Diverse Research Teams and Underrepresented Groups in Clinical Studies

Psychosocial Factors That Influence a Woman's Decision to Enroll in a Clinical Trial: Implications on How to Improve Clinical Trial Enrollment Among Black Women

PURPOSE

Black women with breast cancer often present with more aggressive disease compared with other races, contributing to an increased risk of cancer mortality. Despite this inequity, Black women remain severely underrepresented in breast cancer clinical trials. We aim to characterize factors that influence a woman's decision to enroll in a clinical trial, with the goal of identifying clinical interventions to aid in the recruitment of vulnerable groups.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A cross-sectional, descriptive study was conducted using a questionnaire adapted from 2 prevalidated surveys investigating factors influencing clinical trial enrollment. The survey was administered to women with curable breast cancer during a single follow-up visit at 4 different sites within a university medical system where all patients are screened for clinical trial eligibility. Chi-square tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess associations or differences between the populations.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-four out of 209 women completed the survey, giving a compliance rate of 93%. Twenty-six percent of women self-identified as Black, most women were located at community sites (67.1%), most women had diagnoses of early-stage disease (I: 57.7%, II: 29.4%), and 81% of women had some collegiate-level education. Black women were younger at diagnosis (P = .005) and less likely to be married (P = .012) but more often lived with family members (P = .003) and had a lower median income (P < .001). According to the survey, Black women were less likely to trust their care team (P = .032), more likely to believe that research ultimately harms minorities (P < .001), and had a stronger belief in God's will determining illness and wellness (P < .001). Recurring themes of trust in the health care team, patient education, and advancement of cancer treatments were discussed in the focus groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Failure to offer clinical trials and mistrust in research institutions may pose the greatest hindrances to the enrollment of Black women in clinical trials. Empowering women through education and fostering trustworthy relationships can encourage greater clinical trial participation.

Are community oncology practices with or without clinical research programs different? A comparison of patient and practice characteristics

BACKGROUND

Expanding access to clinical trials in community settings is a potential approach to addressing disparities in accrual of historically underrepresented populations. However, little is known about the characteristics of practices that do not participate in research. We investigated differences in patient and practice characteristics of US community oncology practices with high vs low engagement in clinical research.

METHODS

We included patients from a real-world, nationwide electronic health record-derived, de-identified database who received active treatment for cancer at community oncology practices between November 1, 2017, and October 31, 2022. We assessed patient and practice characteristics and their associations with high vs low research engagement using descriptive analyses and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of the 178 practices, 70 (39.3%) events had high research engagement, treated 57.8% of the overall 568 540 patient cohort, and enrolled 3.25% of their patients on cancer treatment trials during the 5-year observation period (vs 0.27% enrollment among low engagement practices). Practices with low vs high research engagement treated higher proportions of the following patient groups: ages 75 years and older (24.2% vs 21.8%), non-Latinx Black (12.6% vs 10.3%) or Latinx (11.6% vs 6.1%), were within the lowest socioeconomic status quintile (21.9% vs16.5%), and were uninsured or had no documented insurance (22.2% vs 13.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient groups historically underrepresented in oncology clinical trials are more likely to be treated at community practices with limited or no access to trials. These results suggest that investments to expand the clinical research footprint among practices with low research engagement could help address persistent inequities in trial representation.

Sex or Gender Reporting in Ophthalmology Clinical Trials Among US Food and Drug Administration Approvals, 1995 to 2022

Importance

As critical determinants of scientific rigor, reproducibility, and equity, sex and gender should be considered in clinical trial design and reporting.

Objective

To evaluate the accuracy of sex and gender reporting and extent of sex- and gender-based analysis in clinical trials associated with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2022.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study of participants enrolled in FDA ophthalmology trials, the following trial documents were reviewed by pairs of independent reviewers in decreasing order of priority: peer-reviewed publication, ClinicalTrials.gov report, and FDA medical and statistical reviews. Trial protocols and supplementary materials were also reviewed.

Main Outcome and Measures

The proportion of trials that correctly applied sex and gender terminology, reported the method of assessing sex or gender, and conducted sex- or gender-based data analysis; incorrect application of sex and gender terminology was defined as interchangeable use of sex- and gender-related terms without a clear justification.

Results

Between 1995 and 2022, 34 ophthalmic drugs corresponding to 85 trials (34 740 participants) received FDA approval, of which 16 drugs (47.1%) corresponding to 32 trials (18 535 participants [37.6%]) were associated with peer-reviewed publications. Sixteen trials used sex and gender terminology correctly (19.5%). No trial reported how sex and gender were collected nor enrolled participants from sexual and gender identity minority populations. Most trials reported sex- and gender-disaggregated demographic data (96.5%), but few conducted sex- or gender-based analysis for data on dropout (1.2%), primary outcomes (28.2%), secondary outcomes (2.4%), and adverse events (9.4%). Erroneous sex and gender reporting was associated with later publication year (2008.5 vs 2001.0; median difference, 7.5; 95% CI, -6.0 to 11.0; P < .001) and higher journal influence metrics, including 2022 journal impact factor (13.7 vs 5.9; median difference, 7.8; 95% CI, -1.4 to 152.4, P < .001) and 2022 journal citation indicator (4.9 vs 2.1; median difference, 2.9; 95% CI, 0-20.0, P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this observational study, over three-quarters of ophthalmology trials associated with FDA drug approvals conflated sex and gender and over two-thirds lacked sex- and gender-based analyses. More rigorous integration of sex and gender appears warranted for FDA, and presumably other trials, to improve their validity, reproducibility, and equity.