Increasing Racial and Ethnic Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Cancer Treatment Trials: Evaluation of an ASCO-Association of Community Cancer Centers Site Self-Assessment

Oncologist-Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Offering Cancer Clinical Trials to Their Patients

NCCN guidelines indicate that cancer clinical trials (CCTs) are the best management for patients with cancer. However, only 5% of patients enroll in them. We examined oncologists' perceived barriers and facilitators to discussing CCTs. This qualitative study was part of the ASCO-ACCC Initiative to Increase Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Clinical Trials. Barriers and facilitators at the system, trial, provider, and patient levels were examined. To achieve triangulation, patient encounters were reviewed using chart-stimulated recall (CSR) methods, thereby obtaining a valid assessment of physician performance. Ten oncology providers participated in this study. Nine were oncologists, and one was a clinical research coordinator; five were female; four were White; three were Asian; and three were Black. Barriers to offering CCTs were a lack of trial availability; ineligibility; a lack of knowledge; assumptions about patient interest, benefits, or harms; patient's disease factors; and negative attitudes. Facilitators of offering CCTs were a physical space to discuss trials; greater trial availability; a systematic approach to offering trials; patient factors; patients seeking trials; a lack of comorbidities; patients being younger in age; patients being aware of, asking about, or hearing of trials from their surgeon; and higher levels of altruism. Many of the cited barriers are addressable with the cited facilitators. A larger study is needed to generalize and validate these findings.

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

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

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.

Meaningful Patient Engagement in Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Cancer Research: A Framework for Qualitative Studies

Over the last two decades, patient engagement in cancer research has evolved significantly, especially in addressing the unique challenges faced by adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer populations. This paper introduces a framework for meaningful engagement with AYA cancer patient research partners, drawing insights from the "FUTURE" Study, a qualitative study that utilizes focus groups to explore the impact of cancer diagnosis and treatment on the sexual and reproductive health of AYA cancer patients in Canada. The framework's development integrates insights from prior works and addresses challenges with patient engagement in research specific to AYA cancer populations. The framework is guided by overarching principles (safety, flexibility, and sensitivity) and includes considerations that apply across all phases of a research study (collaboration; iteration; communication; and equity, diversity, and inclusion) and tasks that apply to specific phases of a research study (developing, conducting, and translating the study). The proposed framework seeks to increase patient engagement in AYA cancer research beyond a supplementary aspect to an integral component for conducting research with impact on patients.

Inequity in Cancer and Cancer Care Delivery in the United States

Inequity exists along the continuum of cancer and cancer care delivery in the United States. Marginalized populations have later stage cancer at diagnosis, decreased likelihood of receiving cancer-directed care, and worse outcomes from treatment. These inequities are driven by historical, structural, systemic, interpersonal, and internalized factors that influence cancer across the pathologic and clinical continuum. To ensure equity in cancer care, interventions are needed at the level of policy, care delivery, interpersonal communication, diversity within the clinical workforce, and clinical trial accessibility and design.

Assessing Ethnic Minority Representation in Fibromyalgia Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Recruitment Demographics

The under-representation of non-White participants in Western countries in clinical research has received increased attention, due to recognized physiological differences between ethnic groups, which may affect the efficacy and optimal dosage of some treatments. This review assessed ethnic diversity in pharmaceutical trials for fibromyalgia, a poorly understood chronic pain disorder. We also investigated longitudinal change to non-White participant proportions in trials and non-White participants' likelihood to discontinue with fibromyalgia research between trial stages (retention). First, we identified relevant trials conducted in the United States and Canada between 2000 and 2022, by searching PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases. In trials conducted both across the United States and Canada, and exclusively within the United States, approximately 90% of participants were White. A longitudinal analysis also found no change in the proportion of non-White participants in trials conducted across the United States and Canada between 2000 and 2022. Finally, we found no significant differences in trial retention between White and non-White participants. This review highlights the low numbers of ethnic minorities in fibromyalgia trials conducted in the United States and Canada, with no change to these proportions over the past 22 years. Furthermore, non-White participants were not more likely to discontinue with the fibromyalgia research once they were recruited.

Representation of race and ethnicity among cancer survivors in trials of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I): A systematic review

PURPOSE

For cancer survivors, insomnia is highly prevalent and debilitating. Although cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is recognized as a gold standard treatment, it is unclear whether benefits of treatment generalize to racial and ethnic minorities in the USA. This systematic review characterizes the representation of racial and ethnic diversity among cancer survivors in CBT-I clinical trials and provides recommendations for research in sleep/cancer survivorship.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted in five electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library via Ovid, PsycINFO via Ovid, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection) using concepts of CBT, insomnia, and cancer survivors. Information about CBT-I intervention details, sample racial demographics, and whether authors explicitly analyzed race and ethnicity were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 1673 citations were retrieved, and 967 citations were uploaded to Covidence. Of these, 135 articles went through full-text review and 13 studies were included. Race and ethnicity were reported in 11/13 trials (84.6%). Of those reporting race and ethnicity, 8/11 (72.7%) trials were comprised of samples that were ≥ 85% non-Hispanic White. Among the trials that explicitly analyzed race and ethnicity, CBT-I was more effective among cancer survivors who were White and highly educated, and non-White cancer survivors were less likely to have private insurance and ability to participate in clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

Non-Hispanic White cancer survivors are overrepresented in CBT-I trials, the best available treatment for insomnia. Underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities likely contributes to barriers in access and uptake. Recommendations include implementing sustained efforts to expand diversity in CBT-I clinical trials for cancer survivors.

Improving Access to Cancer Clinical Trials for Patients From Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds in Australia: A Survey of Clinical and Research Professionals

PURPOSE

Patients with cancer from racial and ethnic minorities, referred to as culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) in Australia, are significantly under-represented in cancer clinical trials. We performed a national survey of the Australian cancer clinical trials workforce to determine barriers and preferred solutions to address this inequity.

METHODS

A 15-item online survey containing both closed- and open-ended purpose-designed questions was created using REDCap. The survey was emailed to members of the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, Medical Oncology Group of Australia, and Australian cancer cooperative trial groups, and promoted via Twitter. Descriptive analyses summarized quantitative data, and free-text entries underwent thematic analysis with NVivo Version 12.

RESULTS

Ninety one respondents completed the survey-with representation across Australia. Eighty-seven percent were directly involved in clinical trial recruitment. Sixty-eight percent were clinicians. Seventy-four percent of respondents did not collect routine data on CALD patient enrollment to cancer clinical trials. Communication (eg, lack of translated materials) and opportunity-related barriers (eg, exclusionary trial protocols) were the most frequently perceived barriers to recruitment. Additionally, qualitative analysis indicated that insufficient consultation time and difficulties accessing interpreters for patients with non-English language preference were significant barriers. Trial navigators and a generic cancer trial pamphlet available in multiple languages were judged the most likely solutions to improve recruitment.

CONCLUSION

This study articulates the Australian clinical trials workforce's perspective on current barriers and potential solutions to the under-representation of patients from CALD backgrounds on cancer clinical trials. The insights and solutions from this survey provide steps toward achieving equity in Australian cancer clinical trials.

The Promise of Cancer Health Justice: How Stakeholders and the Community Can Build a Sustained and Equitable System of Cancer Care Through the Lens of Colorectal Cancer Interventions

ABSTRACT

Disparities in outcomes and persistent barriers to adequate care in colorectal cancer are reflective of a system that has failed to achieve the ideals of health equity and health justice. In this review, we discuss that although much research has been done to improve upon gaps in screening, treatment, and supportive care in colorectal cancer, a concerted effort across multiple research, regulatory, and funding stakeholders with community-level organizations is essential in building a self-sustained system that effectively achieves health equity outcomes. We also highlight several examples of novel community-based interventions along the continuum of cancer care that demonstrate the potential of what can be accomplished when we invest in scaling up small-scale solutions to the state and national levels and offer ways in which stakeholders and the community may mutually benefit through a system of incentives, self-assessment tools, and attainable metrics.

Diversity in Cancer Care: Current Challenges and Potential Solutions to Achieving Equity in Clinical Trial Participation

ABSTRACT

Access to and participation in cancer clinical trials determine whether such data are applicable, feasible, and generalizable among populations. The lack of inclusion of low-income and marginalized populations limits generalizability of the critical data guiding novel therapeutics and interventions used globally. Such lack of cancer clinical trial equity is troubling, considering that the populations frequently excluded from these trials are those with disproportionately higher cancer morbidity and mortality rates. There is an urgency to increase representation of marginalized populations to ensure that effective treatments are developed and equitably applied. Efforts to ameliorate these clinical trial inclusion disparities are met with a slew of multifactorial and multilevel challenges. We aim to review these challenges at the patient, clinician, system, and policy levels. We also highlight and propose solutions to inform future efforts to achieve cancer health equity.

An Intervention-Based Approach to Achieve Racial Equity in Gynecologic Oncology

Racial inequities within gynecologic oncology exist at every step of the cancer continuum. Although the disparities have been well described, there is a significant gap in the literature focused on eliminating inequities in gynecologic cancer outcomes. The goal of this narrative review is to highlight successful, evidence-based interventions from within and outside of gynecologic oncology that alleviate disparity, providing a call to action for further research and implementation efforts within the field. These solutions are organized in the socioecologic framework, where multiple levels of influence-societal, community, organizational, interpersonal, and individual-affect health outcomes.

Disparities in US Lung Cancer Clinical Trial Enrollment

BACKGROUND

Disparities within clinical trial enrollment are well-documented, reducing the generalizability of results. Although nearly 30 years have passed since Congress passed the NIH Revitalization Act to encourage the participation of minoritized populations in clinical trials, these patients continue to be underrepresented. This study aimed to investigate lung cancer clinical trial enrollment disparities for race/ethnicity, sex, and age.

METHODS

We queried the National Institutes of Health: US National Library of Medicine database of clinical trials for all US-based lung cancer clinical trials completed between 2004 and 2021 and collected data on race and ethnicity, gender, and age breakdown. This data was compared to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database data. Independent sample t-tests and Kruskal-Wallis's approach were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Of 311 eligible trials with exclusive US enrollment, 136 (44%) reported race and ethnicity breakdown for the patient cohort representing 9869 patients. Hispanic, Non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic Black, and Non-Hispanic Unreported participants were underrepresented (p = 0.001, p = 0.005, p = 0.014, p = 0.002, respectively). Non-Hispanic White participants were overrepresented (p = 0.018). Disparities worsened from 2017 to 2021 for Hispanic patients (p = 0.03). No significant differences were found for sex or age.

CONCLUSIONS

Disparities for clinical lung cancer trial enrollment have not shown statistically significant improvement since 2004, and representation remains unequal, especially for racial and ethnic minorities.