Assessment of gender representation in clinical trials leading to FDA approval for oncology therapeutics between 2014 and 2019: A systematic review-based cohort study

Disparities in Care for Patients with Head and Neck Cancer

This article examines disparities in head and neck cancer across the cancer care continuum. It provides a public health lens to understand multilevel determinants of health behavior and the importance of social determinants of health. This article reviews the evidence base showing profound differences in incidence, treatment, and survival for patients with head and neck cancer by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geography. Continued research is needed to understand and address disparities for patients with head and neck cancer.

Exploring Demographic Representation and Reporting in Lung Cancer Clinical Trials with Canadian Sites from 2013 to 2023

This review evaluates the reporting of demographic characteristics and the diversity of participants of phase III lung cancer clinical trials with Canadian research sites. A literature search was conducted using the ClinicalTrials.gov registry to identify clinical trials conducted between 1 January 2013, and 31 December 2023. The demographic reporting practices and the representation of sex/gender, racial, and ethnic groups were assessed. The location of Canadian research sites was also examined for trends in reporting and representation. Associated publications were reviewed for demographic data collection methods. Of the 25 clinical trials, 24 reported race and 18 also reported ethnicity. All clinical trials reported sex/gender, and the city and province of the participating Canadian sites. Most participants were White (66.1%), identified as not Hispanic or Latino (81.4%), and were male (57.8%). The provinces with the most clinical trial sites were Ontario (43.6%) and Quebec (34.2%). Lung cancer clinical trials lack adequate demographic reporting and representation of females, diverse patient groups, and geographical locations in Canada with high lung cancer incidence rates. Specifically, the Indigenous Peoples of Canada and Nunavut require better representation in lung cancer clinical trials conducted in Canada. These findings highlight the need to improve diversity and demographic representation in clinical research.

Sex distribution in clinical trials of radiologic contrast agents: A 27-year review

PURPOSE

Clinical trials play a pivotal role in assessing the safety and efficacy of medical therapies. Addressing sex distribution among enrollees in clinical trials of radiologic contrast agents is essential for ensuring the generalizability of trial outcomes. Previous research has highlighted the influence of demographic factors, particularly sex, on treatment responses, emphasizing the need for equitable representation in clinical trials. Our study aim was to determine the sex distribution of enrollees in clinical trials of radiologic contrast agents.

METHODS

Our retrospective study included a total of 65 clinical trials conducted between 1990 and 2017 identified on clinicaltrials.gov after a comprehensive review including searching individually for all FDA approved contrast agents. Data collected included the year of FDA approval, the number of participants, sex distribution, trial location, trial phase, and study type. Inter-rater validation ensured data accuracy.

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed fluctuations in sex distribution of trial enrollees. Enrollment of males exceeded females in most years, with a shift towards a more equitable representation in recent trials. Trials conducted in the United States had a higher rate of enrollment by females. Phase I trials had the most balanced representation, whereas Phase IV trials had the highest sex disparity.

CONCLUSION

Across all trials, females made up 47.3 % of enrollees [3316 out of 7016 total enrollees]. Enrollment of males exceeded females in 44 of the 65 trials studied, females outnumbered males in 19 trials, and enrollment was equal between the sexes in 2 trials. While the sex distribution observed across all trials represents an equitable representation of enrollees, the wide variance of sex distribution at the level of individual trials has the potential to limit the generalizability of results.

Disparities in clinical trial enrollment at a Canadian comprehensive cancer center: A 15-year retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Disparities in clinical trials (CTs) enrollment perpetuate inequities in treatment access and outcomes, but there is a paucity of Canadian data. The objective of this study was to examine disparities in cancer CT enrollment at a large Canadian comprehensive cancer center.

METHODS

Retrospective study of CT enrollment among new patient consultations from 2006 to 2019, with follow-up to 2021 (N = 154,880), with the primary outcome of enrollment as a binary variable. Factors associated with CT enrollment were evaluated using multivariable Bayesian hierarchical logistic regression with random effects for most responsible physician (MRP) and geography, adjusted for patient characteristics (sex, age, language, geography, and primary care provider [PCP]), area-level marginalization (residential instability, material deprivation, dependency, and ethnic concentration), disease (cancer site and stage), and MRP (department, sex, language, and training). A sensitivity analysis of the cumulative incidence of enrollment was conducted to account for differences in disease type and follow-up length.

RESULTS

CT enrollment was 11.2% overall, with a 15-year cumulative incidence of 18%. Lower odds of enrollment were observed in patients who were female (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.86), ≥65 years (AOR vs. <40, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.66), non-English speakers (0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.77), living ≥250 km away (AOR vs. <15 km, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62-0.80), and without a PCP. Disease characteristics accounted for the largest proportion of observed variation (20.8%), with significantly greater odds of enrollment in patients with genitourinary cancers and late-stage disease.

CONCLUSION

Significant sociodemographic disparities were observed, suggesting the need for targeted strategies to increase diversity in access to cancer CTs in Canada.

Participant characteristics and exclusion from phase 3/4 industry funded trials of chronic medical conditions: meta-analysis of individual participant level data

Objectives

To assess whether age, sex, comorbidity count, and race and ethnic group are associated with the likelihood of trial participants not being enrolled in a trial for any reason (ie, screen failure).

Design

Bayesian meta-analysis of individual participant level data.

Setting

Industry funded phase 3/4 trials of chronic medical conditions.

Participants

Participants were identified using individual participant level data to be in either the enrolled group or screen failure group. Data were available for 52 trials involving 72 178 screened individuals of whom 24 733 (34%) were excluded from the trial at the screening stage.

Main outcome measures

For each trial, logistic regression models were constructed to assess likelihood of screen failure in people who had been invited to screening, and were regressed on age (per 10 year increment), sex (male v female), comorbidity count (per one additional comorbidity), and race or ethnic group. Trial level analyses were combined in Bayesian hierarchical models with pooling across condition.

Results

In age and sex adjusted models across all trials, neither age nor sex was associated with increased odds of screen failure, although weak associations were detected after additionally adjusting for comorbidity (odds ratio of age, per 10 year increment was 1.02 (95% credibility interval 1.01 to 1.04) and male sex (0.95 (0.91 to 1.00)). Comorbidity count was weakly associated with screen failure, but in an unexpected direction (0.97 per additional comorbidity (0.94 to 1.00), adjusted for age and sex). People who self-reported as black seemed to be slightly more likely to fail screening than people reporting as white (1.04 (0.99 to 1.09)); a weak effect that seemed to persist after adjustment for age, sex, and comorbidity count (1.05 (0.98 to 1.12)). The between-trial heterogeneity was generally low, evidence of heterogeneity by sex was noted across conditions (variation in odds ratios on log scale of 0.01-0.13).

Conclusions

Although the conclusions are limited by uncertainty about the completeness or accuracy of data collection among participants who were not randomised, we identified mostly weak associations with an increased likelihood of screen failure for age, sex, comorbidity count, and black race or ethnic group. Proportionate increases in screening these underserved populations may improve representation in trials.

Trial registration number

PROSPERO CRD42018048202.

Equitable inclusion of diverse populations in oncology clinical trials: deterrents and drivers

The burden of cancer exerts a disproportionate impact across different regions and population subsets. Disease-specific attributes, coupled with genetic and socioeconomic factors, significantly influence cancer treatment outcomes. Precision oncology promises the development of safe and effective options for specific ethnic phenotypes and clinicodemographic profiles. Currently, clinical trials are concentrated in resource-rich geographies with younger, healthier, white, educated, and empowered populations. Vulnerable and marginalized people are often deprived of opportunities to participate in clinical trials. Despite consistent endeavors by regulators, industry, and other stakeholders, factors including diversity in trial regulations and patient and provider-related cultural, logistic, and operational barriers limit the inclusiveness of clinical trials. Understanding and addressing these constraints by collaborative actions involving regulatory initiatives, industry, patient advocacy groups, community engagement in a culturally sensitive manner, and designing and promoting decentralized clinical trials are vital to establishing a clinical research ecosystem that promotes equity in the representation of population subgroups.

The influence of sex is a neglected focus in rotator cuff repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Rotator cuff (RC) disorders are the most common cause of shoulder disability. The aim of this study was to quantify the evidence on the sex-related differences in RC repair.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed in January 2023 in PubMed, Wiley Cochrane Library and Web of Science on research articles on humans with RC tears treated surgically. A meta-analysis was performed to compare results in men and women. The Downs and Black score and the modified Coleman methodology score (MCMS) were used to assess the retrieved studies.

RESULTS

A total of 39,909 patients were enroled in the 401 studies analysed (45% women, 55% men). A trend toward more sex-balanced recruitment was observed over time. Only 4% of the studies on 1.5% of the documented patients presented disaggregated outcome data and were quantitatively analysed. A tendency for lower range of motion values after surgery was found for external shoulder rotation in women, with 39.9° ± 6.9° versus 45.3° ± 4.1° in men (p = 0.066). According to Downs and Black scores, four studies were good and 12 fair, with a main MCMS score of 69/100.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of awareness on the importance to document women- and men-specific data. Only 4% of the articles disaggregated data, and it was possible to analyse only 1.5% of the literature population, a sample which cannot be considered representative of all patients. The lack of disaggregated data is alarming and calls for action to better study men and women differences to optimise the management of RC tears. This will be necessary to provide sex-specific information that could be of clinical relevance when managing RC repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Global burden of 34 cancers among women in 2020 and projections to 2040: Population-based data from 185 countries/territories

Globally women face inequality in cancer outcomes; for example, smaller improvements in life expectancy due to decreased cancer-related deaths than men (0.5 vs 0.8 years, 1981-2010). However, comprehensive global evidence on the burden of cancer among women (including by reproductive age spectrum) as well as disparities by region, remains limited. This study aimed to address these evidence gaps by considering 34 cancer types in 2020 and their projections for 2040. The cancer burden among women in 2020 was estimated using population-based data from 185 countries/territories sourced from GLOBOCAN. Mortality to Incidence Ratios (MIR), a proxy for survival, were estimated by dividing the age-standardised mortality rates by the age-standardised incidence rates. Demographic projections were performed to 2040. In 2020, there were an estimated 9.3 million cancer cases and 4.4 million cancer deaths globally. Projections showed an increase to 13.3 million (↑44%) and 7.1 million (↑60%) in 2040, respectively, with larger proportional increases in low- and middle-income countries. MIR among women was higher (poorer survival) in rare cancers and with increasing age. Countries with low Human Development Indexes (HDIs) had higher MIRs (69%) than countries with very high HDIs (30%). There was inequality in cancer incidence and mortality worldwide among women in 2020, which will further widen by 2040. Implementing cancer prevention efforts and providing basic cancer treatments by expanding universal health coverage through a human rights approach, expanding early screening opportunities and strengthening medical infrastructure are key to improving and ensuring equity in cancer control and outcomes.

Representation of women in neuropsychology research prior to the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

Prior work has demonstrated that women have been historically underrepresented across various research fields, including neuropsychology. Given these disparities, the goal of this study was to systematically evaluate the inclusion of women as participants in neuropsychology research. The current study builds upon previous research by examining articles from eight peer-reviewed neuropsychology journals published in 2019.

METHOD

Empirical articles examining human samples were included in the current review if they were available in English. Eligible articles were examined to glean whether the main topic of the article was related to a gender issue, how gender was categorized, the gender distribution of the sample, whether gender was considered in analyses, whether gender was addressed in the discussion, and what age categories the study examined.

RESULTS

There was a relatively even distribution of men (51.76%) and women (48.24%) in neuropsychological research studies reviewed. There were twice as many studies that included only men compared to only women (16 vs. 8 studies), and nearly twice as many studies consisted of ≥ 75% men (16.6%) compared to ≥75% of women (8.5%). Gender-focused research was limited (3%). Furthermore, gender was frequently disregarded in analyses (58%) and often not addressed in the discussion (75%).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study highlights the limitations within neuropsychology related to the representation of women in research. Although it is encouraging that neuropsychological research is generally inclusive of women participants, future research should aim to more comprehensively investigate how gender may influence cognitive risk and resilience factors across different clinical presentations. Recommendations to begin addressing this challenge and to move toward more gender-equitable research are provided.

Access to cancer clinical trials for racialised older adults: an equity-focused rapid scoping review protocol

BACKGROUND

The intersection of race and older age compounds existing health disparities experienced by historically marginalised communities. Therefore, racialised older adults with cancer are more disadvantaged in their access to cancer clinical trials compared with age-matched counterparts. To determine what has already been published in this area, the rapid scoping review question are: what are the barriers, facilitators and potential solutions for enhancing access to cancer clinical trials among racialised older adults?

METHODS

We will use a rapid scoping review methodology in which we follow the six-step framework of Arksey and O'Malley, including a systematic search of the literature with abstract and full-text screening to be conducted by two independent reviewers, data abstraction by one reviewer and verification by a second reviewer using an Excel data abstraction sheet. Articles focusing on persons aged 18 and over who identify as a racialised person with cancer, that describe therapies/therapeutic interventions/prevention/outcomes related to barriers, facilitators and solutions to enhancing access to and equity in cancer clinical trials will be eligible for inclusion in this rapid scoping review.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

All data will be extracted from published literature. Hence, ethical approval and patient informed consent are not required. The findings of the scoping review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at international conferences.

Enrollment of dengue patients in a prospective cohort study in Umphang District, Thailand, during the COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for research and policy

Background and Aims

Dengue is endemic in Thailand and imposes a high burden on the health system and society. We conducted a prospective cohort study in Umphang District, Tak Province, Thailand, to investigate the share of dengue cases with long symptoms and their duration. Here we present the results of the enrollment process during the COVID-19 pandemic with implications and challenges for research and policy.

Methods

In a prospective cohort study conducted in Umphang District, Thailand, we examined the prevalence of persistent symptoms in dengue cases. Clinically diagnosed cases were offered free laboratory testing, We enrolled ambulatory dengue patients regardless of age who were confirmed through a highly sensitive laboratory strategy (positive NS1 and/or IgM), agreed to follow-up visits, and gave informed consent. We used multivariate logistic regressions to assess the probability of clinical dengue being laboratory confirmed. To determine the factors associated with study enrollment, we analyzed the relationship of patient characteristics and month of screening to the likelihood of participation. To identify underrepresented groups, we compared the enrolled cohort to external data sources.

Results

The 150 clinical cases ranged from 1 to 85 years old. Most clinical cases (78%) were confirmed by a positive laboratory test, but only 19% of those confirmed enrolled in the cohort study. Women, who were half as likely to enroll as men, were underrepresented in the cohort.

Conclusions

The Thai physicians' clinical diagnoses at this rural district hospital had good agreement with laboratory diagnoses. By identifying underrepresented groups and disparities, future studies can ensure the creation of statistically representative cohorts to maximize their scientific value. This involves recruiting and retaining underrepresented groups in health research, such as women in this study. Promising strategies for meaningful inclusion include multi-site enrollment, offering in-home or virtual services, and providing in-kind benefits like childcare for underrepresented groups.

Sex differences in the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of cancer: the rationale for an individualised approach

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine in oncology aims to identify the most beneficial interventions based on a patient's individual features and disease. However, disparities exist when providing cancer care to patients based on an individual's sex.

OBJECTIVE

To discuss how sex differences impact the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, disease progression, and response to treatment, with a focus on data from Spain.

RESULTS

Genetic and environmental factors (social or economic inequalities, power imbalances, and discrimination) that contribute to these differences adversely affect cancer patient health outcomes. Increased health professional awareness of sex differences is essential to the success of translational research and clinical oncological care.

CONCLUSIONS

The Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica created a Task Force group to raise oncologists' awareness and to implement measures to address sex differences in cancer patient management in Spain. This is a necessary and fundamental step towards optimizing precision medicine that will benefit all individuals equally and equitably.

Metrics, baseline scores, and a tool to improve sponsor performance on clinical trial diversity: retrospective cross sectional study

Objective

To develop a measure for fair inclusion in pivotal trials by assessing transparency and representation of enrolled women, older adults (aged 65 years and older), and racially and ethnically minoritized patients.

Design

Retrospective cross sectional study.

Population

Sponsors of novel oncology therapeutics that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration over 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2017.

Data sources

Trial data from Drugs@FDA, ClinicalTrials.gov, and corresponding publications; cancer incidence demographics from US Cancer Statistics and the American Cancer Society.

Main outcome measures

Transparency measures assess whether trials publicly report participant sex, age, and racial and ethnic identity. Representation measures assess whether trial participant demographics represent more than 80% of the US patient population for studied conditions, calculated by dividing the percentage of study participants in each demographic subgroup by the percentage of the US cancer population with the studied condition per group. Composite fair inclusion measures assess average transparency and representation scores, overall and for each demographic group. Results are reported at the trial, product, and sponsor levels.

Results

Between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2017, the FDA approved 59 novel cancer therapeutics, submitted by 25 sponsors (all industry companies) on the basis of 64 pivotal trials. All 25 sponsors (100%) reported participant sex, 10 (40%) reported age, and six (24%) reported race and ethnicity. Although 14 (56%) sponsors had adequate representation of women in trials, only six (24%) adequately represented older adults, and four (16%) adequately represented racially and ethnically minoritized patients (black, Asian, Hispanic or Latinx). On overall fair inclusion, one sponsor scored 100% and the median sponsor score was 81% (interquartile range 75-87%). More than half of sponsors (13 (56%) of 25) fairly included women, 20% (n=5) fairly included older adults, and 4% (n=1) fairly included racially and ethnically minoritized patients in trials. 80% of product had pivotal trials that fairly included women, 24% fairly included older adults, and 5% fairly included racially and ethnically minoritized patients.

Conclusions

This novel approach evaluates trials, products, and sponsors on their fair inclusion of demographic groups in research. For oncology trials, substantial room was noted for improved inclusion of older adults and patients who identify as black or Latinx and transparency around the number of participants identifying as Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, American Indian, and Alaska Native. These measures can be used by sponsors, ethics committees, among others, to set and evaluate trial diversity goals to help spur progress toward greater research equity in the US.

Demographic recruitment bias of adults in United States randomized clinical trials by disease categories between 2008 to 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To promote health equity within the United States (US), randomized clinical trials should strive for unbiased representation. Thus, there is impetus to identify demographic disparities overall and by disease category in US clinical trial recruitment, by trial phase, level of masking, and multi-center status, relative to national demographics. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov, between 01/01/2008 to 12/30/2019. Clinical trials (N = 5,388) were identified based on the following inclusion criteria: study type, location, phase, and participant age. Each clinical trial was independently screened by two researchers. Data was pooled using a random-effects model. Median proportions for gender, race, and ethnicity of each trial were compared to the 2010 US Census proportions, matched by age. A second analysis was performed comparing gender, race, and ethnicity proportions by trial phase, multi-institutional status, quality, masking, and study start year. 2977 trials met inclusion criteria (participants, n = 607,181) for data extraction. 36% of trials reported ethnicity and 53% reported race. Three trials (0.10%) included transgender participants (n = 5). Compared with 2010 US Census data, females (48.3%, 95% CI 47.2-49.3, p < 0.0001), Hispanics (11.6%, 95% CI 10.8-12.4, p < 0.0001), American Indians and Alaskan Natives (AIAN, 0.19%, 95% CI 0.15-0.23, p < 0.0001), Asians (1.27%, 95% CI 1.13-1.42, p < 0.0001), Whites (77.6%, 95% CI 76.4-78.8, p < 0.0001), and multiracial participants (0.25%, 95% CI 0.21-0.31, p < 0.0001) were under-represented, while Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (0.76%, 95% CI 0.71-0.82, p < 0.0001) and Blacks (17.0%, 95% CI 15.9-18.1, p < 0.0001) were over-represented. Inequitable representation was mirrored in analysis by phase, institutional status, quality assessment, and level of masking. Between 2008 to 2019 representation improved for only females and Hispanics. Analysis stratified by 44 disease categories (i.e., psychiatric, obstetric, neurological, etc.) exhibited significant yet varied disparities, with Asians, AIAN, and multiracial individuals the most under-represented. These results demonstrate disparities in US randomized clinical trial recruitment between 2008 to 2019, with the reporting of demographic data and representation of most minorities not having improved over time.

An evaluation of trends in the representation of patients by age, sex, and diverse race/ethnic groups in bladder and kidney cancer clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

To determine the representation of women, minorities, and the elderly groups in clinical trials and whether participation has changed over time.

METHODS

Retrospective study in the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Clinical Data Update System and Center for Disease Control and Prevention United States Cancer Statistics 2000 to 2019. We compared cancer incidence proportion to proportion of patients enrolled in an NCI trial when stratified by race/ethnicity, sex, and age. We performed multivariable analysis to determine the odds of participating in a clinical trial in 2015 to 2019 when compared to 2000 to 2004.

RESULTS

This study included 14,094 patients, 12,169 (86.3%) non-Hispanic White patients, 662 (4.7%) Black patients, and 660 (4.7%) Hispanic patients. There were 3,701 (26.3%) female patients and 10,393 (73.7%) male patients. For bladder cancer clinical trials, Black patients and Hispanic patients were underrepresented in clinical trials compared to Non-Hispanic White patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.88, P = 0.002) and (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.54-0.88, P = 0.003), respectively. For kidney cancer trials, Black and Hispanic patients were underrepresented in clinical trials compared to Non-Hispanic White patients (OR 0.42, OR 0.33-0.54, P < 0.001) and (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.83, P < 0.001), respectively. Women were underrepresented in kidney cancer trials compared to men (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89) and similarly for bladder cancer trials (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.81, P < 0.001). For bladder cancer trials, the participation of Black patients over time (OR 1.04, P = 0.814) and female patients over time (OR 1.03, P = 0.741) were unchanged. For kidney cancer trials, the participation of Black patients over time (OR 1.17, P = 0.293) and female patients over time (OR 1.03, P = 0.663) participation was also unchanged.

CONCLUSION

In this study of clinical trials in bladder and kidney cancer, we identified that Blacks, Hispanics, and females were underrepresented. Additionally, Black and female participation was unchanged over the span of 20 years.