Enrolling Minority and Underserved Populations in Cancer Clinical Research

From community to scale: Using community engagement to develop and validate a patient-informed cancer communication scale

OBJECTIVE

Racial disparities in clinical communication quality are well-established but most clinical communication assessment tools are created without the collaboration of racially-diverse patient populations. Our objective was to collaborate with Black and White cancer survivors, caregivers, and advocates to develop and validate a tool to assess physicians' patient-centered communication.

METHODS

A panel of Black and White cancer survivors, caregivers, and advocates (n = 11) and researchers observed and discussed video-recorded patient-physician cancer clinical interactions to generate and refine a list of physician communication behaviors considered critical for high-quality patient-centered communication. Raters applied the 22-item scale (Patient-Informed Cancer Communication Scale; PICCS) assessing physicians' patient-centered communication to video-recorded interactions (n = 61) from a larger study. We determined constructs using scale development and factor analysis and validated the scale through correlation with existing scales.

RESULTS

Factor analysis identified five factors: treatment options; clinical relationship; prognosis and goals of treatment; explanations; and context. Treatment options, prognosis and goals of treatment, and the full scale correlated with a validated patient active participation scale. Clinical relationship and context correlated with a validated physicians' patient-centered communication scale.

CONCLUSION

This community-engaged research produced a reliable and valid scale to assess physician patient-centered communication in the context of Black and White people with cancer.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

With further validation work, this scale can be used to train and assess physician communication quality when discussing cancer treatment in diverse cancer patient populations.

Strategies for recruitment and retention of diverse and underserved cancer survivor and caregiver dyads in clinical trials

Background

Cancer survivor-caregiver dyads from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups and those with lower socioeconomic status are less likely to participate in clinical research. Sociocultural and socioeconomic barriers perpetuate health inequity and increase disparities in cancer care.

Purpose

We describe our systematic approach to recruiting and retaining diverse survivor-caregiver dyads in supportive cancer care studies.

Methods

Matsuda's research recruitment guidelines of evaluate, engage, reflect, and carefully match ("EERC") were adapted and applied through a framework of six guiding principles.

Results

A systematic approach to recruitment of underrepresented dyads in cancer support research includes 1) Developing a bilingual, bicultural study team with shared language and culture of the study population, 2) Ensuring team members share a passion for cancer health equity and are trained with a community-centric approach, 3) Designing accessible interventions, study materials, and shared data collection tools across similar studies with community and stakeholder input, 4) Engaging local and regional stakeholders with expertise of health disparities among the catchment area, 5) Partnering with Community Health Workers (CHWs) and gatekeepers to enhance community presence, and 6) Ensuring careful application of matching study team members and participants beyond race and ethnicity to prioritize the cultural values and social factors that impact cancer survivors and caregivers.

Conclusion

Applying a systematic approach to recruiting and retaining underrepresented dyads in cancer research can potentially reduce sociocultural and socioeconomic barriers to cancer health equity.

Ensuring Representation: A Scoping Review of Interventions to Increase Minority Participation in Cancer-Related Research

PURPOSE

Minority representation in cancer-related clinical trials (CCTs) is often inadequate. This poses a threat to the generalizability of studies and risks promoting health inequities. This scoping review set out to examine strategies to promote minority participation in CCTs and across the entire continuity of cancer-related care.

METHODS

We reviewed articles in the following databases: EMBASE, Scopus, and PubMed. For inclusion, studies were required to focus, to a significant extent, on interventions to increase minority enrollment/retention. They were also required to objectively report the strength of these interventions, and either compare them with a control, or with a different intervention attempted.

RESULTS

After initially identifying 817 articles, we reviewed 337 articles in their entirety, and found 37 that satisfied our full list of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Five general categories of interventions emerged in these studies. These included educational interventions (n = 17), patient navigation (n = 12), community engagement (n = 8), autonomous recruitment strategies (n = 4), and financial assistance/incentives (n = 4). We then examined rates of statistical significance (for studies that assessed this). Seven of 10 articles that used education intervention strategies and assessed statistical significance demonstrated improvement in at least one variable. For patient navigation, 5/5 showed significance. For community engagement, 1/1 found a significant difference. For studies using an autonomous recruitment strategy, 2/2 showed an improvement. Finally, for financial assistance/incentives, 1/3 found a significant improvement in minority enrollment.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the critical role of tailored educational interventions and patient navigation in increasing minority participation in cancer-related clinical trials. However, all five categories of interventions showed promise. More research is needed, particularly in assessing the efficacy of multipronged approaches, to ensure adequate minority participation in CCTs.

The Importance of Including Underserved Populations in Research

This paper provides an overview of the ethical considerations surrounding the inclusion of underserved populations in later-phase clinical trials. Underserved populations, defined here as those with restricted access to or limited benefits from healthcare, often face systemic, logistical, and social barriers that limit their participation in research. This results in a lack of representation that undermines fairness in research and also hampers the development of effective inclusive healthcare practices. This paper argues that including underserved populations in research is crucial for promoting justice, increasing the generalizability of research findings, and building trust in medical institutions. It differentiates underserved populations from other populations of interest, including vulnerable, minority, and underrepresented groups. It then explores barriers to research participation and targeted solutions for four underserved populations: rural residents, racial and ethnic minorities, low-income individuals, and older adults. Strategies for improving participation include expanding trial sites to accessible locations, lowering financial and logistical barriers, broadening eligibility criteria, and fostering culturally tailored outreach and engagement. While some interventions may apply broadly across groups, effective solutions will often require intersectional and context-specific strategies tailored to each population's unique needs as well as coordinated efforts from multiple stakeholders. While these interventions alone cannot resolve healthcare inequities - as underrepresentation of underserved populations in research is just one contributing factor - their widespread implementation would represent meaningful steps toward advancing health equity.

The families SHARE project: novel insights on recruiting and engaging Black men in a community-based genomic education program

BACKGROUND

Black Americans are disproportionately affected by a number of common complex conditions, such as cancer. Genomic tools like Family Health History (FHH) can be useful in guiding screening and behavior based on a person's risk for these conditions. Factors such as family communication and societal norms can influence individuals' knowledge of their FHH. Men, particularly Black men, are less likely than women to know FHH. Further, there is limited understanding of Black men's participation in FHH dissemination, as they are often underrepresented in biomedical research. Understanding Black men's perceptions of FHH sharing may help guide effective recruitment and retention efforts in future genomic research providing an opportunity to investigate their lack of engagement in FHH conversations.

AIMS

The purpose of this paper was two-fold: (1) Detail methods that were effective in recruiting and retaining Black men in community-based genomic research interventions, and (2) Evaluate the factors influencing men's participation in FHH gathering and sharing.

METHODS

This one-year, mixed methods study combined qualitative community-based education programs (n = 12) and semi-structured interviews (n = 27), with quantitative survey assessing participant characteristics and sex differences (n = 50). Transcripts from the program were coded by separate study team members for themes and provided insights into study participants' perceptions about FHH and their involvement in gathering and disseminating this information within their family.

RESULTS

Challenges in recruiting and retaining Black men prompted the study team to pivot recruitment strategies, including partnering with community-based organizations focused on men's health, growing the research team to include Black men, adapting to potential participants' time constraints, and creating opportunities to build trust. A thematic analysis of community education sessions and interviews identified five themes, including social role expectations and perceived family disconnectedness, that provide insights into potential barriers to participation. Qualitative data from participants suggests that beliefs and perceptions about the roles Black men play in health discussions within the family may influence their involvement, while community programs were seen as encouraging men to engage in these conversations.

CONCLUSION

These lessons learned provide valuable perspectives on potential barriers to participation, which may inform future strategies that aim to engage Black men in family-oriented community education programs and genomic research.

Examining recollections of Black women with breast cancer who participated in clinical trials: A grounded practical theory study of patient-provider communication

The presence of strong barriers to research participation for Black women is indisputable. However, existing evidence supports the possibility of equal levels of participation among members of minoritized populations in past breast cancer (BC) clinical trials (CTs), demonstrating that while these participation barriers undoubtedly exist but are not insurmountable. This work aims to investigate patient-provider conversations to try to illuminate how providers can better engage Black women in communication that will positively influence their perceptions of breast cancer clinical trial participation. Fourteen women (N = 14) who self-identified as Black, Black American, or African American and who had previously or were currently involved in a BC CT participated in the grounded theory-guided study. These women were recruited through emails and social media platforms and interviewed regarding their communication with their medical providers and their pathway to CT participation. Findings revealed three primary categories: 1) participants reported the following provider types as most effective communicators: attentive, matter-of-fact, warm, or above-and beyond; 2) participants frequently received no information about CTs from their providers; and 3) cultural constructs including faith, word of mouth, and storytelling are important to the recruitment of these Black women to BC CTs. Our findings demonstrate the importance of healthcare providers adjusting their communication to meet one of the preferred provider archetypes of communication styles, understanding and incorporating cultural constructs in their communication, and providing information about BC CTs to Black women. Through improved patient-provider communication, healthcare providers may positively influence Black women's perceptions of and participation in BC CTs.

The Barriers and Enablers to Participation in Oncology Clinical Trials for Ethnically Diverse Communities: A Qualitative Systematic Review Using Metaethnography

BACKGROUND

Racial and ethnic inequities exist in cancer clinical trial participation. Low recruitment across ethnically diverse communities contributes to health inequalities further disproportionately affecting these groups. Understanding barriers and enablers to clinical trial participation for ethnic minorities is key to developing strategies to address this problem.

OBJECTIVE

To explore, evaluate, and synthesize qualitative research surrounding patients' lived experiences and perceptions of participating in cancer clinical trials from ethnically diverse groups.

METHODS

Noblit and Hare's 7-stage metaethnography was used. Seven databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were as follows: qualitative studies published in English from January 1, 2012, to January 31, 2022; patients from any ethnic minority 18 years and older with a cancer diagnosis; and cancer patients' carers and healthcare professionals (HCPs)/healthcare leaders involved in the delivery of cancer clinical trials.

RESULTS

The majority of included articles were conducted in the United States. Interpretive qualitative synthesis resulted in 7 categories including patient perceptions and beliefs and HCP perception of trial burden and social determinants of health. Four lines of argument were established.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings capture the experience and perceptions of ethnic minority patients, their carers, HCPs, and healthcare leaders in this area of research. Incongruities exist between patient-reported barriers and those perceived by HCPs. Published empirical research outside the United States is limited.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

When developing strategies to increase clinical trial participation, research literacy, cultural safety, and unconscious biases within healthcare need to be addressed. Further research to examine intersectionality and the role of faith in decision-making among ethnic groups is warranted.

Impact of Clinical Trial Design on Recruitment of Racial and Ethnic Minorities

Knowledge related to how oncology treatment trial design influences enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities is limited. Rigorous identification of clinical trial design parameters that associate favorably with minority accrual provides educational opportunities for individuals interested in designing more representative treatment trials. We identified oncology trials with a minimum of 10 patients at an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center from 2010 to 2021. We defined a study endpoint of racial and ethnic minority accrual greater than zero. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether co-variables predicted our study endpoint. P-values of less than 0.05 were considered significant. A total of 352 cancer trials met eligibility criteria. These studies enrolled a total of 7981 patients with a total of 926 racial and ethnic minorities leading to a median enrollment of 10%. Trials open in community sites (yes versus no) were more likely to have a minority patient (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.02-4.96) as well as pilot/phase I studies compared to phase II/III (OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.34-8.26). Trials incorporating immunotherapy (yes versus no) were less likely to have a minority patient (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23-0.94). Trials open in community sites as well as early phase treatment studies were more likely to accrue minority patients. However, studies including immunotherapy were less likely to accrue racial and ethnic minorities. Knowledge gained from our analysis may help individuals design oncology treatment trials that are representative of more diverse populations.

Online-delivered resistance exercise intervention among racially diverse breast cancer survivors: Feasibility, acceptability, and exploratory outcomes of B-REP

PURPOSE

The aims are to determine the feasibility of an online-delivered resistance exercise program among racially diverse breast cancer survivors and to conduct an exploratory analysis of the intervention on muscular strength, physical activity levels, health-related quality of life, and self-efficacy.

METHODS

A 2-arm randomized controlled trial study design with assessments at pre- and post-intervention was used. Participants (n = 52) were recruited from clinics at the host institution and randomized to either intervention (n = 28) or minimal contact control (MCC) conditions (n = 24). All participants received a 12-week individualized resistance exercise prescription based on their baseline functional strength assessment. Intervention participants exercised one-on-one once per week over Zoom with an exercise trainer. MCC participants received no supervision. Descriptive statistics were used to determine feasibility and acceptability (primary outcomes). Repeated measures ANOVAs were used to examine exploratory outcomes.

RESULTS

The intervention demonstrated high rates for feasibility outcomes of enrollment (80.0%) and post-intervention assessment completion (92.9%). Acceptability outcomes were high for session attendance (98.0%) and satisfaction (Mscore = 4.87 out of 5, SD = .18). The intervention group increased upper- (p < .01) and lower- (p < .02) body strength compared to MCC condition.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention was feasible, acceptable, and demonstrated increases in muscular strength. Limitations include a small sample recruited from one cancer center. Future research is needed to determine longitudinal impacts of resistance exercise on survivorship outcomes. Online-delivered resistance exercise shows promising efficacy among racially diverse breast cancer survivors.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov registration: NCT04562233 on September 18, 2020.

More than Just a Number: Perspectives from Black Male Participants on Community-Based Interventions and Clinical Trials to Address Cardiovascular Health Disparities

BACKGROUND

Black Americans remain significantly underrepresented and understudied in research. Community-based interventions have been increasingly recognized as an effective model for reckoning with clinical trial participation challenges amongst underrepresented groups, yet a paucity of studies implement this approach. The present study sought to gain insight into Black male participants' perception of clinical trials before and after participating in a community-based team lifestyle intervention in the United States.

METHODS

Black Impact, a 24-week community-based lifestyle intervention, applied the American Heart Association's Life's Simple 7 (LS7) framework to assess changes in the cardiovascular health of seventy-four Black male participants partaking in weekly team-based physical activities and LS7-themed education and having their social needs addressed. A subset of twenty participants completed an exit survey via one of three semi-structured focus groups aimed at understanding the feasibility of interventions, including their perceptions of participating in clinical trials. Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a content analysis, which involved systematically identifying, coding, categorizing, and interpreting the primary patterns of the data.

RESULTS

The participants reported a positive change in their perceptions of clinical trials based on their experience with a community-based lifestyle intervention. Three prominent themes regarding their perceptions of clinical trials prior to the intervention were as follows: (1) History of medical abuse; (2) Lack of diversity amongst research teams and participants; and (3) A positive experience with racially concordant research teams. Three themes noted to influence changes in their perception of clinical trials based on their participation in Black Impact were as follows: (1) Building trust with the research team; (2) Increasing awareness about clinical trials; and (3) Motivating participation through community engagement efforts.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved perceptions of participating in clinical trials were achieved after participation in a community-based intervention. This intervention may provide a framework by which to facilitate clinical trial participation among Black men, which must be made a priority so that Black men are "more than just a number" and no longer "receiving the short end of the stick".

Diversity in Orthopaedic Surgery: What Is Next? What is Needed Collectively? How Do You Go About Effecting Positive Change?

Orthopedic surgery as a field is the least diverse medical specialty. Multiple factors contribute to the lack of diversity, including lack of diversity in medical school, lack of role models and mentors, and discrimination and bias. Addressing the lack of diversity includes use of data, implementation of targeted pipeline programs, individual physician advocacy, institutional recruitment and DEI initiatives, and leadership from professional organizations. Targeted pipeline programs and role models and mentors are very effective in increasing diversity. Cultural change is occurring, and the future orthopaedic workforce will be more diverse.

Future of Treatment of Adolescents and Young Adults With ALL: A Vision for Collaboration and Equity

Over the past several decades, survival of children with ALL has improved dramatically with treatment regimens refined through cooperative group trials. Despite aggressive treatment and iterative therapy changes for adolescents and young adults (AYAs), improvement has not been as promising. Comparisons between pediatric and adult clinical trials have consistently demonstrated superior outcomes for AYAs treated on pediatric ALL protocols, leading to the implementation of pediatric-inspired ALL protocols by several groups worldwide and/or expansion of the age limit of pediatric trials to include the full spectrum of the AYA population. Despite these efforts, AYAs in both pediatric and adult settings continue to have inferior survival compared with younger children with ALL. Real-world data suggest that uptake of pediatric-style treatment is variable, and even with identical pediatric-style treatment, AYAs still fare worse than younger children. As we enter an era of immunotherapy and precision medicine for newly diagnosed ALL, now is an opportune time to consider how best to approach future therapy for AYA patients. Comparisons of pediatric and adult treatment approaches and subanalyses of AYA patients will help guide harmonization of treatment. The focus of the next stage of ALL therapy for AYA should not only involve novel treatment approaches but also standardization and optimization of supportive care measures, psychosocial support, adherence interventions, oncofertility treatment, and survivorship care. All these efforts should simultaneously work to address health disparities to ensure that a future of improved outcomes is experienced equitably for all AYA patients.

Racial and Ethnic Distribution in Diabetic Macular Edema Clinical Trials in the United States (2002-2021)

PURPOSE

Diabetic macular edema (DME), the leading cause of vision loss among patients with diabetes mellitus, disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic patients. Currently, non-White racial and ethnic subgroups are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting the application of results to the most pertinent patient populations. Thus, we aimed to characterize the trajectory of racial reporting as well as changes and disparities in racial and ethnic distribution among participants of DME clinical trials.

DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional retrospective study.

SUBJECTS

Patients enrolled in United States (US)-based clinical trials for DME.

METHODS

We examined the racial and ethnic demographic distribution of participants in clinical trials related to DME across a 20-year period from 2002 to 2021. Clinical trials were screened from ClinicalTrials.gov for DME, US trial location, study completion, and > 50 patient enrollment. Descriptive statistics, proportions, odds ratios (ORs), and chi-square tests were reported and compared with 2021 US Census demographic data and diagnosed patients with diabetes demographic data.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Change in racial reporting and race/ethnicity across 2 decades and comparison of racial/ethnic distribution with 2021 US Census demographics and diagnosed patients with diabetes.

RESULTS

There was an increase in race reporting from January 2002 to December 2011 (8 trials [40%]) versus January 2012 to December 2021 (20 trials [87%]; OR, 10.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.21-45.16; P = 0.0032). Across the 2 decades, the proportion of Asian patients enrolled increased from 2.4% to 8.0% (OR, 3.47; 95% CI, 2.64-4.56; P < 0.0001). Similarly, the proportion of enrolled Hispanic patients increased from 13.4% to 19.5% (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.37-1.78; P < 0.0001). Compared with diabetes prevalence, many minority groups are underrepresented in the total enrollment of DME clinical trial patients (Black [z = -18.51, P < 0.001]; Asian [z = -5.11, P < 0.0001]; Hispanic [chi-square = 274.7, df = 1, P < 0.0001]).

CONCLUSIONS

In the past 2 decades, there has been a trend of increased racial reporting and minority patient enrollment in DME clinical trials. However, Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients remain significantly underrepresented among the DME clinical trial patient population based on diabetes prevalence.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Interpretive Qualitative Evaluation Informs Research Participation and Advocacy Training Program for Seniors: A Pilot Study

Background: An 8-week educational intervention co-taught by medical students and faculty was designed to foster communication between clinical researchers and populations of interest to ultimately increase participation in clinical research by older adults, including underrepresented groups. Weekly topics focused on age-related changes and health conditions, socio-contextual factors impacting aging populations, and wellness strategies. Objectives: To evaluate the successes and weaknesses of an educational intervention aimed at increasing the participation of older adults in clinical research. Design: A focus group was assembled after an 8-week educational intervention, titled DREAMS, to obtain participants' feedback on the program, following a pre-formulated interview guide. Settings: Participants were interviewed in a health center office environment in the United States of America in April of 2016. Participants: A post-intervention focus group was conducted with a group of eight older adults (mean age = 75.8 ± 11.4 years) from 51 total participants who completed the intervention. Methods: The focus group was interviewed loosely following a pre-formed question guide. Participants were encouraged to give honest feedback. The conversation was recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analyses. Results: While participants viewed most aspects of the study as a success and stated that it was a productive learning experience, most participants had suggestions for improvements in the program content and implementation. Specifically, the composition of and direction to small breakout groups should be carefully considered and planned in this population, and attention should be paid to the delivery of sensitive topic such as death and dementia. A clear main benefit of this programmatic approach is the development of a rapport amongst participants and between participants and clinical researchers. Conclusions: The results provide useful insights regarding improving participation among hard-to-reach and historically underrepresented groups of older adults in clinical research. Future iterations of this program and similar educational interventions can use these findings to better achieve the programmatic objectives.

REPRESENT recommendations: improving inclusion and trust in cancer early detection research

Detecting cancer early is essential to improving cancer outcomes. Minoritized groups remain underrepresented in early detection cancer research, which means that findings and interventions are not generalisable across the population, thus exacerbating disparities in cancer outcomes. In light of these challenges, this paper sets out twelve recommendations to build relations of trust and include minoritized groups in ED cancer research. The Recommendations were formulated by a range of stakeholders at the 2022 REPRESENT consensus-building workshop and are based on empirical data, including a systematic literature review and two ethnographic case studies in the US and the UK. The recommendations focus on: Long-term relationships that build trust; Sharing available resources; Inclusive and accessible communication; Harnessing community expertise; Unique risks and benefits; Compensation and support; Representative samples; Demographic data; Post-research support; Sharing results; Research training; Diversifying research teams. For each recommendation, the paper outlines the rationale, specifications for how different stakeholders may implement it, and advice for best practices. Instead of isolated recruitment, public involvement and engagement activities, the recommendations here aim to advance mutually beneficial and trusting relationships between researchers and research participants embedded in ED cancer research institutions.

Interpreting Randomized Controlled Trials

This article describes rationales and limitations for making inferences based on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We argue that obtaining a representative random sample from a patient population is impossible for a clinical trial because patients are accrued sequentially over time and thus comprise a convenience sample, subject only to protocol entry criteria. Consequently, the trial's sample is unlikely to represent a definable patient population. We use causal diagrams to illustrate the difference between random allocation of interventions within a clinical trial sample and true simple or stratified random sampling, as executed in surveys. We argue that group-specific statistics, such as a median survival time estimate for a treatment arm in an RCT, have limited meaning as estimates of larger patient population parameters. In contrast, random allocation between interventions facilitates comparative causal inferences about between-treatment effects, such as hazard ratios or differences between probabilities of response. Comparative inferences also require the assumption of transportability from a clinical trial's convenience sample to a targeted patient population. We focus on the consequences and limitations of randomization procedures in order to clarify the distinctions between pairs of complementary concepts of fundamental importance to data science and RCT interpretation. These include internal and external validity, generalizability and transportability, uncertainty and variability, representativeness and inclusiveness, blocking and stratification, relevance and robustness, forward and reverse causal inference, intention to treat and per protocol analyses, and potential outcomes and counterfactuals.

Clinical Outcomes and Immune Markers by Race in a Phase I/II Clinical Trial of Durvalumab Concomitant with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Early-Stage TNBC

PURPOSE

The incidence of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is higher among Black or African American (AA) women, yet they are underrepresented in clinical trials. To evaluate safety and efficacy of durvalumab concurrent with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage I-III TNBC by race, we enrolled additional AA patients to a Phase I/II clinical trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Our study population included 67 patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR; ypT0/is, N0) rate. χ2 tests were used to evaluate associations between race and baseline characteristics. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess association between race and overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate associations between race and pCR, immune-related adverse events (irAE) and recurrence.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients (31%) self-identified as AA. No significant associations between race and baseline tumor stage (P = 0.40), PD-L1 status (0.92), and stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (sTIL) count (P = 0.57) were observed. pCR rates were similar between AA (43%) and non-AA patients (48%; P = 0.71). Three-year EFS rates were 78.3% and 71.4% in non-AA and AA patients, respectively [HR, 1.451; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.524-4.017; P = 0.474]; 3-year OS was 87% and 81%, respectively (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 0.481-6.136; P = 0.405). The incidence of irAEs was similar between AA and non-AA patients and no significant associations were found between irAEs and pathologic response.

CONCLUSIONS

pCR rates, 3-year OS and EFS after neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy were similar in AA and non-AA patients. Toxicities, including the frequency of irAEs, were also similar.

A Systematic Review of Ethnoracial Participation in Randomized Clinical Trials of Behavioral Activation

As of the last available NIH report, people of color (POC) constituted 28.1% of enrollment across all U.S. domestic clinical trials. The literature on prevalence rates of depression among POC is mixed. While the prevalence rates of depression may vary across POC, it remains unknown to what degree POC have been included in outcome clinical trials of depression since NIH's mandates for inclusion of minorities in clinical outcome research. Following PRISMA guidelines, the present review identified randomized controlled trials of behavioral activation from 1989 to 2021 using the following search engines: PsycINFO, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We reviewed 5,247 articles and included 28 articles that met full inclusion criteria (n = 5,169 participants). Across studies included in this review, 70% were non-Latinx White, 14.1% were African American, 8.9% were Latinx, 0.5% were Asian, 2.9% were other, and 3.7% were unknown. Results indicated an increase in representation of ethnoracial inclusion rates across time and that recruitment method was not associated with adequate inclusion of POC. However, the university setting was associated with inadequate representation of POC.

A Scoping Review of Strategies to Increase Black Enrollment and Retention in Cancer Clinical Trials

To address health disparities faced by Black patients with cancer, it is critical that researchers conducting cancer clinical trials (CCTs) equitably recruit and retain Black participants, develop strategies toward this aim, and document associated outcomes. This narrative scoping literature review, as part of a larger study, aimed to identify, describe, and categorize strategies and interventions intended to improve the recruitment and retention of Black participants with breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, or multiple myeloma cancer into CCTs. We conducted comprehensive searches in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science with three main concepts: Black persons, neoplasms, and clinical trial recruitment. The search resulted in 1,506 articles, of which 15 met inclusion criteria. Five main categories of recruitment and retention strategies and interventions were identified based on their specific population focus and type of approach: (1) participant identification, (2) provider awareness/resources, (3) focused research staff interventions, (4) patient and community-focused awareness strategies, and (5) participant-directed resources. Thirteen studies had recruitment acceptance rates of over 30%. Eight studies with acceptance rates of ≥ 50% reported implementing ≥ 5 strategies, with an average use of seven strategies across multiple categories. Five studies with acceptance rates ≥ 50% implemented strategies in ≥ 3 categories. Four studies reported retention rates ≥ 74%. Three studies with reported retention rates ≥ 74% used strategies in ≥ 3 categories, and all included strategies aimed at meeting participant needs beyond the study. Our results show that many efforts that aim to increase the recruitment and retention of Black participants into CCTs have great potential, but the most promising strategies use a multiprong approach.

Cancer clinical trials in the Philippines

In this Commentary, we discuss disparities in resources for and access to cancer trials from the perspective of the Philippines, a lower-middle-income country in Southeast Asia, where cancer is the fourth leading cause of death. Geographic disparities play out such that academic institutions and clinical trials are centralized in the island of Luzon, particularly in the capital, Manila. These disparities are compounded by the lack of comprehensive cancer patient and clinical trial registries in the Philippines. Additionally, sociocultural considerations influence clinical trial implementation. Providers must consider the role of a patient's family in the decision to participate in clinical trials; a patient's degree of health literacy; and the economic burden of cancer care, with attention to both the direct and indirect financial toxicities associated with cancer care. Our call to action is threefold. (1) Bolster locally led trials and encourage international collaboration to improve diversity in trial participation and trials' generalizability. (2) Strengthen national trial registries to improve awareness of trials for which patients are eligible. (3) Integrate cultural competency frameworks that move beyond parachutism and parasitism in research and instead promote trust, reciprocity, and collaboration. These challenges may yet evolve, but in emphasizing these barriers, we hope to kindle further dialogue, new insights, and innovative action towards solving these disparities in cancer research, not just in the Philippines, but also in other low- and middle-income countries.

Association Between Food and Drug Administration Approval and Disparities in Immunotherapy Use Among Patients With Cancer in the US

Importance

Clinical trials and compassionate use agreements provide selected patients with access to potentially life-saving treatments before approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Approval from the FDA decreases a number of access barriers; however, it is unknown whether FDA approval is associated with increases in the equitable use of novel therapies and reductions in disparities in use among patients with cancer in the US.

Objective

To assess the association between FDA drug approval and disparities in the use of immunotherapy across health, sociodemographic, and socioeconomic strata before and after approval of the first checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of patients with cancer in the US.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used data from the National Cancer Database to examine the use of immunotherapy across health, sociodemographic, and socioeconomic strata before and after FDA approval of the first checkpoint inhibitor therapies. A total of 402 689 patients 20 years or older who were diagnosed with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), or melanoma of the skin between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2018 (specific years varied by tumor type), were included.

Exposures

Patient health (Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score and age), sociodemographic characteristics (sex, race, and ethnicity), and socioeconomic (insurance status and household income based on zip code of residence) characteristics.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The association of patient characteristics with receipt of immunotherapy was evaluated in the 4 years before and the 3 years immediately after FDA approval using multivariable logistic regression modeling.

Results

Among 402 689 patients (median [IQR] age, 68 [60-76 years]; 225 081 men [55.9%]), 347 233 had NSCLC, 43 714 had RCC, and 11 742 patients had melanoma. A total of 47 527 patients (11.8%) were Black, 15 763 (3.9%) were Hispanic, 375 874 (93.3%) were non-Hispanic, 335 833 (83.4%) were White, and 16 553 (4.1%) were of other races. Before FDA approval, 6271 patients (3.2%) with NSCLC, 1155 patients (4.8%) with RCC, and 504 patients (8.6%) with melanoma received immunotherapy compared with 23 908 patients (15.6%) with NSCLC, 3890 patients (19.7%) with RCC, and 1143 patients (19.3%) with melanoma after FDA approval. Before FDA approval, sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics were associated with variable immunotherapy administration by tumor type. For example, among those with NSCLC, Black patients were less likely to receive immunotherapy than White patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.78; 95% CI ,0.71-0.85; P < .001); among those with RCC, uninsured patients were less likely to receive immunotherapy than privately insured patients (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.48; P < .001). After FDA approval, most disparities persisted, but several narrowed (eg, Black patients with NSCLC: OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.83-0.91; P < .001]; uninsured patients with RCC: OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.48-0.75; P < .001]). Although many disparities remained, some gaps across socioeconomic characteristics appeared to widen (eg, patients with NSCLC in the lowest vs highest income quartile: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.83; P < .001), and new gaps emerged (eg, Black patients with RCC: OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P = .003).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, disparities in immunotherapy use existed across a number of sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics among patients with NSCLC, RCC, and melanoma before FDA approval, including during the important period when clinical trials were accruing patients. Although FDA approval was associated with a significant increase in the use of immunotherapy, gaps persisted, suggesting that FDA approval may not eliminate disparities in the use of novel therapies.

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials: An American Society of Clinical Oncology and Association of Community Cancer Centers Joint Research Statement

A concerted commitment across research stakeholders is necessary to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and address barriers to cancer clinical trial recruitment and participation. Racial and ethnic diversity among trial participants is key to understanding intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may affect patient response to cancer treatments. This ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Research Statement presents specific recommendations and strategies for the research community to improve EDI in cancer clinical trials. There are six overarching recommendations: (1) clinical trials are an integral component of high-quality cancer care, and every person with cancer should have the opportunity to participate; (2) trial sponsors and investigators should design and implement trials with a focus on reducing barriers and enhancing EDI, and work with sites to conduct trials in ways that increase participation of under-represented populations; (3) trial sponsors, researchers, and sites should form long-standing partnerships with patients, patient advocacy groups, and community leaders and groups; (4) anyone designing or conducting trials should complete recurring education, training, and evaluation to demonstrate and maintain cross-cultural competencies, mitigation of bias, effective communication, and a commitment to achieving EDI; (5) research stakeholders should invest in programs and policies that increase EDI in trials and in the research workforce; and (6) research stakeholders should collect and publish aggregate data on racial and ethnic diversity of trial participants when reporting results of trials, programs, and interventions to increase EDI. The recommendations are intended to serve as a guide for the research community to improve participation rates among people from racial and ethnic minority populations historically under-represented in cancer clinical trials. ASCO and ACCC will work at all levels to advance the recommendations in this publication.

Including migrant oncology patients in research: A multisite pilot randomised controlled trial testing consultation audio-recordings and question prompt lists

Background

Oncology patients who are migrants or refugees face worse outcomes due to language and communication barriers impacting care. Interventions such as consultation audio-recordings and question prompt lists may prove beneficial in mediating communication challenges. However, designing robust research inclusive of patients who do not speak English is challenging. This study therefore aimed to: a) pilot test and assess the appropriateness of the proposed research design and methods for engaging migrant populations, and b) determine whether a multi-site RCT efficacy assessment of the communication intervention utilising these methods is feasible.

Methods

This study is a mixed-methods parallel-group, randomised controlled feasibility pilot trial. Feasibility outcomes comprised assessment of: i) screening and recruitment processes, ii) design and procedures, and iii) research time and costing. The communication intervention comprised audio-recordings of a key medical consultation with an interpreter, and question prompt lists and cancer information translated into Arabic, Greek, Traditional, and Simplified Chinese.

Results

Assessment of feasibility parameters revealed that despite barriers, methods utilised in this study supported the inclusion of migrant oncology patients in research. A future multi-site RCT efficacy assessment of the INFORM communication intervention using these methods is feasible if recommendations to strengthen screening and recruitment are adopted. Importantly, hiring of bilingual research assistants, and engagement with community and consumer advocates is essential. Early involvement of clinical and interpreting staff as key stakeholders is likewise recommended.

Conclusion

Results from this feasibility RCT help us better understand and overcome the challenges and misconceptions about including migrant patients in clinical research.

•

Migrant oncology patients face worse health outcomes due to language barriers.

•

Consultation recording and question prompt lists are effective communication interventions.

•

Designing robust research methods which overcome language barriers is important and achievable.

•

Engaging with community advocates and hiring of bilingual staff are research design strategies.

Accrual and Retention of Diverse Patients in Psychosocial Cancer Clinical Trials

Background:

Minority and older adult patients remain underrepresented in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). The current study sought to examine sociodemographic inequities in CCT interest, eligibility, enrollment, decline motivation, and attrition across two psychosocial CCTs for gynecologic, gastrointestinal, and thoracic cancers.

Methods:

Patients were approached for recruitment to one of two interventions: (1) a randomized control trial (RCT) examining effects of a cognitive-behavioral intervention targeting sleep, pain, mood, cytokines, and cortisol following surgery, or (2) a yoga intervention to determine its feasibility, acceptability, and effects on mitigating distress. Prospective RCT participants were queried about interest and screened for eligibility. All eligible patients across trials were offered enrollment. Patients who declined yoga intervention enrollment provided reasons for decline. Sociodemographic predictors of enrollment decisions and attrition were explored.

Results:

No sociodemographic differences in RCT interest were observed, and older patients were more likely to be ineligible. Eligible Hispanic patients across trials were significantly more likely to enroll than non-Hispanic patients. Sociodemographic factors predicted differences in decline motivation. In one trial, individuals originating from more urban areas were more likely to prematurely discontinue participation.

Discussion:

These results corroborate evidence of no significant differences in CCT interest across minority groups, with older adults less likely to fulfill eligibility criteria. While absolute Hispanic enrollment was modest, Hispanic patients were more likely to enroll relative to non-Hispanic patients. Additional sociodemographic trends were noted in decline motivation and geographical prediction of attrition. Further investigation is necessary to better understand inequities, barriers, and best recruitment practices for representative CCTs.

Prevalence and correlates of invitation to participate in clinical trials among US adults

•

Only 9% of respondents to HINTS 2020 Cycle 5 reported being ever invited to a clinical trial.

•

Invitation prevalence differed by race, age, education, location, and cancer history.

•

Blacks reported the highest prevalence of invitation and Asians reported the lowest.

•

Older patients were invited more often to participate in clinical trials than younger patients.

•

Invitation prevalence was higher for college graduates and for cancer patients or survivors.

•

Invitation odds were lower for patients in rural areas/small towns than those in metro areas.

Clinical trials are essential to modern medicine, but several barriers, including poor communication, hamper their successful completion. We examined the prevalence and correlates of invitation to participate in clinical trials among a nationally-representative sample of US adults using survey responses from the 2020 HINTS (Cycle 5). Analyses were conducted in 2021.

Overall, 9% of respondents reported being invited to a clinical trial, a prevalence that is nearly half of previously reported rates in convenience samples recruited from health care settings. Compared to non-Hispanic Whites, Black respondents reported the higher prevalence of invitation (16.0%) whereas Asian respondents reported the lowest (2%). Prevalence of clinical trial invitation was significantly higher for the 65–74 age and the 75 + age groups. Prevalence of invitation was significantly higher among college graduates (12.0%) and lower for those residing in rural areas/small towns compared to metropolitan areas. Invitation was significantly higher among cancer patients/survivors (16.0%), patients with diabetes (11.7%) and with chronic lung disease (16.7%). Provider and patient factors there were associated with higher invitation rates included using web devices to communicate with providers or to aid health-related discussions, having a specific medical provider, and looking for health information online.

This study establishes a population-based prevalence of clinical trial communication that can be monitored as health care providers/organizations increase their focus on enrollment activities. Targeted interventions to improve communication about clinical trials are needed to address socio-demographic disparities and are particularly important for Asian patients, patients with lower income, and those living in rural areas.

Under-served groups remain underserved as eligibility criteria routinely exclude them from breast cancer trials

OBJECTIVES

Under-served groups are populations unrepresented or disengaged from medical research or services despite a disproportionately high healthcare burden. Under-served groups may be directly (age, pregnancy as examples) or indirectly excluded (provision of written information in one language only as example) from trial enrolment by strict eligibility exclusions. The purpose of our study was to assess eligibility criteria in published phase III breast cancer clinical trials to determine whether they excluded under-served groups either directly, or indirectly.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Medline was searched for phase III randomised controlled trials evaluating interventional drugs for breast cancer in high-impact journals published between January 1^st, 2010 and December 31st, 2020. 5133 eligible trials were returned and 40 selected, by simple randomization, for inclusion.

RESULTS

All 40 trials had multiple exclusions that affected recruitment of under-served groups. Clinical or scientific rationale for the recorded inclusion and exclusion criteria was under-reported in 39 of 40 trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trial eligibility criteria exclude under-served groups from breast cancer trials. Trialists should provide a justification for each eligibility criterion and funders, reviewers, ethics committees, and others should demand one. Without this under-served groups will remain just that: under-served.

Who's included? The role of the Clinical Research Nurse in enabling research participation for under-represented and under-served groups

Background

There is a global call for more inclusive clinical research that is representative of all populations, particularly those historically under-represented or under-served. A lack of broad representation results in disproportionate health outcomes and limits the applicability and translation of research findings.

Aim

Identify and describe barriers to participation across the research lifecycle and consider the role of the Clinical Research Nurse (CRN) in promoting inclusivity, including for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples within Australia.

Discussion

Review of recent literature and best practice identified barriers to research participation across the research process; at system, participant and practitioner levels. This discussion paper explores the role of the CRN; acting as enablers, facilitators and navigators, to mitigate participation barriers.

Conclusion

With their comprehensive understanding of the research process, clinical care pathways, reflective practices and participant-centred approaches, CRNs are uniquely positioned to advocate for greater equity in access to clinical research and to motivate stakeholders across the research enterprise to embed inclusive approaches in the design, conduct and dissemination of research.

Implications for Practice

An in-depth understanding of the research process, self, and cultural norms of the populations they serve is essential for CRNs to effectively advocate for equity in access to research.

Ethical Considerations in Clinical Trials for Disorders of Consciousness

As the clinical trial landscape for patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) expands, consideration of associated ethical challenges and opportunities is of ever-increasing importance. Responsible conduct of research in the vulnerable population of persons with DoC, including those with coma, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS), minimally conscious state (MCS), covert cortical processing (CCP), and cognitive motor dissociation (CMD), demands proactive deliberation of unique ethical issues that may arise and the adoption of robust protections to safeguard patients, surrogates, and other key stakeholders. Here we identify and critically evaluate four central categories of ethical considerations in clinical trials involving participants with DoC: (1) autonomy, respect for persons and informed consent of individuals with liminal consciousness; (2) balancing unknown benefits and risks, especially considering the epistemological gap between behavior and consciousness that complicates ordinary ascription of subjective states; (3) disclosure to surrogates and clinical teams of investigational results pertaining to consciousness; and (4) justice considerations, including equitable access to clinical trial enrollment across communities and geographies. We outline guiding principles and research opportunities for clinicians, neuroethicists, and researchers engaged in DoC clinical trials to advance ethical study design and deployment in this complex yet crucial area of investigation.

Diversity in modern heart failure trials: Where are we, and where are we going

Over the last three decades, increased attention has been given to the representation of historically underrepresented groups within the landscape of pivotal clinical trials. However, recent events (i.e., coronavirus pandemic) have laid bare the potential continuation of historic inequities in available clinical trials and studies aimed at the care of broad patient populations. Anecdotally, cardiovascular disease (CVD) has not been immune to these disparities. Within this review, we examine and discuss recent landmark CVD trials, with a specific focus on the representation of Blacks within several critically foundational heart failure clinical trials tied to contemporary treatment strategies and drug approvals. We also discuss solutions for inequities within the landscape of cardiovascular trials. Building a more diverse clinical trial workforce coupled with intentional efforts to increase clinical trial diversity will advance equity in cardiovascular care.

The cost of cancer care: how far would you go for a trial?

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are often considered the gold standard in cancer care. However, patients face barriers in trial participation including distances to cancer centres and personal costs including changing employment status, cost of medications, inpatient admissions, and parking tariffs.

AIM

Our aim was to compare the distances patients travelled for clinical trials compared to those receiving standard systemic anticancer therapy (SACT). We also investigated the additional costs associated with this.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of electronic patient medical records. The distance from the patients' home address to Beaumont was calculated as a one-way journey in kilometres. Patients attending for clinical trials were compared to those receiving standard of care SACT.

RESULTS

A total of 271 patients receiving standard SACT over a 5-day period and 111 patients enrolled on 24 clinical trials were included. The median one-way distance travelled by patients enrolled in clinical trials was 41.4 km, compared to 14 km in those patients' receiving standard of care SACT. The median estimated cost was €13 vs €4.20 for those enrolled on clinical trials compared to those receiving standard of care treatment, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients enrolled on clinical trials often travel more than twice as far to receive their anti-cancer treatment compared to those receiving standard of care SACT and incur an increased cost of travel expenses.

Promoting inclusion in clinical trials-a rapid review of the literature and recommendations for action

Background

Without inclusion of diverse research participants, it is challenging to understand how study findings will translate into the real world. Despite this, a lack of inclusion of those from under-served groups in research is a prevailing problem due to multi-faceted barriers acting at multiple levels. Therefore, we rapidly reviewed international published literature, in relation to clinical trials, on barriers relating to inclusion, and evidence of approaches that are effective in overcoming these.

Methods

A rapid literature review was conducted searching PubMed for peer-reviewed articles that discussed barriers to inclusion or strategies to improve inclusion in clinical trial research published between 2010 and 2021. Grey literature articles were excluded.

Results

Seventy-two eligible articles were included. The main barriers identified were language and communication, lack of trust, access to trials, eligibility criteria, attitudes and beliefs, lack of knowledge around clinical trials, and logistical and practical issues. In relation to evidence-based strategies and enablers, two key themes arose: [1] a multi-faceted approach is essential [2]; no single strategy was universally effective either within or between trials. The key evidence-based strategies identified were cultural competency training, community partnerships, personalised approach, multilingual materials and staff, communication-specific strategies, increasing understanding and trust, and tackling logistical barriers.

Conclusions

Many of the barriers relating to inclusion are the same as those that impact trial design and healthcare delivery generally. However, the presentation of these barriers among different under-served groups may be unique to each population’s particular circumstances, background, and needs. Based on the literature, we make 15 recommendations that, if implemented, may help improve inclusion within clinical trials and clinical research more generally. The three main recommendations include improving cultural competency and sensitivity of all clinical trial staff through training and ongoing personal development, the need to establish a diverse community advisory panel for ongoing input into the research process, and increasing recruitment of staff from under-served groups. Implementation of these recommendations may help improve representation of under-served groups in clinical trials which would improve the external validity of associated findings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05849-7.

Disparities in Clinical Trial Participation: Multilevel Opportunities for Improvement

Current data demonstrate ongoing inequities in surgical oncology clinical trials and understanding these disparities is vital to creating a more just and equitable health care system. Analysis of participatory patterns in cooperative group surgical oncology trials demonstrates complex relationships between race, socioeconomic status, and participation in these trials at the patient level. Further analysis reveals that provider-level implicit bias plays a significant role in access to clinical trials by minority populations. Holistic approaches to addressing disparities in clinical trial participation include creating a more robust pipeline of minority surgeon-scientists, engaging in partnerships with community advocates, and promoting public policy.

Prescreening to Increase Therapeutic Oncology Trial Enrollment at the Largest Public Hospital in the United States

PURPOSE

The recruitment of underserved patients into therapeutic oncology trials is imperative. The National Institutes of Health mandates the inclusion of minorities in clinical research, although their participation remains under-represented. Institutions have used data mining to match patients to clinical trials. In a public health care system, such expensive tools are unavailable.

METHODS

The NYU Clinical Trials Office implemented a quality improvement program at Bellevue Hospital Cancer Center to increase therapeutic trial enrollment. Patients are screened through the electronic medical record, tumor board conferences, and the cancer registry. Our analysis evaluated two variables: number of patients identified and those enrolled into clinical trials.

RESULTS

Two years before the program, there were 31 patients enrolled. For a period of 24 months (July 2017 to July 2019), we identified 255 patients, of whom 143 (56.1%) were enrolled. Of those enrolled, 121 (84.6%) received treatment, and 22 (15%) were screen failures. Fifty-five (38.5%) were referred to NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center for therapy. Of the total enrollees, 64% were female, 56% were non-White, and overall median age was 55 years (range: 33-88 years). Our participants spoke 16 different languages, and 57% were non-English-speaking. We enrolled patients into eight different disease categories, with 38% recruited to breast cancer trials. Eighty-three percent of our patients reside in low-income areas, with 62% in both low-income and Health Professional Shortage Areas.

CONCLUSION

Prescreening at Bellevue has led to a 4.6-fold increase in patient enrollment to clinical trials. Future research into using prescreening programs at public institutions may improve access to clinical trials for underserved populations.

Recruitment of African Americans into Cancer Clinical Research: Strategies and Outcomes

This study utilized data from four cancer-focused research studies that recruited and retained African Americans. Strategies and outcomes across four cancer prevention and control studies were analyzed. Descriptive statistics were used to display participant characteristics. There were 712 African American (Black) participants of which 14.6% were males. Common strategies involved connecting with community stakeholders and identifying study champions. Study recruitment methods might not be generalizable to all populations of African Americans due to geographic locations, study protocols (e.g., risk reduction), target populations (i.e., eligibility criteria), and available resources. Many African Americans have a strong interest in cancer-related research as demonstrated by participation levels. Teams that connect with relevant stakeholders and include diverse teams may be useful to engage larger numbers of minorities in cancer control research to impact morbidity and mortality.

Impervious to Randomness: Confounding and Selection Biases in Randomized Clinical Trials

The random allocation of therapies in randomized clinical trials is a powerful tool that removes all confounding biases that can affect treatment assignment. However, confounders influencing mediators of the treatment effect are unaffected by randomization and should be considered during trial design and statistical modeling.Examples of such mediators include biomarkers predictive of response to targeted therapies in oncology. Patient selection for such biomarkers is prudent in clinical trials. Conversely, prognostic information on outcome heterogeneity can be derived from observational datasets that include more representative populations. The fusion of experimental and observational data can then allow patient-specific inferences.

Barriers to and Facilitators of Recruitment of Adult African American Men for Colorectal Cancer Research: An Instrumental Exploratory Case Study

PURPOSE

Racial and ethnic minorities remain underrepresented in research and clinical trials. Better understanding of the components of effective minority recruitment into research studies is critical to understanding and reducing health disparities. Research on recruitment strategies for cancer-specific research-including colorectal cancer (CRC)-among African American men is particularly limited. We present an instrumental exploratory case study examining successful and unsuccessful strategies for recruiting African American men into focus groups centered on identifying barriers to and facilitators of CRC screening completion.

METHODS

The parent qualitative study was designed to explore the social determinants of CRC screening uptake among African American men 45-75 years of age. Recruitment procedures made use of community-based participatory research strategies combined with built community relationships, including the use of trusted community members, culturally tailored marketing materials, and incentives.

RESULTS

Community involvement and culturally tailored marketing materials facilitated recruitment. Barriers to recruitment included limited access to public spaces, transportation difficulties, and medical mistrust leading to reluctance to participate.

CONCLUSION

The use of strategies such as prioritizing community relationship building, partnering with community leaders and gatekeepers, and using culturally tailored marketing materials can successfully overcome barriers to the recruitment of African American men into medical research studies. To improve participation and recruitment rates among racial and ethnic minorities in cancer-focused research studies, future researchers and clinical trial investigators should aim to broaden recruitment, strengthen community ties, offer incentives, and use multifaceted approaches to address specific deterrents such as medical mistrust and economic barriers.

Undercutting efforts of precision medicine: roadblocks to minority representation in breast cancer clinical trials

Precision (or personalized) medicine holds great promise in the treatment of breast cancer. The success of personalized medicine is contingent upon inclusivity and representation for minority groups in clinical trials. In this article, we focus on the roadblocks for the African American demographic, including the barriers to access and enrollment in breast oncology trials, the prevailing classification of race and ethnicity, and the need to refine monolithic categorization by employing genetic ancestry mapping tools for a more accurate determination of race or ethnicity.

Disparities in Pediatric Oncology: The 21st Century Opportunity to Improve Outcomes for Children and Adolescents With Cancer

Adult cancer disparities have been documented for decades and continue to persist despite clinical advancements in cancer prevention, detection, and treatment. Pediatric cancer survival has improved significantly in the United States for the past 5 decades to over 80%; however, disparate outcomes among children and adolescents with cancer still affect many populations in the United States and globally, including racial and ethnic minorities, populations with low socioeconomic status, and residents of underserved areas. To achieve equitable outcomes for all children and adolescents with cancer, it is imperative that concerted multilevel approaches be carried out to understand and address health disparities and to ensure access to high-quality cancer care. Addressing social determinants of health, such as removing barriers to health care access and ensuring access to social supports, can reduce pediatric cancer disparities. Nevertheless, public health policy, health system interventions, and innovative delivery of evidence-based services are critically needed. Partnerships among patients, caregivers, and health care providers, and among health care, academic, and governmental institutions, have a pivotal role in reducing cancer disparities and improving outcomes in the 21st century.

Metrics to Evaluate the Performance of Cancer Center Leadership: A Systematic Review

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Cancer centers are diverse healthcare organizations comprising clinicians and researchers dedicated to understanding, treating, and controlling cancer in the populations they serve. Although many metrics are used to evaluate cancer center performance, few of these standardized measures have been identified to evaluate cancer center leadership. We performed a systematic review to identify published literature presenting metrics used to evaluate the leadership of cancer centers. Metrics were then classified using 10 a priori-defined categories of evaluation. Overall, we reviewed 34 articles (studies, editorials, interviews). The most commonly discussed leadership evaluation category was Organizational Strategy/Planning (31 of the 34 articles), followed by Leader Characteristics (25 articles), Clinical Performance (21), and Facility Characteristics (20). Organizational Strategy/Planning metrics included governance structure, strategic development, quality assurance and improvement, mission and vision, business planning, and program development. Leader Characteristic metrics included communication, vision/strategic thinking, personal skills, team coordination, leadership style, and staff development. Clinical Performance metrics focused on delivery of and outcomes from clinical services, while Facility Characteristics included space allocation and access to support services. The metrics reviewed in this article may be considered measurable outcomes in evaluating whether cancer center leadership demonstrates key competencies. Additional research should explore the linkage among metrics used to evaluate cancer center leaders, desired competencies for healthcare leaders, and objective measures of whether a cancer center is successful.

Community-Engaged Approaches for Minority Recruitment Into Clinical Research: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minority populations in clinical research persists in the United States, highlighting the unmet ideals of generalizability and equity of research findings and products. Previous systematic reviews exploring various facets of this phenomenon concluded that community engagement with minority groups may effectively promote recruitment and retention, but the ways in which community-engaged approaches have been used for recruitment have not been examined. We performed a scoping review of the literature to identify studies of community-engaged recruitment processes. The search resulted in 2842 articles, of which 66 met inclusion criteria. These articles demonstrated a relatively large literature base of descriptive studies conveying details of community engagement approaches to enhance recruitment of minority research participants. We summarize key aspects of current practices across the spectrum of community engagement. A gap in the literature is the relative lack of the comparative studies among different engagement strategies.

Race in Rhinology Clinical Trials: A Decade of Disparity

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study is to assess the ethnic and racial demographics of patients enrolled in prospective chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) studies relative to the corresponding geographic demographics of the United States (U.S.) census data.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review and Population analysis.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify CRS clinical trials, conducted in the U.S. and published between 2010 and 2020 in which patients were prospectively enrolled. Pooled racial and ethnicity data were compared to national and corresponding regional census data.

RESULTS

Eighty-three studies were included, comprising 12,027 patients. 50.4% were male and the average age was 49.2 years. 8,810 patients underwent a surgical procedure. Of the 12,027 patients, 81.67% were identified as White, 5.35% as Black, 1.27% as Asian, 0.02% as Pacific Islander, 0.12% as American Indian, and 11.57% were classified as Other. The racial and ethnic composition of the pooled study population differs significantly from the national U.S. census data with the underrepresentation of each minority population (P ≤ .0002). Regional sub-analyses yield variable results. In the Northeast and West, there was an underrepresentation of all minority populations. In the South and Midwest, Black enrollment was similar to the U.S. census data, while all other minorities were underrepresented.

CONCLUSIONS

The racial and ethnic composition of patients enrolled in prospective CRS clinical trials differs significantly from the demographics of the U.S.

POPULATION

The generalizability and external validity of findings derived from studies comprised of demographically mismatched populations has not been established. Future efforts to enroll more representative populations should be emphasized by the research community, funding bodies, and editorial boards.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 131:1722-1728, 2021.

Adverse Drug Reaction Case Safety Practices in Large Biopharmaceutical Organizations from 2007 to 2017: An Industry Survey

INTRODUCTION

Drug safety remains a top global public health concern. An increase in the number of data sources available has increased the complexity of pharmacovigilance operations, so the US FDA has created draft guidance focusing on optimizing drug safety data for well-characterized medicines. However, to date, no data demonstrating changes in reports have been presented.

OBJECTIVES

This study provided data assessing changes in individual case safety reports (ICSRs) and aggregate reports (ARs) for large biopharmaceutical companies from 2007 to 2017. This study also evaluated current trends on the use of advanced machine and deep learning in order to process all data captured for ICSRs as well as opinions from industry thought leaders on creating a sustainable case-processing operation.

METHODOLOGY

Using data captured from Navitas Life Science's annual pvnet^® benchmark, we calculated workload indicators characterizing pharmacovigilance operations for large biopharmaceutical organizations. Workload indicators included the number of ICSRs by organization, the number of ARs, and the number and types of data sources used. We also conducted structured in-depth interviews with seven biopharmaceutical executives to discover the reasons for changes in workload indicators across time as well as current strategies for increasing efficiencies in drug safety reporting.

RESULTS

The median number of ICSRs increased from 84,960 cases in 2007 to over 200,000 cases in 2017; this increase was largely attributable to an increase in both nonserious cases and follow-up cases. Member companies reported using 12 ± 3 data sources for case identification. The number of ARs also increased from a median of 70 reports in 2007 to 258 reports in 2017. To address these increases, 61% of the biopharmaceutical organizations we surveyed planned to adopt machine learning for full ICSR processing; however, as of 2018, none of the organizations surveyed had mechanisms in place.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that pharmacovigilance departments are currently burdened by ever-increasing case volumes. With increased guidance from regulatory agencies, as well as improvements in artificial intelligence and natural language processing, biopharmaceutical organizations must determine the most resource-efficient and sustainable methods to process the growing volume of cases.

The Children's Oncology Group Adolescent and Young Adult Responsible Investigator Network: A New Model for Addressing Site-Level Factors Impacting Clinical Trial Enrollment

Purpose: In the Children's Oncology Group (COG), there is precedent for scientific committees designating institutional Responsible Investigators (RIs) to promote clinical trial enrollment and coordinate related research activities. In response to low enrollment of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) on COG clinical trials, the COG AYA RI Network was established. Leveraging this network, we undertook an initiative to identify site-level factors influencing AYA enrollment. Methods: The overarching goal of the AYA RI Network is to increase AYA enrollment onto COG trials. At each site, RIs highlight AYA disparities, facilitate activation of relevant trials, improve recruitment processes, and expand interactions with medical oncologists. Through a series of monthly national webinars and workshops, participating RIs reported local barriers and facilitators enrolling AYAs. A mixed-methods approach was utilized to determine major themes of factors affecting site-level enrollment. Results: For this report, there were 145 participating RIs representing 122 demographically and geographically diverse sites. There were 13 interactive webinars and 3 symposia involving 25 speakers focused on addressing enrollment barriers. Major thematic categories for site-level barriers were (1) Lack of available trials; (2) Poor communication between pediatric and medical oncology; (3) Logistical constraints to accessing trials; and (4) Need for leadership support, sufficient resources and appropriate policies. Conclusion: The COG AYA RI Network has identified multiple site-level barriers impeding AYA clinical trial enrollment and represents a novel model for developing and implementing appropriate solutions through a nationally coordinated strategy.

Special issues raised by evolving areas of clinical research

Each study presents its own set of ethical considerations. Certain kinds of ethical issues are inherent in particular areas of clinical research, regardless of specific ethical questions associated with a specific study. In this chapter, some of the most common special areas of clinical research are presented, highlighting the ethical issues most frequently associated with each.

Inclusiveness and ethical considerations for observational, translational, and clinical cancer health disparity research

BACKGROUND

Although general trends in cancer outcomes are improving, racial/ethnic disparities in patient outcomes continue to widen, suggesting disparity-related shortcomings in cancer research designs.

METHODS

Using convenience sampling, a total of 24 data sources, representing several research designs and 5 high-burden tumor types, were included for analyses. The percentages of races/ethnicities across each design/tumor type were compared with those of the 2017 US Census data. The authors used a framework based on the Belmont principles to evaluate the ethical strengths and/or weaknesses of each design.

RESULTS

In all designs, white individuals were found to be overrepresented. African American and Asian individuals were underrepresented, and Native Americans had consistently poor or no representation. In general, ethical concerns varied according to the study design. Clinical trials were high with regard to respect for persons and beneficence but low for equitable subject selection related to the inclusion of race/ethnicity. Observational study designs were more inclusive for race/ethnicity compared with clinical and translational studies, but their clinical usefulness was less.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors proposed that ethical concerns should vary according to the study design. Because observational designs have strengths in inclusiveness for race/ethnicity, their clinical usefulness can be improved by extending the Learning Health System in hospital catchment populations, the use of health records linked to biospecimens, and minority oversampling. Likewise, minority enrollment into clinical trials can be improved through Learning Health System linking and by using National Cancer Institute-mandated Community Outreach and Engagement Cores. This will allow precision medicine for otherwise overlooked minority subgroups.

Setting and motivation in the decision to participate: An approach to the engagement of diverse samples in mobile research

Internet and mobile based research are powerful tools in the creation of large, cohort studies (eCohort). However, recent analysis indicates that an underrepresentation of minority and low income groups in these studies might exceed that found in traditional research [1-5]. In this report, we present findings from an experiment in research engagement using the Eureka Research Platform developed to enroll diverse populations in support of biomedical clinical research. This experiment involved the recruitment of African American and Latino participants in a smartphone based survey at a temporary, charitable, dental event sponsored, in part, by the research team, in order to explore the impact of setting and approach on recruitment outcomes. 211 participants enrolled including a significant representation of African Americans (51%) and Latinos (31%) and those with education levels at high school or less (37%). Interviews conducted after the study confirmed that our recruitment efforts within the context of a service event affected the decision to participate. While further research is necessary, this experiment holds promise for the engagement of underrepresented groups in research.