Barriers to Participation in Therapeutic Clinical Trials as Perceived by Community Oncologists

Clinical trial knowledge among cancer survivors in the United States: the role of health information technology

PURPOSE

Clinical trials are essential to the advancement of cancer care. However, clinical trial knowledge and participation remain critically low among adult patients with cancer. Health information technology (HIT) could play an important role in improving clinical trial knowledge and engagement among cancer survivors.

METHODS

We used data from 3,794 adults who completed the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey, 626 (16.2%) of whom were cancer survivors. We examined the prevalence of HIT use in the study population and by cancer history using chi-squared tests. We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine the impact of HIT use on clinical trial knowledge for cancer survivors and respondents with no cancer history, respectively.

RESULTS

Approximately 63.8% of cancer survivors reported having some knowledge of clinical trials. Almost half of the cancer survivors used HIT to communicate with doctors (47.1%) and make health appointments (49.4%), 68.0% used HIT to look up health information online and 42.2% used it to check test results. In the adjusted models, the use of HIT in communicating with doctors [OR 2.79; 95% CI (1.41, 5.54)], looking up health information online [OR 2.84; 95% CI (1.04, 7.77)], and checking test results [OR 2.47; 95% CI (1.12, 5.43)] was associated with having some knowledge of clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

HIT use for engaging with the healthcare team and health information gathering is associated with higher clinical trial knowledge in cancer survivors. Given the rapid increase in mobile technology access globally and the increased use of HIT, digital technology can be leveraged to improve clinical trial knowledge and engagement among cancer survivors.

Improvements in Clinical Cancer Care Associated with Integration of Personalized Medicine

BACKGROUND

While adoption of personalized medicine (PM) continues to increase in clinical oncology, there is limited data connecting the level of PM adoption at a given institution to improved clinical outcomes for patients. The purpose of this study was to analyze the correlation between health care providers' scores on a previously described PM integration framework and two outcome measures: the use of targeted therapy and clinical trial enrollment.

METHODS

This study was conducted using real-world data (RWD) from the Syapse® Learning Health Network (LHN). The PM integration score for six community hospital systems in the LHN was calculated and subsequently correlated with the two outcome measures.

RESULTS

Across six institutions, a strong correlation between PM integration score and targeted therapy use was observed in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) (R2 = 0.81), an indication with a significant number of approved targeted agents. Conversely, a strong correlation between PM integration score and clinical trial enrollment was observed in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (R2 = 0.63), an indication with fewer marketed targeted therapies but an active targeted therapy pipeline.

CONCLUSION

The results in these cases suggest that PM integration is a strong indicator of high-quality care practices for both utilization of targeted therapy in more mature PM indications (e.g., mNSCLC) and clinical trial enrollment in more emerging PM indications (e.g., TNBC).

Understanding the Barriers to Clinical Trial Referral and Enrollment Among Oncology Providers Within the Veterans Health Administration

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trials are essential for advancing treatment options in oncology while providing cancer patients with innovative care; however, few cancer patients are referred to clinical trials. System-, provider-, and patient-level barriers to clinical trial participation have been described but have not been studied in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Although the VHA has engaged in several initiatives to improve Veteran's access to clinical trials, including the National Cancer Institute and VA Interagency Group to Accelerate Trials Enrollment program and VHA work on the White House Cancer Moonshot, further research is needed to understand the multifaceted challenges underlying limited enrollment for Veterans who receive care in the VHA system. This research aims to evaluate VHA oncology providers' attitudes toward and experiences with referral and enrollmentof Veterans with cancer into clinical trials, for the purpose of informing actions that could be taken to enhance Veterans' access to clinical trials as well as the VHA's contributions to clinical research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This research comprised the administration of an electronic 34-item survey and semistructured interviews among oncology care providers in the VHA nationally, between May 2022 and August 2023. The survey was introduced via a presentation at VHA Oncology Office Hours and aimed to capture VHA oncology care providers' perceptions of and experiences with referral and enrollment to clinical trials. The semistructured interviews explored providers' perceived barriers to clinical trial participation and recruitment bias, as well as inquired about potentially modifiable factors for improving clinical trial enrollment at the VHA, such as providers' concerns, motivations for and facilitators of enrollment of patients into clinical trials, and the manner in which they communicate about clinical trials with their patients.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight oncology care providers completed the survey, and eight completed the semistructured interview, including 5 staff physicians, 1 fellow, 1 nurse practitioner, and 1 physician assistant. Thirty-four survey respondents identified their specialty as medical oncology, one respondent identified the specialty as radiation oncology, and three identified the specialty as hematology. Nineteen respondents identified as women and 14 as men; the remainder did not provide their gender. Three respondents identified as Hispanic or Latino individuals, 11 as Asians, 3 as Black individuals, and 17 as White individuals. Five interview participants reported holding an individual academic affiliation. Participants identified and described various barriers to clinical trial referral and enrollment at multiple levels, including lack of appropriate trials, strict patient eligibility criteria, difficulties in understanding and managing the referral process for trials outside the VHA system, challenges with obtaining information and identifying available clinical trials, Veterans' financial and logistical concerns, lack of trust in the medical establishment, lack of adequate social support, and Veterans' psychological and physical comorbidities. They also highlighted opportunities for system-level change that can overcome some of these barriers, including academic affiliations, patient support from internal and external nurse navigators, and dedicated research coordinators.

CONCLUSIONS

The insights gleaned from this research can guide VHA in its efforts to optimize access to clinical trials for Veterans.

Perspectives of pediatric oncologists on referral for CAR-T therapy: a mixed methods pilot study

BACKGROUND

Receipt of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy at an institution different from the primary oncologist's institution is a complex, multistep process. Referral by oncologists plays an important role in the process but may be susceptible to bias.

METHODS

Oncologists who previously referred patients for CAR-T therapy at 5 pediatric hospitals were sent surveys by email exploring their CAR-T referral practices. Descriptive statistics were generated, and multivariate analyses examined associations among oncologist characteristics, familiarity with CAR-T therapy, and referral practices. We conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of participants and used thematic analysis to code transcripts.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight oncologists completed the survey; 77% expressed being "very familiar" with CAR-T therapy. Hispanic oncologists and oncologists at institutions with 50 or fewer new diagnoses per year were more likely to identify as less familiar with CAR-T therapy (odds ratio [OR] = 64.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.45 to 10 452.50, P = .04 and OR = 24.5, 95% CI = 3.3 to 317.3, P = .005, respectively). In total, 38% of respondents considered nonclinical features (compliance, social support, resources, insurance, language, education, and race or ethnicity) influential in referral decisions. Oncologists who were Hispanic and oncologists who had been practicing for 20 or more years were more likely to consider these features significantly influential (OR = 14.52, 95% CI = 1.49 to 358.66, P = .04 and OR = 6.76, 95% CI = 1.18 to 50.5, P = .04). Nine oncologists completed in-depth interviews; common themes included barriers and concerns regarding CAR-T therapy referral, the value of an established relationship with a CAR-T therapy center, and poor communication after CAR-T therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 40% of oncologists consider nonclinical features significantly influential when deciding to refer patients for CAR-T therapy, raising concern for bias in the referral process. Establishing formal partnerships with CAR-T therapy centers may help address physician barriers in referral.

Are Patients With Cancer Best Managed in a Clinical Trial?

This Viewpoint analyzes how the NCCN’s boxed statement that all cancer is best managed in a clinical trial cannot be applied to all patients and calls for its removal from its clinical practice guidelines.

Race and ethnicity reporting and representation in hemophilia clinical trials

ABSTRACT

Racial and ethnic representativeness in clinical trials is crucial to mitigate disparities in outcomes; however, diversity among hemophilia trials is unknown. The aim of this study is to examine the reporting and representation of race and ethnicity in trials of people with hemophilia (PwH). In this cross-sectional study, the ClinicalTrials.gov database was queried in April 2023 for interventional clinical trials involving PwH between 2007 and 2022. The distribution of participants (observed) was compared with expected proportions based on US Hemophilia Treatment Center (HTC) and country-specific census data with observed-to-expected ratios (OERs). Of 129 trials included, 94.6% were industry sponsored, with a mean of 62 participants and mean age of 26.8 years. Overall, 52.0% (n = 66) of trials reported data on race and ethnicity, increasing from 13.9% in 2007-2012 to 22.5% in 2013-2016 to 100% in 2017-2022 (P = .001). Among these 66 trials, 65.8%, 22.8%, 5.1%, 3.9% of participants were White, Asian, Hispanic, and Black, respectively. OERs were 10% to 20% lower for White participants vs US HTC, and US, UK, and Canadian census populations and ∼75% lower for Black or Hispanic participants when compared with US HTC and US census population. OERs for Asian participants were 1.6 to 3 times higher than Canada, US, and UK census populations. The reporting of race and ethnicity in hemophilia trials has drastically improved; however, Black and Hispanic PwH remain especially underrepresented. To address these disparities, stakeholders across the clinical trial enterprise need to implement strategies to ensure equitable participation.

Evaluating a Physician Audit and Feedback Intervention to Increase Clinical Trial Enrollment in Radiation Oncology in a Multisite Tertiary Cancer Center: A Randomized Study

PURPOSE

Clinical trial participation continues to be low, slowing new cancer therapy development. Few strategies have been prospectively tested to address barriers to enrollment. We investigated the effectiveness of a physician audit and feedback report to improve clinical trial enrollment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We conducted a randomized quality improvement study among radiation oncologists at a multisite tertiary cancer network. Physicians in the intervention group received quarterly audit and feedback reports comparing the physician's trial enrollments with those of their peers. The primary outcome was trial enrollments.

RESULTS

Among physicians randomized to receive the feedback report (n = 30), the median proportion of patients enrolled during the study period increased to 6.1% (IQR, 2.6%-9.3%) from 3.2% (IQR, 1.1%-10%) at baseline. Among those not receiving the feedback report (n = 29), the median proportion of patients enrolled increased to 4.1% (IQR, 1.3%-7.6%) from 1.6% (IQR, 0%-4.1%) at baseline. There was a nonsignificant change in the proportion of enrollments associated with receiving the feedback report (-0.6%; 95% CI, -3.0% to 1.8%; P = .6). Notably, there was an interaction between baseline trial accrual and receipt of feedback reports (P = .005), with enrollment declining among high accruers. There was an increase in enrollment throughout the study, regardless of study group (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, a positive effect of physician audit and feedback on clinical trial enrollment was not observed. Future efforts should avoid disincentivizing high accruers and might consider pairing feedback with other patient- or physician-level strategies. The increase in trial enrollment in both groups over time highlights the importance of including a comparison group in quality improvement studies to reduce confounding from secular trends.

How far is too far? Cancer prevention and clinical trial enrollment in geographically underserved patient populations

Despite dedicated efforts to improve equitable access to cancer care in the United States, disparities in cancer outcomes persist, and geographically underserved patients remain at an increased risk of cancer with lower rates of survival. The critical evaluation of cancer prevention inequities and clinical trial access presents the opportunity to outline novel strategies to incrementally improve bookended access to gynecologic cancer care for geographically underserved patients. Cancer prevention strategies that can be addressed in the rural patient population mirror priorities in the Healthy People 2030 objectives and include increased identification of high risk individuals who may benefit from increased cancer screening and risk reduction, increasing the proportion of people who discuss interventions to prevent cancer, such as HPV vaccination, with their provider, and increasing the proportion of adults who complete evidence based cancer screening. Barriers to accrual to clinical trials for rural patients overlap significantly with the same barriers to obtaining health care in general. These barriers include: lack of facilities and specialized providers; lack of robust health infrastructure; inability to travel; and financial barriers. In this review, we will discuss current knowledge and opportunities to improve cancer prevention initiatives and clinical trial enrollment in geographically underserved populations with a focus on rurality.

Why location matters: associations between county-level characteristics and availability of National Cancer Oncology Research Program and National Cancer Institute sites

BACKGROUND

The majority of patients with cancer seek care at community oncology sites; however, most clinical trials are available at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated sites. Although the NCI National Cancer Oncology Research Program (NCORP) was designed to address this problem, little is known about the county-level characteristics of NCORP site locations.

METHODS

This cross-sectional analysis determined the association between availability of NCORP or NCI sites and county-level characteristic theme percentile scores from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index themes. Health Resources and Services Administration's Area Health Resource Files were used to determine contiguous counties. We estimated risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using modified Poisson regression models to evaluate the association between county-level characteristics and site availability within singular and singular and contiguous counties.

RESULTS

Of 3141 included counties, 14% had an NCORP, 2% had an NCI, and 1% had both sites. Among singular counties, for a standard deviation increase in the racial and ethnic theme score, there was a 22% higher likelihood of NCORP site availability (95% CI = 1.10 to 1.36); for a standard deviation increase in the socioeconomic status theme score, there was a 24% lower likelihood of NCORP site availability (95% CI = 0.67 to 0.87). Associations were of smaller magnitude when including contiguous counties. NCI sites were located in more vulnerable counties.

CONCLUSIONS

NCORP sites were more often in racially diverse counties and less often in socioeconomically vulnerable counties. Research is needed to understand how clinical trial representation will increase if NCORP sites strategically increase their locations in more vulnerable counties.

A call to action to advance patient-focused and decentralized clinical trials

This commentary is a call to action for a concerted commitment and effort to transform clinical trials and enable people with cancer to participate in clinical trials closer to home. Three key strategies are identified to address major barriers: confront challenges with the interpretation of US Food and Drug Administration Form 1572 requirements (Statement of Investigator); broaden acceptance of local laboratories and imaging centers; and invest in the creation of effective, sustainable partnerships between research centers and local providers.

Illuminating the landscape of high-level clinical trial opportunities in the All of Us Research Program

OBJECTIVE

With its size and diversity, the All of Us Research Program has the potential to power and improve representation in clinical trials through ancillary studies like Nutrition for Precision Health. We sought to characterize high-level trial opportunities for the diverse participants and sponsors of future trial investment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We matched All of Us participants with available trials on ClinicalTrials.gov based on medical conditions, age, sex, and geographic location. Based on the number of matched trials, we (1) developed the Trial Opportunities Compass (TOC) to help sponsors assess trial investment portfolios, (2) characterized the landscape of trial opportunities in a phenome-wide association study (PheWAS), and (3) assessed the relationship between trial opportunities and social determinants of health (SDoH) to identify potential barriers to trial participation.

RESULTS

Our study included 181 529 All of Us participants and 18 634 trials. The TOC identified opportunities for portfolio investment and gaps in currently available trials across federal, industrial, and academic sponsors. PheWAS results revealed an emphasis on mental disorder-related trials, with anxiety disorder having the highest adjusted increase in the number of matched trials (59% [95% CI, 57-62]; P < 1e-300). Participants from certain communities underrepresented in biomedical research, including self-reported racial and ethnic minorities, had more matched trials after adjusting for other factors. Living in a nonmetropolitan area was associated with up to 13.1 times fewer matched trials.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

All of Us data are a valuable resource for identifying trial opportunities to inform trial portfolio planning. Characterizing these opportunities with consideration for SDoH can provide guidance on prioritizing the most pressing barriers to trial participation.

Trial staff and community member perceptions of barriers and solutions to improving racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trial participation; a mixed method study

Background

The lack of racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trials leads to skewed findings, limited generalizability, inequitable health outcomes for people of color, and insufficient access to innovative therapies. Our objective was to compare perceptions of barriers to participation in trials for people of color and trial staff to provide tangible solutions for improving diversity among study participants.

Methods

This mixed method study utilized semi-structured interviews and surveys to evaluate barriers to participation and solutions to improve racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trials among healthcare system trial staff and community members from the same region. Through thematic analysis via coded transcripts and quantitative analysis via survey data, social support theory constructs were identified to evaluate where perceptions of barriers and solutions overlap and where they diverge.

Results

A total of 55 trial staff and 75 community members participated in the study. Trial staff identified logistics and patients' unwillingness to receive additional treatments as perceived barriers to participation, while community members stated lack of information and lack of trust in their care team. Both groups identified hesitance toward research as a prominent barrier. Solutions related to informational support demonstrated the most overlap between groups, while instrumental support showed the most discordance.

Conclusion

Solutions for improving racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trial participation are multi-faceted and have various levels of impact. Overlap and discordance of opinions regarding solutions should be further evaluated, and implementation of solutions should be carefully considered.

Barriers to Clinical Trial Implementation Among Community Care Centers

Importance

While an overwhelming majority of patients diagnosed with cancer express willingness to participate in clinical trials, only a fraction will enroll onto a research protocol.

Objective

To identify critical barriers to trial enrollment to translate findings into actionable practice changes that increase cancer clinical trial enrollment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This survey study included designated site contacts at oncology practices with teams who were highly involved with the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Community Oncology Research Institute (ACORI) clinical trials activities, all American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-ACCC collaboration pilot sites, and/or sites providing care to at least 25% African American and Hispanic residents. To determine participation trends among health care practices in oncology-focused research, identify barriers to clinical trial implementation and operation, and establish unmet needs for cancer clinics interested in trial participation, a 34-question survey was designed. Survey questions were defined within 3 categories: cancer center demographic characteristics, clinical trial characteristics, and referral practices. The survey was distributed through email and was open from June 20 through October 5, 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Participation in and barriers to conducting oncology trials in different community oncology settings.

Results

The survey was distributed to 100 cancer centers, with completion by 58 centers (58%) across 25 states. Fifty-two centers (88%) reported that they conduct therapeutic clinical trials, of which 33 (63%) were from urban settings, 11 (21%) were from suburban settings, and 8 (15%) were from rural settings. Only 25% of rural practices (2 of 8) offered phase 1 trials, compared with 67% of urban practices (22 of 33) (P = .01). Respondents noted challenges in conducting research, including patient recruitment (27 respondents [52%]), limited staffing (27 [52%]), and nonrelevant trials for their patient population (25 [48%]). Among sites not offering therapeutic trials, barriers to research conduct included limited infrastructure, funding, and staffing. Most centers (46 of 58 [79%]) referred patients to outside centers for clinical trial enrollment, particularly in the context of late-stage disease and/or disease progression. Only 17 of these sites (37%) had established protocols for patient follow-up subsequent to outside referral.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this national survey study of barriers to clinical trial implementation, most sites offered therapeutic trials, but there were significant disparities in trial availability across care settings. Furthermore, fundamental deficiencies in trial support infrastructure limited research activity, including within programs currently conducting research as well as at sites interested in future clinical research opportunities. These results identify crucial unmet needs for oncology clinics to effectively offer clinical trials to patients seeking care.

Evaluating Oncologists' Practice Patterns and Decision-Making in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: The US Physician PARADIGM Study

BACKGROUND

The treatment landscape for locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) has evolved. This study examined US prescribing patterns and clinical decision-making for first-line (1L) and first-line maintenance (1LM) treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

US-based oncologists (N = 150) completed an online survey on patient demographics, practice patterns, and important factors considered in 1L/1LM selection. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with more vs less frequent 1L/1LM prescribing.

RESULTS

Physician reports estimated that 23% of patients with la/mUC had not received any systemic therapy in the previous 6 months; however, 46% received 1L, 32% received second-line, and 22% received subsequent-line systemic treatments. Of patients who were receiving 1L treatment, 72% were estimated to be receiving 1L platinum-based chemotherapy. Around 69% of patients eligible for 1LM received the treatment. Physicians categorized as frequent prescribers reported overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), and rate of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) as factors associated with 1L treatment selection (all P < .05). OS, rate of grade 3/4 immune-mediated AEs, and inclusion in institutional guidelines were reported as attributes used in 1LM treatment selection (all P < .05). Multivariable analysis revealed OS, DCR, and rate of grade 3/4 AEs as important factors in oncologists' 1L treatment selection; academic practice setting and use of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 were associated with 1LM use (all P < .05).

CONCLUSION

OS and AEs were found to be relevant factors associated with offering 1L and 1LM treatment. Variability exists in physicians' decision-making in the real-world setting for la/mUC.

Modelling the potential increase in eligible participants in clinical trials with inclusion of community intensive care unit patients in Alberta, Canada: a decision tree analysis

PURPOSE

Critical care research in Canada is conducted primarily in academically affiliated intensive care units (ICUs) with established research infrastructure. Efforts are made to engage community hospital ICUs in research, although the impacts of their inclusion in clinical research have never been explicitly quantified. We therefore sought to determine the number of additional eligible patients that could be recruited into critical care trials and the change in time to study completion if community ICUs were included in clinical research.

METHODS

We conducted a decision tree analysis using 2018 Alberta Health Services data. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics for all ICU patients were compared against eligibility criteria from ten landmark, randomized, multicentre critical care trials. Individual patients from academic and community ICUs were assessed for eligibility in each of the ten studies, and decision tree analysis models were built based on prior inclusion and exclusion criteria from those trials.

RESULTS

The number of potentially eligible patients for the ten trials ranged from 2,082 to 10,157. Potentially eligible participants from community ICUs accounted for 40.0% of total potentially eligible participants. The recruitment of community ICU patients in trials would have increased potential enrolment by an average of 64.0%. The inclusion of community ICU patients was predicted to decrease time to trial completion by a mean of 14 months (43% reduction).

CONCLUSION

Inclusion of community ICU patients in critical care research trials has the potential to substantially increase enrolment and decrease time to trial completion.

Identifying locally actionable strategies to increase participant acceptability and feasibility to participate in Phase I cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Recruitment of cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants, especially participants representing the diversity of the US population, is necessary to create successful medications and a continual challenge. These challenges are amplified in Phase I cancer trials that focus on evaluating the safety of new treatments and are the gateway to treatment development. In preparation for recruitment to a Phase I recurrent head and neck cancer (HNC) trial, we assessed perceived barriers to participation or referral and suggestions for recruitment among people with HNC and community physicians (oncologist, otolaryngologist or surgeon).

METHODS

Between December 2020 and February 2022, we conducted a qualitative needs assessment via semistructured interviews with a race and ethnicity-stratified sample of people with HNC (n = 30: 12 non-Hispanic White, 9 non-Hispanic African American, 8 Hispanic and 1 non-Hispanic Pacific Islander) and community physicians (n = 16) within the University of Florida Health Cancer Center catchment area. Interviews were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis approach to describe perspectives and identify relevant themes.

RESULTS

People with HNC reported thematic barriers included: concerns about side effects, safety and efficacy; lack of knowledge and systemic and environmental obstacles. Physicians identified thematic barriers of limited physician knowledge; clinic and physician barriers and structural barriers. People with HNC and physicians recommended themes included: improved patient education, dissemination of trial information and interpersonal communication between community physicians and CCT staff.

CONCLUSIONS

The themes identified by people with HNC and community physicians are consistent with research efforts and recommendations on how to increase the participation of people from minoritized populations in CCTs. This community needs assessment provides direction on the selection of strategies to increase CCT participation and referral.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study focused on people with HNC and community physicians' lived experience and their interpretations of how they would consider a future Phase I clinical trial. In addition to our qualitative data reflecting community voices, a community member reviewed the draft interview guide before data collection and both people with HNC and physicians aided interpretation of the findings.

Clinical research in the community

Most patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies are treated in community oncology practices near their residence. This is partly due to patients' ardent desire to be closer to home and trust in local caregivers. Treatments are increasingly complex, even as initial therapy, and more so upon relapse. Improved outcomes in the past decade are largely available through clinical trials primarily offered through academic medical centers. Limited availability of clinical trials at community oncology practices is a major contributor to outcome disparities among minorities, rural, and elderly patients, all of whom are underrepresented in clinical trials. Between 2003 and 2023, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) established programs to address these challenges: the Community Clinical Oncology Program, Minority- Based Community Clinical Oncology Program, NCI Community Cancer Centers Program, and NCI Community Oncology Research Program. However, disparities have persisted, particularly for pharmaceutical-directed clinical research. Lack of representation in clinical research results in data absenteeism, data chauvinism and hallucination, and a delay in treatment availability for high-risk hematologic malignancies in community practice. To address this, the US Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Act in 2022 to help establish diversity plans that would broaden clinical trial patient enrollment in the United States. We recommend using these initiatives in community oncology practices, including the adoption of the DRIVE strategy in collaboration with pharmaceutical companies, as well as using the NCI-established programs to promote clinical trial availability for patients with high-risk malignancies treated in community oncology practices.

From a decentralized clinical trial to a decentralized and clinical-trial-in-a-box platform: Towards patient-centric and equitable trials

Background/Objective

Despite the intuitive attractiveness of bringing research to participants rather than making them come to central study sites, widespread decentralized enrollment has not been common in clinical trials.

Methods

The need for clinical research in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, along with innovations in technology, led us to use a decentralized trial approach in our Phase 2 COVID-19 trial. We used real-time acquisition and transmission of health-related data using home-based monitoring devices and mobile applications to assess outcomes. This approach not only avoids spreading COVID-19 but it also can support inclusion of participants in more diverse socioeconomic circumstances and in rural settings.

Results

Our team developed and deployed a decentralized trial platform to support patient engagement and adverse event reporting. Clinicians, engineers, and informaticians on our research team developed a Clinical-Trial-in-a-Box tool to optimally collect and analyze data from multiple decentralized platforms.

Conclusion

Applying the decentralized model in Long COVID, using digital health technology and personal devices integrated with our telehealth platform, we share the lessons learned from our work, along with challenges and future possibilities.

Racial disparities in cancer care, an eyeopener for developing better global cancer management strategies

BACKGROUND

In the last few decades, advancements in cancer research, both in the field of cancer diagnostics as well as treatment of the disease have been extensive and multidimensional. Increased availability of health care resources and growing awareness has resulted in the reduction of consumption of carcinogens such as tobacco; adopting various prophylactic measures; cancer testing on regular basis and improved targeted therapies have greatly reduced cancer mortality among populations, globally. However, this notable reduction in cancer mortality is discriminate and reflective of disparities between various ethnic populations and economic classes. Several factors contribute to this systemic inequity, at the level of diagnosis, cancer prognosis, therapeutics, and even point-of-care facilities.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review, we have highlighted cancer health disparities among different populations around the globe. It encompasses social determinants such as status in society, poverty, education, diagnostic approaches including biomarkers and molecular testing, treatment as well as palliative care. Cancer treatment is an active area of constant progress and newer targeted treatments like immunotherapy, personalized treatment, and combinatorial therapies are emerging but these also show biases in their implementation in various sections of society. The involvement of populations in clinical trials and trial management is also a hotbed for racial discrimination. The immense progress in cancer management and its worldwide application needs a careful evaluation by identifying the biases in racial discrimination in healthcare facilities.

CONCLUSION

Our review gives a comprehensive evaluation of this global racial discrimination in cancer care and would be helpful in designing better strategies for cancer management and decreasing mortality.

Facilitators and Barriers to Older Adult Participation in Cancer Trials: A Qualitative Study Exploring Patient-Caregiver Dyad Congruence

PURPOSE

Family caregivers play an integral role in caring for older adults with cancer. Few studies have examined older adults with cancer and their family caregivers as a unit in a relationship or a dyad. Dyad congruence, or consistency in perspective, is relevant to numerous aspects of living with cancer, including the decision to enroll in a cancer clinical trial.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews of 32 older women (age ≥ 70 years) with breast cancer and their family caregivers (16 dyads) were conducted at both academic and community settings from December 2019 to March 2021 to explore perceived facilitators and barriers to cancer trials. Dyad congruence was defined as aligned (matching) perspectives, and incongruence was defined as misaligned (nonmatching) perspectives.

RESULTS

Five (31%) of 16 patients were age ≥80 years, 11 (69%) had nonmetastatic breast cancer, and 14 (88%) were treated in an academic setting. Six (38%) of 16 caregivers were in the 50-59 age group, 10 (63%) were female, and seven (44%) were daughters. Dyad congruence centered on the clinical benefit of trials and physician recommendation. However, compared with caregivers, patients were more motivated to contribute to science. Patients and caregivers also differed on the perceived extent to which the caregiver influenced enrollment.

CONCLUSION

Older patients with cancer and their caregivers generally agree about the facilitators and barriers to cancer trial enrollment, but some perceptions are misaligned. Further research is needed to understand whether misaligned perspectives between patients and caregivers influence clinical trial participation of older adults with cancer.

Enrollment Barriers for Molecular Targeted Trials

This quality improvement study examines the difficulties of patient accrual among patients with cancer and SETD2 variants.

ChatGPT-A promising generative AI tool and its implications for cancer care

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Since its launch, ChatGPT has taken the internet by storm and has the potential to be used broadly in the health care system, particularly in a setting such as medical oncology. ChatGPT is well suited to review and extract key content from records of patients with cancer, interpret next-generation sequencing reports, and offer a list of potential clinical trial options.

Access Denied: Disparities in Thyroid Cancer Clinical Trials

For thyroid cancer clinical trials, the inclusion of participants from diverse patient populations is uniquely important given existing racial/ethnic disparities in thyroid cancer care. Since 2011, a paradigm shift has occurred in the treatment of advanced thyroid cancer with the approval of multiple systemic therapies by the US Food and Drug Administration based on their use in the clinical trials setting. Although these clinical trials recruited patients from up to 164 sites in 25 countries, the inclusion of racial/ethnic minority patients remained low. In this mini-review, we provide an overview of barriers to accessing cancer clinical trials, framed in the context of why patients with thyroid cancer may be uniquely vulnerable. Multilevel interventions and increased funding for thyroid cancer research are necessary to increase access to and recruitment of under-represented patient populations into thyroid cancer clinical trials.

Increasing patient participation in oncology clinical trials

AIM

Timely recruitment of eligible participants is essential for the success of clinical trials, with insufficient accrual being the leading cause for premature termination of both oncology and non-oncology trials.

METHODS

In this paper we further elaborate on the challenges for patient participation in oncology trials from physician, patient, healthcare system, and some trial-related perspectives.

RESULTS

We present strategies such as use of digital healthcare technologies, real-world data and real-world evidence, decentralized clinical trials, pragmatic trial designs, and supportive services to increase patient participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Multifaceted measures are necessary to increase patient participation, especially for those who are under-represented in cancer trials.

Oncologist-Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Enrolling Patients in Optimization Trials That Test Less Intense Cancer Treatment

PURPOSE

As outcomes improve in early-stage breast cancer, clinical trials are undergoing a paradigm shift from intensification trials (more therapy) to improve survival to optimization trials, which assess the potential for using less toxic therapy while preserving survival outcomes. However, little is known about physician perspectives in community and academic settings about possible barriers and facilitators that could affect accrual to optimization clinical trials and the generalizability of future findings.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study with semistructured interviews of medical oncologists from different academic and community practices to assess their perspectives on optimization trials. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Three independent coders used a content analysis approach to analyze transcripts using NVivo. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted.

RESULTS

All 39 physicians reported that they would enroll patients in optimization clinical trials. Oncologists highlighted specific reasons to consider optimization trials. These included quality-of-life improvement by reducing toxicity, reduction in financial toxicity, fertility preservation, ability to avoid chemotherapy, minimization of overtreatment in patients with comorbid conditions, personalized treatment, opportunities to test novel therapies, and leveraging the availability of targeted therapies. Oncologists also identified accrual barriers, such as tumor-specific biology, individual (host) factors, prognostic markers of risk, access to therapies, provider experience, and system constraints. They voiced recommendations regarding preliminary data, trial design, and tools to support enrollment in optimization trials.

CONCLUSION

Although oncologists are generally willing to enroll patients on optimization clinical trials, barriers affect their acceptance. A scientific focus on overcoming these barriers is needed to support future enrollment on trials tailoring therapy on the basis of risk and potential benefit to allow true personalization of treatment.

A capability framework to inform the fundamental requirements for clinical trial unit development, growth and long term success in outer metropolitan and rural areas

Background

Participation in clinical trials is linked to improved patient outcomes. Despite this, most trial participants either reside in, or are treated in metropolitan areas. TrialHub developed hub-and-spoke models to support and grow clinical trial units in outer metropolitan and regional/rural centres in order to boost clinical trial engagement and reduce demands of trial participation on patients from outer metropolitan and regional/rural areas. The aim of this project was to establish a capability framework for clinical trial unit growth and development.

Methods

An integrative methods study design was used to inform the co-design and development of the capability framework based on data collected in Victoria during 2020-21. This included reviews of the literature and of existing local resources, infrastructure, and staffing; as well as education, mentoring and support, and a needs assessment through multidisciplinary working groups.

Results

We developed a capability framework based on the level of support required for outer metropolitan and regional/rural centres with diverse existing capabilities across Victoria. The framework applies a maturity model to assess resources, processes and practices which impact the capacity and capability of centres to conduct trials safely and sustainably. Each level of the model uses a consistent set of factors to describe the core elements required for safe clinical trial delivery. This benchmarking allows targeted investment to ensure safe and high-quality delivery of trials at newly establishing trial units.

Conclusion

The capability framework developed by TrialHub provides a basis for staged, planned and successful trial unit development and trial implementation. Further validation of the framework is required.

Germain D, Mohile S, Hudson MF. Enrolling Older Adults Onto National Cancer Institute-Funded Clinical Trials in Community Oncology Clinics: Barriers and Solutions

In April 2021, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Division of Cancer Prevention collaborated with the NCI Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis to produce a virtual workshop that developed recommendations for enhancing NCI-sponsored clinical trial accrual of older adults. Prior to the workshop, a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders (eg, community oncologists, advanced practice practitioners, clinic and research staff, and patient advocates) gathered information related to accrual of older adults to clinical trials from the literature. Subsequently, a survey was conducted to detail NCI Community Oncology Research Program members' perspective on accrual barriers for this population; 305 individuals responded to the survey. Barriers to clinical trial accruals included comorbidity-attributed trial ineligibility, transportation and time issues, concern that the proposed regimen is too toxic for older adults, patient or family caregiver declined participation, and lack of trials relevant to older patients. Identified solutions included broadening clinical trial inclusion criteria, increasing the number of clinical trials specifically designed for older adults, simplifying consent forms, improving recruitment materials for older adults and their families, and facilitating transportation vouchers. At the workshop, participants, including stakeholders, used prior literature and survey results to develop recommendations, including interventions to address clinician bias, implement geriatric assessment, and promote clinician and staff engagement as mechanisms to improve accrual of older adults to clinical trials.

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

Importance

Clinical trials play a critical role in the development of novel cancer therapies, and precise estimates of the frequency with which older adult patients with cancer participate in clinical trials are lacking.

Objective

To estimate the proportion of older adult Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) beneficiaries with cancer who participate in interventional cancer clinical trials, using a novel population-based methodology.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this retrospective cohort study evaluating clinical trial participation among older adult patients with cancer from January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2020, claims data from Medicare FFS were linked with the ClinicalTrials.gov to determine trial participation through the unique National Clinical Trial (NCT) identifier. The proportion of patients with newly diagnosed or newly recurrent cancer in 2015 participating in an interventional clinical trial and receiving active cancer treatment from January 2014 to June 2020 was estimated. Data analysis was performed from November 18, 2020, to November 1, 2021.

Exposures

Patients with cancer aged 65 years or older with Medicare FFS insurance, with and without active cancer treatment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Enrollment in clinical trials among all patients with cancer 65 years and older and among patients receiving active cancer treatments as defined by the presence of at least 1 NCT identifier corresponding to an interventional cancer clinical trial in Medicare claims.

Results

Among 1 150 978 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.7 [8.4] years; 49.9% men and 50.1% women) with newly diagnosed or newly recurrent cancer in 2015, 12 028 (1.0%) patients had a billing claim with an NCT identifier indicating enrollment in an interventional cancer clinical trial between January 2014 and June 2020. In a subset of 429 343 patients with active cancer treatment, 8360 (1.9%) were enrolled in 1 or more interventional trials. Patients enrolled in a trial tended to be younger, male, a race other than Black, and residing in zip codes with high median incomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings of this cohort study show that clinical trial enrollment among older adult patients with cancer remains low, with only 1.0% to 1.9% of patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent cancer in 2015 participating in an interventional cancer clinical trial as measured by the presence of NCT identifiers in Medicare claims. These data provide a contemporary estimate of trial enrollment, persistent disparities in trial participation, and only limited progress in trial access over the past 2 decades.

Benefits of Participation in Clinical Trials: An Umbrella Review

Participation in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) entails taking part in the discovery of effects of health care interventions. The question of whether participants' outcomes are different to those of non-participants remains controversial. This umbrella review was aimed at assessing whether there are health benefits of participation in RCTs, compared to non-participation. After prospective registration (PROSPERO CRD42021287812), we searched the Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from inception to June 2022 to identify relevant systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses. Data extraction and study quality assessment (AMSTAR-2) were performed by two independent reviewers. Of 914 records, six systematic reviews summarising 380 comparisons of RCT participants with non-participants met the inclusion criteria. In two reviews, the majority of comparisons were in favour of participation in RCTs. Of the total of comparisons, 69 (18.7%) were in favour of participation, reporting statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, 264 (71.7%) comparisons were not statistically significant, and 35 (9.5%) comparisons were in favour of non-participation. None of the reviews found a harmful effect of participation in RCTs. Our findings suggest that taking part in RCTs may be beneficial compared to non-participation.

Challenges in Recruitment and Retention: Leveraging Health-Related Antecedents and Information Carrier Factors to Improve Patient Participation in Pancreatic Cancer Research-A Review Article

ABSTRACT

Advancements in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) prevention, diagnosis, and treatment rely on representative and robust clinical trial participation. Given the severity of PDAC, along with the lack of effective early detection approaches, the need for accessible screening tools and new treatments is dire. Unfortunately, enrollment barriers often result in low participant accrual rates for PDAC studies and illustrate the challenging terrain researchers are facing. Research participation along with access to preventative care has been further impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. In this review, we use the Comprehensive Model for Information Seeking to discuss underexplored factors that influence patient participation in clinical studies. Adequate staffing, flexible scheduling, effective patient and physician communication, and culturally responsive messaging, along with the use of telehealth, can support enrollment objectives. Clinical research studies are a key component of health care, informing medical advancements, and improving outcomes. By leveraging health-related antecedents and information carrier factors, researchers can more effectively address barriers to participation and implement potential evidence-based mitigating strategies. While this work focuses on the PDAC research context, the lessons delineated here are applicable to the wider cancer research setting.

Enhancing access to and diversity in cancer clinical trials through a financial reimbursement program: Protocol to evaluate a novel program

As clinical trials have become more complex, with increasing numbers of required procedures and clinic visits, gaining access to promising new treatments has become even more challenging for many individuals. To address these barriers, we implemented a financial reimbursement and outreach program designed to increase the number and diversity of participants in cancer clinical trials at centers in Dallas, Houston, and Philadelphia. As endorsed by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Texas and Pennsylvania State Legislatures, the program provides financial reimbursement for non-clinical costs (e.g., travel, lodging) to patients on cancer clinical trials with household income up to 700% the Federal poverty rate. The research study described here, centered at the Dallas site, evaluates program impact by assessing (1) numbers and diversity of patients enrolled to cancer clinical trials before and after program implementation; (2) characteristics of patients offered participation in the program who do versus do not enroll; (3) characteristics of patients enrolled in the program who do versus do not complete the reimbursement process. To evaluate perceived barriers and facilitators of program participation, we will conduct semi-structured interviews and administer the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity Patient Reported Outcome Measure (COST PROM) and the Short Assessment of Health Literacy (SAHL). This program will examine how reimbursement of non-clinical costs can improve access to cancer clinical trials, with the eventual goal of increasing trial enrollment, diversity, representativeness, and generalizability.

Impact of a Clinical Genomics Program on Trial Accrual for Targeted Treatments: Practical Approach Overcoming Barriers to Accrual for Underserved Patients

PURPOSE

Clinical trials of novel and targeted agents increasingly require biomarkers for eligibility. Precision oncology continues to evolve, but challenges hamper broad use of molecular profiling (MP) that could increase the number of patients benefiting from targeted therapy. We implemented an integrated clinical genomics program (CGP), including a virtual Molecular Tumor Board (MTB), and examined its impact on MP use and impact on clinical trial accrual in a multisite regional-based cancer system with an emphasis on effects for isolated clinicians.

METHODS

We assessed MP and MTB use from 2010 to 2020 by practice location, physician experience, and patient characteristics. Use of MTB-recommended treatments was assessed. Clinical trial enrollment was evaluated for patients with MP versus MP and MTB review.

RESULTS

After CGP implementation, the number of physicians using MP and the number of MP tests increased ≥ 10-fold. The proportion of Hispanic patients with MP was the same as that in the system (both 2%) with marginal differences observed in the proportion of African Americans tested compared with the system population (16% v 19%). Physicians followed MTB treatment recommendations in 74% of cases. Rapid clinical decline was the most common reason why physicians did not follow MTB recommendations. Clinical trial accrual was 15% (669 of 4,459) for patients with MP alone and 28% (94 of 334) with both MP and MTB review. Clinical trial availability and patient out-of-pocket costs affected MP use.

CONCLUSION

Integrating CGP into clinical workflow with decision support tools, trial matching, and management of patient costs led to increased use of MP by physicians with all levels of experience, enhanced clinical trial accrual, and has the potential to reduce disparities in MP.

Review article: randomised controlled trials in inflammatory bowel disease-common challenges and potential solutions

BACKGROUND

Recruitment rates for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis clinical trials continue to decrease annually. The inability to reach recruitment targets and complete trials has serious implications for stakeholders in the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community. Action is required to ensure patients with an unmet medical need have access to new therapies to improve the management of their IBD.

AIMS

Identify challenges contributing to recruitment decline in IBD clinical trials and propose potential solutions.

METHODS

PubMed and Google were used to identify literature, regulatory guidelines and conference proceedings related to IBD clinical trials and related concepts. Data on IBD clinical trials conducted between 1989 and 2020 were extracted from the Trialtrove database.

RESULTS

Key aspects that may improve recruitment rates were identified. An increasingly patient-centric approach should be taken to study design including improvements to the readability of key trial documentation and inclusion of patient representatives in trial planning. Placebo is unappealing to patients; approaches including platform trials should be explored to minimise placebo exposure. Non-invasive imaging, biomarkers and novel digital endpoints should continue to be examined to reduce the burden on patients. Reducing the administrative burden associated with trials via the use of electronic signatures, for example, may benefit study sites and investigators. Changes implemented to IBD trials during the COVID-19 pandemic provided examples of how trial conduct can be rapidly and constructively adapted.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve recruitment in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis trials, the IBD community should address a broad range of issues related to clinical trial conduct.

Needs Assessment Survey Identifying Research Processes Which may be Improved by Automation or Artificial Intelligence: ICU Community Modeling and Artificial Intelligence to Improve Efficiency (ICU-Comma)

Background

Critical care research in Canada is conducted primarily in academically-affiliated intensive care units with established research infrastructure, including research coordinators (RCs). Recently, efforts have been made to engage community hospital ICUs in research albeit with barriers. Automation or artificial intelligence (AI) could aid the performance of routine research tasks. It is unclear which research study processes might be improved through AI automation.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Canadian ICU research personnel. The survey contained items characterizing opinions regarding research processes that may be amenable to AI automation. We distributed the questionnaire via email distribution lists of 3 Canadian research societies. Open-ended questions were analyzed using a thematic content analysis approach.

Results

A total of 49 survey responses were received (response rate: 8%). Tasks that respondents felt were time-consuming/tedious/tiresome included: screening for potentially eligible patients (74%), inputting data into case report forms (65%), and preparing internal tracking logs (53%). Tasks that respondents felt could be performed by AI automation included: screening for eligible patients (59%), inputting data into case report forms (55%), preparing internal tracking logs (51%), and randomizing patients into studies (45%). Open-ended questions identified enthusiasm for AI automation to improve information accuracy and efficiency while freeing up RCs to perform tasks that require human interaction. This enthusiasm was tempered by the need for proper AI education and oversight.

Conclusions

There were balanced supportive (increased efficiency and re-allocation of tasks) and challenges (informational accuracy and oversight) with regards to AI automation in ICU research.

Characterizing the relationships between tertiary and community cancer providers: Results from a survey of medical oncologists in Southern California

BACKGROUND

Tertiary cancer centers offer clinical expertise and multi-modal approaches to treatment alongside the integration of research protocols. Nevertheless, most patients receive their cancer care at community practices. A better understanding of the relationships between tertiary and community practice environments may enhance collaborations and advance patient care.

METHODS

A 31-item survey was distributed to community and tertiary oncologists in Southern California using REDCap. Survey questions assessed the following attributes: demographics and features of clinical practice, referral patterns, availability and knowledge of clinical trials and precision medicine, strategies for knowledge acquisition, and integration of community and tertiary practices.

RESULTS

The survey was distributed to 98 oncologists, 85 (87%) of whom completed it. In total, 52 (61%) respondents were community practitioners and 33 (38%) were tertiary oncologists. A majority (56%) of community oncologists defined themselves as general oncologists, whereas almost all (97%) tertiary oncologists reported a subspecialty. Clinical trial availability was the most common reason for patient referrals to tertiary centers (73%). The most frequent barrier to tertiary referral was financial considerations (59%). Clinical trials were offered by 97% of tertiary practitioners compared to 67% of community oncologists (p = 0.001). Most oncologists (82%) reported only a minimal-to-moderate understanding of clinical trials available at regional tertiary centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Community oncologists refer patients to tertiary centers primarily with the intent of clinical trial enrollment; however, significant gaps exist in their knowledge of trial availability. Our results identify the need for enhanced communication and collaboration between community and tertiary providers to expand patients' access to clinical trials.

Barriers and Facilitators to Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Trial Enrollment: NCORP Site Perspectives

Background

Although it is well documented that adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer have low participation in cancer clinical trials (CCTs), the underlying reasons are not well understood. We used the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) network to identify barriers and facilitators to AYA CCT enrollment, and strategies to improve enrollment at community-based and minority and/or underserved sites.

Methods

We performed one-on-one semistructured qualitative interviews with stakeholders (NCORP site principle investigators, NCORP administrators, physicians involved in enrollment, lead clinical research associates or clinical research nurses, nurse navigators, regulatory research associates, patient advocates) in the AYA CCT enrollment process. NCORP sites that included high and low AYA–enrolling affiliate sites and were diverse in geography and department representation (eg, pediatrics, medical oncology) were invited to participate. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Themes related to barriers and facilitators and strategies to improve enrollment were identified.

Results

We conducted 43 interviews across 10 NCORP sites. Eleven barriers and 13 facilitators to AYA enrollment were identified. Main barriers included perceived limited trial availability and eligibility, physician gatekeeping, lack of provider and research staff time, and financial constraints. Main facilitators and strategies to improve AYA enrollment included having a patient screening process, physician endorsement of trials, an “AYA champion” on site, and strong communication between medical and pediatric oncology.

Conclusions

Stakeholders identified several opportunities to address barriers contributing to low AYA CCT enrollment at community-based and minority and/or underserved sites. Results of this study will inform development and implementation of targeted interventions to increase AYA CCT enrollment.

Geographic disparities in access to cancer clinical trials in India

Introduction

The current study was aimed at quantifying the disparity in geographic access to cancer clinical trials in India.

Methods

We collated data of cancer clinical trials from the Clinical Trial Registry of India and data on state-wise cancer incidence from the Global Burden of Disease Study. The total sample size for each clinical trial was divided by the trial duration to get the sample size per year. This was then divided by the number of states in which accrual was planned to get the sample size per year per state (SSY).For interventional trials investigating a therapy, the SSY was divided by the number of incident cancers in the state to get the SSY per 1,000 incident cancer cases. The SSY data was then mapped to visualise the geographical disparity.

Results

We identified 181 ongoing studies, of which 132 were interventional studies. There was a substantial inter-state disparity-with a median SSY of 1.55 per 1,000 incident cancer cases (range 0.00-296.81 per 1,000 incident cases) for therapeutic interventional studies. Disparities were starker when cancer site-wise SSY was considered. Even in the state with the highest SSY, only 29.7% of the newly diagnosed cancer cases have an available slot in a therapeutic cancer clinical trial. Disparities in access were also apparent between academic (range: 0.21-226.60) and industry-sponsored trials (range: 0.17-70.21).

Conclusion

There are significant geographic disparities in access to cancer clinical trials in India. Future investigations should evaluate the reasons and mitigation approaches for such disparities.

Older adult participation in cancer clinical trials: A systematic review of barriers and interventions

Cancer is a disease of aging and, as the world's population ages, the number of older persons with cancer is increasing and will make up a growing share of the oncology population in virtually every country. Despite this, older patients remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments. Consequently, most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients, and effective strategies to improve clinical trial participation of older adults with cancer remain sparse. For this systematic review, the authors evaluated published studies regarding barriers to participation and interventions to improve participation of older adults in cancer trials. The quality of the available evidence was low and, despite a literature describing multifaceted barriers, only one intervention study aimed to increase enrollment of older adults in trials. The findings starkly amplify the paucity of evidence-based, effective strategies to improve participation of this underrepresented population in cancer trials. Within these limitations, the authors provide their opinion on how the current cancer research infrastructure must be modified to accommodate the needs of older patients. Several underused solutions are offered to expand clinical trials to include older adults with cancer. However, as currently constructed, these recommendations alone will not solve the evidence gap in geriatric oncology, and efforts are needed to meet older and frail adults where they are by expanding clinical trials designed specifically for this population and leveraging real-world data.

Strategies to Improve Participation of Older Adults in Cancer Research

Cancer is a disease associated with aging. As the US population ages, the number of older adults with cancer is projected to dramatically increase. Despite this, older adults remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments and, consequently, clinicians struggle with how to interpret data from clinical trials and apply them to older adults in practice. A combination of system, clinician, and patient barriers bar opportunities for trial participation for many older patients, and strategies are needed to address these barriers at multiple fronts, five of which are offered here. This review highlights the need to (1) broaden eligibility criteria, (2) measure relevant end points, (3) expand standard trial designs, (4) increase resources (e.g., institutional support, interdisciplinary care, and telehealth), and (5) develop targeted interventions (e.g., behavioral interventions to promote patient enrollment). Implementing these solutions requires a substantial investment in engaging and collaborating with community-based practices, where the majority of older patients with cancer receive their care. Multifaceted strategies are needed to ensure that older patients with cancer, across diverse healthcare settings, receive the highest-quality, evidence-based care.

Factors Influencing Public Knowledge and Willingness to Participate in Biomedical Research in Jordan: A National Survey

PURPOSE

Recruitment of adequate numbers of research participants is important for advancement in biomedical fields. Awareness and knowledge of the population about biomedical research are expected to enhance willingness to participate in such research. Therefore, in the current study, participants' awareness, knowledge, and willingness to participate in scientific research in Jordan were examined.

METHODS

This was a survey-based, cross-sectional study conducted from December 2019 to February 2020 among the public in Jordan. After written informed consent had been obtained from study participants, a structured questionnaire was used to survey research participants. The final questionnaire contained three parts: part I was about demographics and general information, part II assessed participants' awareness and willingness to participate in biomedical research, and part III assessed participants' knowledge about biomedical research studies.

RESULTS

A total of 2,000 subjects agreed to participate, of which 67.4% were female (n=1339). More than half the respondents were aware of biomedical research (58.6%), of which 18.1% had previously participated in biomedical research. In addition, 55.5% reported that they were willing to participate in biomedical research, while a lower proportion (31.1%) were willing to volunteer in a clinical trial. The overall knowledge of participants about biomedical research was deemed moderate (total score 12.9 out of 20). Finally, willingness to participate in biomedical research was associated with being male, being married, having a biomedicine-related degree, and higher knowledge score.

CONCLUSION

A majority of Jordanians had moderate levels of awareness and knowledge about biomedical research. Such factors as sex, type of education, and knowledge contribute to willingness to participate in biomedical research.