). No significant differences in all-cause mortality were identified (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92-1.07). Upon adjustment, Black race remained significantly associated with improved BCR (adjusted sHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88; P < .001), DM (adjusted sHR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.87; P = .002), and PCSM (adjusted sHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50-0.93; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that Black men enrolled in randomized clinical trials present with more aggressive disease but have better BCR, DM, and PCSM with definitive RT compared with White men, suggesting that other determinants of outcome, such as access to care, are important factors of achieving racial equity.

Association of race and health insurance in treatment disparities of colon cancer: A retrospective analysis utilizing a national population database in the United States

BACKGROUND

Both health insurance status and race independently impact colon cancer (CC) care delivery and outcomes. The relative importance of these factors in explaining racial and insurance disparities is less clear, however. This study aimed to determine the association and interaction of race and insurance with CC treatment disparities.

STUDY SETTING

Retrospective cohort review of a prospective hospital-based database.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In this cross-sectional study, patients diagnosed with stage I to III CC in the United States were identified from the National Cancer Database (NCDB; 2006 to 2016). Multivariable regression with generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were performed to evaluate the association of insurance and race/ethnicity with odds of receipt of surgery (stage I to III) and adjuvant chemotherapy (stage III), with an additional 2-way interaction term to evaluate for effect modification. Confounders included sex, age, median income, rurality, comorbidity, and nodes and margin status for the model for chemotherapy. Of 353,998 patients included, 73.8% (n = 261,349) were non-Hispanic White (NHW) and 11.7% (n = 41,511) were non-Hispanic Black (NHB). NHB patients were less likely to undergo resection [odds ratio (OR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61 to 0.72, p < 0.001] or to receive adjuvant chemotherapy [OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.87, p < 0.001] compared to NHW patients. NHB patients with private or Medicare insurance were less likely to undergo resection [OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.91, p = 0.004 (private insurance); OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.66, p < 0.001 (Medicare)] and to receive adjuvant chemotherapy [0.77, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.87, p < 0.001 (private insurance); OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91, p < 0.001 (Medicare)] compared to similarly insured NHW patients. Although Hispanic patients with private and Medicare insurance were also less likely to undergo surgical resection, this was not the case with adjuvant chemotherapy. This study is mainly limited by the retrospective nature and by the variables provided in the dataset; granular details such as continuity or disruption of insurance coverage or specific chemotherapy agents or dosing cannot be assessed within NCDB.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that racial disparities in receipt of treatment for CC persist even among patients with similar health insurance coverage and that different disparities exist for different racial/ethnic groups. Changes in health policy must therefore recognize that provision of insurance alone may not eliminate cancer treatment racial disparities.

Demographic and Health Behavior Factors Associated With Clinical Trial Invitation and Participation in the United States

IMPORTANCE

Representative enrollment in clinical trials is critical to ensure equitable and effective translation of research to practice, yet disparities in clinical trial enrollment persist.

OBJECTIVE

To examine person-level factors associated with invitation to and participation in clinical trials.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study analyzed responses from 3689 US adults who participated in the nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey, collected February through June 2020 via mailed questionnaires.

EXPOSURES

Demographic, clinical, and health behavior-related characteristics.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

History of invitation to and participation in a clinical trial, primary information sources, trust in information sources, and motives for participation in clinical trials were described. Respondent characteristics are presented as absolute numbers and weighted percentages. Associations between respondent demographic, clinical, and health behavior-related characteristics and clinical trial invitation and participation were estimated using survey-weighted logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The median (IQR) age of the 3689 respondents was 48 (33-61) years, and most were non-Hispanic White individuals (2063 [59%]; non-Hispanic Black, 452 [10%]; Hispanic, 521 [14%]), had more than a high school degree (2656 [68%]), were employed (1809 [58%]), and had at least 1 medical condition (2535 [61%]). Overall, 439 respondents (9%) had been invited to participate in any clinical trial. Respondents with increased odds of invitation were non-Hispanic Black compared with non-Hispanic White (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.13-3.02), had greater than a high school education compared with less than high school education (eg, ≥college degree: aOR, 4.84; 95% CI, 1.89-12.39), were single compared with married or living as married (aOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.73), and had at least 1 medical condition compared to none (eg, 1 medical condition: aOR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.32-3.82). Respondents residing in rural vs urban areas had 77% decreased odds of invitation to a clinical trial (aOR 0.33; 95% CI 0.17-0.65). Of invited respondents, 199 (47%) participated. Compared with non-Hispanic White respondents, non-Hispanic Black respondents had 72% decreased odds of clinical trial participation (aOR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.87). Respondents most frequently reported "health care providers" as the first and most trusted source of clinical trial information (first source: 2297 [59%]; most trusted source: 2597 [70%]). The most frequently reported motives for clinical trials participation were "wanting to get better" (2294 [66%]) and the standard of care not being covered by insurance (1448 [41%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that invitation to and participation in clinical trials may differ by person-level demographic and clinical characteristics. Strategies toward increasing trial invitation and participation rates across diverse patient populations warrant further research to ensure equitable translation of clinical benefits from research to practice.

Disparities in phase 1 cancer clinical trial enrollment

BACKGROUND

Phase 1 trials are increasingly important in the molecularly driven era of oncology, but few studies have examined phase 1 participation disparities. The authors of this study investigated factors associated with phase 1 versus phase 2/3 trial enrollment.

METHODS

They authors conducted a cross-sectional study using serial samples of patients age ≥18 years enrolling on cancer trials from October 2011 to November 2014 at an academic cancer center. They used univariable and multivariable logistic regression models to analyze sociodemographic and clinical associations with phase 1 versus phase 2/3 trial enrollment.

RESULTS

Among 3103 patients enrolled in cancer trials, 2657 unique patients participated in phase 1/2/3 trials. For patients enrolled in phase 1 (n = 1401) versus phase 2/3 (n = 1256) trials, we found no significant differences by age, insurance status, marital status, and income. Overall, 1216 (93%) White, 72 (6%) Asian, and 21 (2%) Black patients enrolled on phase 1 trials, whereas 1068 (93%) White, 40 (3%) Asian, and 43 (4%) Black patients enrolled on phase 2/3 trials. Adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance status, marital status, income, cancer type, disease status, travel distance, and trial year, compared with White patients, Black patients had lower phase 1 enrollment (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.82), as did Hispanic/Latino (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08-0.79) and male patients (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94). Asian patients had higher phase 1 enrollment (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.88-2.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Disparities in phase 1 versus phase 2/3 cancer clinical trial enrollment underscore the urgent need for interventions addressing inequities in early-phase trial participation.

LAY SUMMARY

Phase 1 trials are of increasing importance in oncology. The authors of the study analyzed all patients enrolling on cancer clinical trials at a large academic cancer center from October 2011 to November 2014. Among the 2657 trial participants, when age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance status, marital status, income, cancer type, disease status, travel distance, and trial year were taken into account, Black, Hispanic/Latino, and male patients were less likely to enroll on phase 1 trials versus phase 2/3 trials. These findings suggest a need for targeted interventions to improve access to and education about phase 1 trials for Black and Hispanic/Latino patients.

A Review of Research on Disparities in the Care of Black and White Patients With Cancer in Detroit

Racial disparities in cancer incidence and outcomes are well-documented in the US, with Black people having higher incidence rates and worse outcomes than White people. In this review, we present a summary of almost 30 years of research conducted by investigators at the Karmanos Cancer Institute's (KCI's) Population Studies and Disparities Research (PSDR) Program focusing on Black-White disparities in cancer incidence, care, and outcomes. The studies in the review focus on individuals diagnosed with cancer from the Detroit Metropolitan area, but also includes individuals included in national databases. Using an organizational framework of three generations of studies on racial disparities, this review describes racial disparities by primary cancer site, disparities associated with the presence or absence of comorbid medical conditions, disparities in treatment, and disparities in physician-patient communication, all of which contribute to poorer outcomes for Black cancer patients. While socio-demographic and clinical differences account for some of the noted disparities, further work is needed to unravel the influence of systemic effects of racism against Black people, which is argued to be the major contributor to disparate outcomes between Black and White patients with cancer. This review highlights evidence-based strategies that have the potential to help mitigate disparities, improve care for vulnerable populations, and build an equitable healthcare system. Lessons learned can also inform a more equitable response to other health conditions and crises.

Immune-Based Cancer Treatment: Addressing Disparities in Access and Outcomes

Avoidable differences in the care and outcomes of patients with cancer (i.e., cancer care disparities) emerge or worsen with discoveries of new, more effective approaches to cancer diagnosis and treatment. The rapidly expanding use of immunotherapy for many different cancers across the spectrum from late to early stages has, predictably, been followed by emerging evidence of disparities in access to these highly effective but expensive treatments. The danger that these new treatments will further widen preexisting cancer care and outcome disparities requires urgent corrective intervention. Using a multilevel etiologic framework that categorizes the targets of intervention at the individual, provider, health care system, and social policy levels, we discuss options for a comprehensive approach to prevent and, where necessary, eliminate disparities in access to the clinical trials that are defining the optimal use of immunotherapy for cancer, as well as its safe use in routine care among appropriately diverse populations. We make the case that, contrary to the traditional focus on the individual level in descriptive reports of health care disparities, there is sequentially greater leverage at the provider, health care system, and social policy levels to overcome the challenge of cancer care and outcomes disparities, including access to immunotherapy. We also cite examples of effective government-sponsored and policy-level interventions, such as the National Cancer Institute Minority-Underserved Community Oncology Research Program and the Affordable Care Act, that have expanded clinical trial access and access to high-quality cancer care in general.