Accrual of older adults to cancer clinical trials led by the Canadian cancer trials group – Is trial design a barrier?

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.

Improving Care for Older Adults with Cancer in Canada: A Call to Action

Most patients diagnosed with and dying from cancer in Canada are older adults, with aging contributing to the large projected growth in cancer incidence. Older adults with cancer have unique needs, and on a global scale increasing efforts have been made to address recognized gaps in their cancer care. However, in Canada, geriatric oncology remains a new and developing field. There is increasing recognition of the value of geriatric oncology and there is a growing number of healthcare providers interested in developing the field. While there is an increasing number of dedicated programs in geriatric oncology, they remain limited overall. Developing novel methods to delivery geriatric care in the oncology setting and improving visibility is important. Formal incorporation of a geriatric oncology curriculum into training is critical to both improve knowledge and demonstrate its value to healthcare providers. Although a robust group of dedicated researchers exist, increased collaboration is needed to capitalize on existing expertise. Dedicated funding is critical to promoting clinical programs, research, and training new clinicians and leaders in the field. By addressing challenges and capitalizing on opportunities for improvement, Canada can better meet the unique needs of its aging population with cancer and ultimately improve their outcomes.

From Race to Racism and Disparities to Equity: An Actionable Biopsychosocial Approach to Breast Cancer Outcomes

PURPOSE

Racial disparities in outcomes of breast cancer in the United States have widened over more than 3 decades, driven by complex biologic and social factors. In this review, we summarize the biological and social narratives that have shaped breast cancer disparities research across different scientific disciplines in the past, explore the underappreciated but crucial ways in which these 2 strands of the breast cancer story are interwoven, and present 5 key strategies for creating transformative interdisciplinary research to achieve equity in breast cancer treatment and outcomes.

DESIGN

We first review the key differences in tumor biology in the United States between patients racialized as Black versus White, including the overrepresentation of triple-negative breast cancer and differences in tumor histologic and molecular features by race for hormone-sensitive disease. We then summarize key social factors at the interpersonal, institutional, and social structural levels that drive inequitable treatment. Next, we explore how biologic and social determinants are interwoven and interactive, including historical and contemporary structural factors that shape the overrepresentation of triple-negative breast cancer among Black Americans, racial differences in tumor microenvironment, and the complex interplay of biologic and social drivers of difference in outcomes of hormone receptor positive disease, including utilization and effectiveness of endocrine therapies and the role of obesity. Finally, we present 5 principles to increase the impact and productivity of breast cancer equity research.

RESULTS

We find that social and biologic drivers of breast cancer disparities are often cyclical and are found at all levels of scientific investigation from cells to society. To break the cycle and effect change, we must acknowledge and measure the role of structural racism in breast cancer outcomes; frame biologic, psychosocial, and access factors as interwoven via mechanisms of cumulative stress, inflammation, and immune modulation; take responsibility for the impact of representativeness (or the lack thereof) in genomic and decision modeling on the ability to accurately predict the outcomes of Black patients; create research that incorporates the perspectives of people of color from inception to implementation; and rigorously evaluate innovations in equitable cancer care delivery and health policies.

CONCLUSIONS

Innovative, cross-disciplinary research across the biologic and social sciences is crucial to understanding and eliminating disparities in breast cancer outcomes.

Developing Sustainable Cancer and Aging Programs

Geriatric assessment (GA) has been shown to decrease toxicity from systemic therapy, improve completion of chemotherapy, and reduce hospitalizations in older adults with cancer. Given the aging of the cancer population, this has the potential to have a positive impact on the care of a large swath of patients seen. Despite endorsement by several international societies, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology, uptake of GA has been low. Lack of knowledge, time, and resources has been cited as reasons for this. Although challenges to developing and implementing a cancer and aging program vary depending on the health care context, GA is adaptable to every health care context from low- to high-resource settings, as well as those in which geriatric oncology is a well-established or just emerging field. We provide an approach for clinicians and administrators to develop, implement, and sustain aging and cancer programs in a doable and sustainable way.

Can we predict trial failure among older adult-specific clinical trials using trial-level factors?

INTRODUCTION

Conducting older adult-specific clinical trials can help overcome the lack of clinical evidence for older adults due to their underrepresentation in clinical trials. Understanding factors contributing to the successful completion of such trials can help trial sponsors and researchers prioritize studies and optimize study design. We aimed to develop a model that predicts trial failure among older adult-specific cancer clinical trials using trial-level factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified phase 2-4 interventional cancer clinical trials that ended between 2008 and 2019 and had the minimum age limit of 60 years old or older using Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov data. We defined trial failure as closed early for reasons other than interim results or toxicity or completed with a sample of <85% of the targeted size. Candidate trial-level predictors were identified from a literature review. We evaluated eight types of machine learning algorithms to find the best model. Model fitting and testing were performed using 5-fold nested cross-validation. We evaluated the model performance using the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

RESULTS

Of 209 older adult-specific clinical trials, 87 were failed trials per the definition of trial failure. The model with the highest AUROC in the validation set was the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (AUROC in the test set = 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53, 0.86). Trial-level factors included in the best model were the study sponsor, the number of participating centers, the number of modalities, the level of restriction on performance score, study location, the number of arms, life expectancy restriction, and the number of target size. Among these factors, the number of centers (odds ratio [OR] = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.71, 0.94), study being in non-US only vs. US only (OR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.82), and life expectancy restriction (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.04, 4.73) were significantly associated with the trial failure.

DISCUSSION

We identified trial-level factors predictive of trial failure among older adult-specific clinical trials and developed a prediction model that can help estimate the risk of failure before a study is conducted. The study findings could aid in the design and prioritization of future older adult-specific clinical trials.

Trial-level factors affecting accrual and completion of oncology clinical trials: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cancer is the second-leading cause of death in the United States. Clinical trials translate basic science discoveries into treatments needed by cancer patients. Inadequate accrual of trial participants is one of the most significant barriers to the completion of oncology clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate trial-level factors that affect accrual and/or completion of oncology clinical trials, identify gaps in the literature, and indicate opportunities for future research.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the literature on trial-level factors that affect accrual and/or completion of oncology clinical trials was performed. Searches in PubMed and Scopus identified 6582 studies. Based on eligibility criteria, 16 studies were selected for the review. Results were analyzed according to the following: a) background factors, b) disease-related, c) treatment-related, and d) trial design.

RESULTS

Background factors that were investigated in relation to oncology clinical trial accrual and/or completion included sponsor, number and location of participating institutions, competing trials, time of trial opening, and fast-track status. Disease-related factors included the annual incidence and type(s) of targeted cancer. Several types of treatment such as drugs, radiation and surgery were examined in the studies. Trial design factors included trial development time, eligibility criteria, randomization, sample size, trial phase, placebo use, and required protocol procedures and their timing.

CONCLUSION

With low patient participation rates in oncology clinical trials that hold promise for future treatments, it is imperative that trial-level factors affecting accrual be identified and addressed to facilitate the completion of trials.

Are clinical trial eligibility criteria representative of older patients with lung cancer? A population-based data linkage study

OBJECTIVES

Older adults constitute the majority of patients with lung cancer. However, they are under-represented in clinical trials as eligibility criteria often restrict enrolment based on comorbidities that are common with aging. We aimed to describe comorbidities relating to trial exclusion criteria in older adults with lung cancer, determine the proportion that would typically be excluded from trials, and examine the impact on treatment uptake.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a population-based study of people aged ≥65 years diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer using linked data for clients of the Australian Government Department of Veterans' Affairs (2005-2015). We defined trial-typical patients based on the absence of comorbidities related to the following: inadequate organ (cardiac, renal, hepatic, marrow) function; cognitive dysfunction; poor performance status (PS); prior malignancy within 5 years. We report systemic therapy uptake within 3 months of diagnosis.

RESULTS

Our study included 677 patients (median age 84). Over half (53.4%) were not trial-typical, with the most common reasons being poor PS (37.5%), cardiac disease (19.2%), and prior cancer (12.9%). Eighty-two (12.1%) received systemic therapy. Patients with poor PS, cardiac disease, and dementia had lower treatment uptake rates. However, there was no significant difference in treatment uptake between trial-typical and non-trial-typical patients (13.4 vs 11.0%).

CONCLUSION

More than half of older adults with advanced lung cancer would be typically excluded from trial participation. Future clinical trials of older adults need to consider broader eligibility criteria to better reflect this population to gain the best evidence for their care.

Current Challenges Faced by Cancer Clinical Trials in Addressing the Problem of Under-Representation of Older Adults: A Narrative Review

The number of older adults living with cancer is increasing. There is a clear lack of representation of older adults in clinical trials, including cancer trials. Reasons for this are multifactorial and complex and include protocol, patient and sponsor factors. Potential solutions to overcome issues with trial design include varied methods of recruitment with flexible inclusion criteria. Possible alternatives to randomised trials include prospective cohort studies, pragmatic trials and the use of national population-based data sets. Patient factors may be addressed by integration of geriatric assessment, so patients can be randomised or treated based on their individual needs. Additionally, standard protocols for including older adults with cognitive impairment should be developed, rather than automatic exclusion. Increased effort is needed from sponsors and governing health care bodies to make recruitment of older adults to clinical trials standard.

Older adults with cancer and their caregivers - current landscape and future directions for clinical care

Despite substantial improvements in the outcomes of patients with cancer over the past two decades, older adults (aged ≥65 years) with cancer are a rapidly increasing population and continue to have worse outcomes than their younger counterparts. Managing cancer in this population can be challenging because of competing health and ageing-related conditions that can influence treatment decision-making and affect outcomes. Geriatric screening tools and comprehensive geriatric assessment can help to identify patients who are most at risk of poor outcomes from cancer treatment and to better allocate treatment for these patients. The use of evidence-based management strategies to optimize geriatric conditions can improve communication and satisfaction between physicians, patients and caregivers as well as clinical outcomes in this population. Clinical trials are currently underway to further determine the effect of geriatric assessment combined with management interventions on cancer outcomes as well as the predictive value of geriatric assessment in the context of treatment with contemporary systemic therapies such as immunotherapies and targeted therapies. In this Review, we summarize the unique challenges of treating older adults with cancer and describe the current guidelines as well as investigational studies underway to improve the outcomes of these patients.

Geriatric Oncology: From Research to Clinical Practice

The number of older adults with cancer is strongly increasing due to the ageing of Western societies [...].