Clinical Trial Participation Among Older Adult Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries With Cancer

Participation in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Clinical Trials in the United States by Race/Ethnicity

INTRODUCTION

Despite efforts by Cancer Centers and community organizations to increase diversity in clinical trials, significant racial/ethnic disparities remain. Given the high mortality rates in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), it is important to increase diversity in NSCLC trials, ensuring all patients benefit from advances in new treatment modalities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated the distribution of racial/ethnic minority enrollment in NSCLC clinical trials using data from ClinicalTrials.gov. We extracted trial characteristics, including start year, study phase, tumor stage, sample size, sponsor, geographic region, and masking. The number of participants by race/ethnicity was obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov or linked publications. Using annual NSCLC incidence data from SEER*Stat for each racial/ethnic group from 2010 to 2019, we applied a 2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction to assess differences between incidence and trial participation.

RESULTS

A total of 147 unique studies were included in the final analysis. Of the 28,540 participants, 79.6% were White, with 3% Black, 10.4% Asian or Pacific Islander and 3.4% Hispanic/Latino. Most participants were enrolled in phase III trials (63.8%), industry-sponsored (93.9%), and open-label (67.7%). Black patients were more commonly enrolled in academic sponsored trials and less commonly enrolled in masked (i.e., blinded) studies. When comparing trial participation to annual incidence data, we observed underrepresentation among Black participants (Difference: -7.9%) and Hispanic/Latino participants (Difference: -3.2%).

CONCLUSION

Persistent underrepresentation exists in NSCLC clinical trials among Black and Hispanic/Latino patients. We urge further investigation of these findings through well-designed clinical trials among diverse patient populations.

Patient Enrollment to Industry-Sponsored Versus Federally-Sponsored Cancer Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

The conduct of cancer clinical research in the United States is supported by both private and public sponsors. Industry aims to obtain new drug approvals. Federally-sponsored trials examine a broad set of research questions that are not typically addressed by industry; these trials, which are also more commonly conducted in diverse populations, were recently shown to have contributed to gains of 14 million life-years for patients with cancer. Despite the different mandates, the proportion of patients who might participate in industry-sponsored versus federally-sponsored cancer studies is unknown.

METHODS

We evaluated trial enrollment patterns from 2008 to 2022 using ClinicalTrials.gov data. The ratio of enrollments attributable to industry versus federal sponsors was estimated. A large set of estimates on the basis of different combinations of study characteristics were generated. Point estimates were determined as the mean of combinations and confidence limits by the IQR. Five-year intervals were examined to smooth annual variation.

RESULTS

In total, N = 26,080 studies were examined. The estimated enrollment ratio from 2018 to 2022 for all industry-sponsored versus federally-sponsored trials was 8.1 (IQR, 6.2-9.9). For adult trials, the ratio increased from 4.8 (IQR, 4.4-5.3) during 2008-2012 to 9.6 (IQR, 7.4-11.8) during 2018-2022; for trials in children, the ratio increased from 0.7 (IQR, 0.6-0.7) to 2.3 (IQR, 1.8-2.7). Despite increasing cancer incidence, enrollment counts for federally-sponsored trials were flat over the study period.

CONCLUSION

In the United States, there is a growing reliance on industry to conduct cancer clinical research. Underinvestment in federally-sponsored research comes at a cost for both patients and researchers, with lost opportunities for scientific, clinical, and population advances.

"Start low, go slow," a strategy to tailor treatment dosing in older or vulnerable adults with advanced solid cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The use of standard-dose cancer treatment can result in a decline in the functional abilities of older adults with cancer. The "start-low, go-slow" (SLGS) strategy involves initiating cancer treatment at lower-than-standard doses in selected patients who are vulnerable to excess toxicity and escalating based on tolerance. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the available data and the effectiveness of the SLGS strategy in the treatment of cancer in older adults with incurable solid cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The review was registered with PROSPERO. Two independent reviewers (GA and TP) conducted a comprehensive search across multiple databases (PubMed/Medline, Journal of Geriatric Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology abstracts, and EMBASE) of prospective studies involving patients with solid tumors who received SLGS. SLGS was defined as starting cancer therapy with a lower than standard dose and dose-escalating, if possible. The main objective of this study was to evaluate overall survival (OS) in patients treated with the SLGS strategy. Secondary objectives were to analyze treatment discontinuation and toxicity in patients treated with the SLGS strategy. Additionally, we aimed to compile a comprehensive report on studies employing the SLGS strategy in solid oncology. We utilized a random-effects meta-analysis model to consider the diversity among patient populations with different cancer stages, types, and treatments. Two researchers independently employed the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality (NOQ) assessment for cohort analysis to evaluate the methodological quality and standard of outcomes reporting in the included studies. The quality of evidence was appraised using the Grading recommendations assessment, development and evaluation GRADE summary of findings tool.

RESULTS

The systematic search identified a total of 12,690 articles. Thirteen studies met criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, totaling 8546 patients. Twelve studies evaluated OS. However, only five studies focused solely on older adults, and the studies involved different types of cancer without following a specific pattern. In meta-analysis of survival among three studies, patients who underwent the SLGS approach had lower mortality (hazar ratio 0.91, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.85-0.98, p = 0.01, i2 = 0 %). Toxicity ranged from 5 % to 89 % across studies; SLGS had lower grade 3 and 4 toxicity compared to the standard dose (six studies, meta-analysis relative risk 0.86, 95 % CI 0.75-0.98, p < 0.02, i2 = 30 %). Treatment discontinuation was not different for SLGS vs. standard dose (seven studies, meta-analysis RR 0.96, 95 % CI 0.87-1.05, p = 0.37 i2 = 50 %).

DISCUSSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that a SLGS approach to systemic therapy dosing may reduce toxicity without affecting survival among older patients with solid tumors, although results are limited by a limited number of prospective studies. Additional research is needed to understand better the effects of SLGS in older adults receiving palliative chemotherapy.

Association of Race and Ethnicity with Genomic Testing at a Comprehensive Cancer Center in North Carolina

SIGNIFICANCE

Non-Hispanic Black patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2014 and 2019 and treated at a comprehensive cancer center were less likely to use tumor-specific genomic testing compared with non-Hispanic White patients. Disparities in the use of precision oncology technologies should be monitored and addressed to ensure equitable cancer care.

Advocate-BREAST80+: A Comprehensive Patient and Advocate-Led Study to Enhance Breast Cancer Care Delivery and Patient-Centered Research in Women Aged ≥80 Years

BACKGROUND

There are limited evidence-based data to guide treatment recommendations for breast cancer (BC) patients ≥80 years (P80+). Identifying and addressing unmet needs are critical.

AIMS

Advocate-BREAST80+ compared the needs of P80+ vs. patients < 80 years (P80-).

METHODS

In 12/2021, a REDCap survey was electronically circulated to 6918 persons enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry. The survey asked about concerns and satisfaction with multiple aspects of BC care.

RESULTS

Overall, 2437 participants responded (35% response rate); 202 (8.3%) were P80+. P80+ were less likely to undergo local regional and systemic therapies vs. P80- (p < 0.01). Notably, P80+ were significantly less satisfied with information about the short and long-term side effects of BC therapies and managing toxicities. P80+ were also less likely to have participated in a clinical trial (p < 0.001) or to want to do so in the future (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although P80+ experienced less anxiety and symptom-related distress compared with P80-, they were significantly less satisfied with information regarding the side effects of BC therapies and their management. P80+ were significantly less likely to have participated in a clinical trial or be open to considering this option. Future studies should address educational needs pertaining to side effects and barriers to research participation in P80+.

National Estimates of the Participation of Patients With Cancer in Clinical Research Studies Based on Commission on Cancer Accreditation Data

PURPOSE

National estimates of cancer clinical trial participation are nearly two decades old and have focused solely on enrollment to treatment trials, which does not reflect the willingness of patients to contribute to other elements of clinical research. We determined inclusive, contemporary estimates of clinical trial participation for adults with cancer using a national sample of data from the Commission on Cancer (CoC).

METHODS

The data were obtained from accreditation information submitted by the 1,200 CoC programs, which represent more than 70% of all cancer cases diagnosed in the United States each year. Deidentified, institution-level aggregate counts of annual enrollment to treatment, biorepository, diagnostic, economic, genetic, prevention, quality-of-life (QOL), and registry studies were examined. Overall, study-type estimates for the period 2013-2017 were estimated. Multiple imputation by chained equations was used to account for missing data, with summary estimates calculated separately by type of program (eg, National Cancer Institute [NCI]-designated cancer centers) and pooled.

RESULTS

The overall estimated patient participation rate to cancer treatment trials was 7.1%. Patients with cancer participated in a wide variety of other studies, including biorepository (12.9%), registry (7.3%), genetic (3.6%), QOL (2.8%), diagnostic (2.5%), and economic (2.4%) studies. Treatment trial enrollment was 21.6% at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers, 5.4% at academic (non-NCI-designated) comprehensive cancer programs, 5.7% at integrated network cancer programs, and 4.1% at community programs. One in five patients (21.9%) participated in one or more cancer clinical research studies.

CONCLUSION

In a first-time use of national accreditation information from the CoC, enrollment to cancer treatment trials was 7.1%, higher than historical estimates of <5%. Patients participated in a diverse set of other study types. Contributions of adult patients with cancer to clinical research is more common than previously understood.

Strategies for increasing accrual in cancer clinical trials: What is the evidence?

INTRODUCTION

Despite the importance of clinical trial participation among cancer patients, few participate-and even fewer patients from ethnic and racial minoritized groups. It is unclear whether suggested approaches to increase accrual are successful. We conducted a scoping review to identify evidence-based approaches to increase participation in cancer treatment clinical trials that demonstrated clear increases in accrual. Notably, more stringent than other published reviews, only those studies with comparison data to measure a difference in accrual rates were included.

METHODS

We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science for English-language articles published from January 1, 2012, to August 8, 2022. Studies were included if they were conducted in the United States, described single or multicomponent interventions, and provided data to measure accrual relative to baseline levels or that compared accrual rates with other interventions.

RESULTS

Sixteen articles were included: six with interventions addressing patient barriers, two addressing provider barriers, seven describing institutional change, and one describing policy change. Key themes emerged, such as a focus on patient education, cultural competency, and building the capacity of clinics. Few studies provide comparative accrual data, making it difficult to identify with certainty any effective, evidence-based approaches for increasing accrual. Some patient- and system-level interventions studies showed modest increases in accrual primarily through pre-post measurement.

CONCLUSION

Despite an extensive body of literature about the barriers that impede cancer treatment trial accrual, along with numerous recommendations for how to overcome these barriers, results reveal surprisingly little evidence published in the last 10 years on interventions that increase accrual relative to baseline levels or compared with other interventions. As clinical trials are a primary vehicle through which we improve cancer care, it is critical that evidence-based approaches are used to inform all efforts to increase accrual. Strategies for increasing participation in cancer clinical trials must be developed and rigorously evaluated so that these strategies can be disseminated, participation in trials can increase and become more equitable, and trial results can become more generalizable.

Pathogenic germline variants in patients with endometrial cancer of diverse ancestry

BACKGROUND

Racial disparities in outcomes exist in endometrial cancer (EC). The contribution of ancestry-based variations in germline pathogenic variants (gPVs) is unknown.

METHODS

Germline assessment of ≥76 cancer predisposition genes was performed in patients with EC undergoing tumor-normal Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets sequencing from January 1, 2015 through June 30, 2021. Self-reported race/ethnicity and Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry data classified patients into groups. Genetic ancestry was inferred from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets. Rates of gPV and genetic counseling were compared by ancestry.

RESULTS

Among 1625 patients with EC, 216 (13%) had gPVs; 15 had >1 gPV. Rates of gPV varied by self-reported ancestry (Ashkenazi Jewish, 40/202 [20%]; Asian, 15/124 [12%]; Black/African American (AA), 12/171 [7.0%]; Hispanic, 15/124 [12%]; non-Hispanic (NH) White, 129/927 [14%]; missing, 5/77 [6.5%]; p = .009], with similar findings by genetic ancestry (p < .001). We observed a lower likelihood of gPVs in patients of Black/AA (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.81) and African (AFR) ancestry (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18-0.85) and a higher likelihood in patients of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic ancestry (OR, 1.62; 95% CI; 1.11-2.34) compared with patients of non-Hispanic White/European ancestry, even after adjustment for age and molecular subtype. Somatic landscape influenced gPVs with lower rates of microsatellite instability-high tumors in patients of Black/AA and AFR ancestry. Among those with newly identified gPVs (n = 114), 102 (89%) were seen for genetic counseling, with lowest rates among Black/AA (75%) and AFR patients (67%).

CONCLUSIONS

In those with EC, gPV and genetic counseling varied by ancestry, with lowest rates among Black/AA and AFR patients, potentially contributing to disparities in outcomes given implications for treatment and cancer prevention.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Black women with endometrial cancer do worse than White women, and there are many reasons for this disparity. Certain genetic changes from birth (mutations) can increase the risk of cancer, and it is unknown if rates of these changes are different between different ancestry groups. Genetic mutations in 1625 diverse women with endometrial cancer were studied and the lowest rates of mutations and genetic counseling were found in Black and African ancestry women. This could affect their treatment options as well as their families and may make disparities worse.

Enrollment Success, Factors, and Prediction Models in Cancer Trials (2008-2019)

PURPOSE

To investigate the enrollment success rate of cancer clinical trials conducted in 2008-2019 and various factors lowering the enrollment success rate.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study with clinical trial information from the largest registration database ClinicalTrials.gov. Enrollment success rate was defined as actual enrollment greater or equal to 85% of the estimated enrollment goal. The association between trial characteristics and enrollment success was evaluated using the multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 4,004 trials in breast, lung, and colorectal cancers were included. The overall enrollment success rate was 49.1%. Compared with 2008-2010 (51.5%) and 2011-2013 (52.1%), the enrollment success rate is lower in 2014-2016 (46.5%) and 2017-2019 (36.4%). Regression analyses found trial activation year, phase I, phase I/phase II, and phase II (v phase III), sponsor agency of government (v industry), not requiring healthy volunteers, and estimated enrollment of 50-100, 100-200, 200, and >500 (v 0-50) were associated with a lower enrollment success rate (P < .05). However, trials with placebo comparator, ≥5 locations (v 1 location), and a higher number of secondary end points (eg, ≥5 v 0) were associated with a higher enrollment success rate (P < .05). The AUC for prediction of the final logistic regression models for all trials and specific trial groups ranged from 0.69 to 0.76.

CONCLUSION

This large-scale study supports a lower enrollment success rate over years in cancer clinical trials. Identified factors for enrollment success can be used to develop and improve recruitment strategies for future cancer trials.

Integrating evidence-based communication principles into routine cancer care

PURPOSE

The global incidence of cancer and available cancer-directed therapy options is increasing rapidly, presenting patients and clinicians with more complex treatment decisions than ever before. Despite the dissemination of evidence-based communication training tools and programs, clinicians cite barriers to employing effective communication in cancer care (e.g., discomfort of sharing serious news, concern about resource constraints to meet stated needs). We present two composite cases with significant communication challenges to guide clinicians through an application of evidence-based approaches to achieve quality communication.

METHODS

Composite cases, communication skills blueprint, and visual conceptualization.

RESULTS

High-stakes circumstances in each case are described, including end-of-life planning, advanced pediatric illness, strong emotions, and health inequities. Three overarching communication approaches are discussed: (1) content selection and delivery; (2) rapport development; and (3) empathic connection. The key takeaways following each case provide succinct summaries of challenges encountered and approaches used. A communication blueprint from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Communication Skills Training Program and Research Laboratory has been adapted and is comprised of strategies, skills, process tasks, and sample talking points. A visually concise tool - the Communication Blueprint Traffic Circle - illustrates these concepts and demonstrates the iterative, holistic, and agile considerations inherent to effective communication.

CONCLUSION

Evidence-based communication is foundational to person-centeredness, associated with improved clinician and patient/caregiver outcomes, and can be integrated throughout routine oncology care. When used by clinicians, evidence-based communication can improve patient and caregiver experiences and assist in ensuring goal-concordant cancer care delivery.