Financial Burden of Cancer Clinical Trial Participation and the Impact of a Cancer Care Equity Program

Transferring care to enhance access to early-phase cancer clinical trials: Protocol to evaluate a novel program

Involving diverse populations in early-phase (phase I and II) cancer clinical trials is critical to informed therapeutic development. However, given the growing costs and complexities of early-phase trials, trial activation and enrollment barriers may be greatest for these studies at healthcare facilities that provide care to the most diverse patient groups, including those in historically underserved communities (e.g., safety-net healthcare systems). To promote diverse and equitable access to early-phase cancer clinical trials, we are implementing a novel program for the transfer of care to enhance access to early-phase cancer clinical trials. We will then perform a mixed-methods study to determine perceptions and impact of the program. Specifically, we will screen, recruit, and enroll diverse patients from an urban, integrated safety-net healthcare system to open and active early-phase clinical trials being conducted in a university-based cancer center. To evaluate this novel program, we will: (1) determine program impact and efficiency; and (2) determine stakeholder experience with and perceptions of the program. To achieve these goals, we will conduct preliminary cost analyses of the program. We will also conduct surveys and interviews with patients and caregivers to elucidate program impact, challenges, and areas for improvement. We hypothesize that broadening access to early-phase cancer trials conducted at experienced centers may improve equity and diversity. In turn, such efforts may enhance the efficiency and generalizability of cancer clinical research.

Assessing patient risk, benefit, and outcomes in drug development: A decade of ramucirumab clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate published clinical trials of ramucirumab to assess the risk/benefit profile and burden over time for patients.

BACKGROUND

The burden of oncologic drug development on patients paired with increasing clinical trial failure rates emphasizes the need for reform of drug development. Identifying and addressing patterns of excess burden can guide policy, ensure evidence-based protections for trial participants, and improve medical decision-making.

METHODS

On May 25, 2023 a literature search was performed on Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for clinical trials using ramucirumab as monotherapy or in combination with other interventions for cancer treatment. Authors screened titles and abstracts for potential inclusion in a masked, duplicate fashion. Following data screening, data was extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. Trials were classified as positive when meeting their primary endpoint and safety, negative or indeterminate.

RESULTS

Ramucirumab was initially approved for gastric cancer but has since been tested in 20 cancers outside of its FDA approved indications. In our analysis of ramucirumab trials, there were a total of 10,936 participants and 10,303 adverse events reported. Gains in overall survival and progression-free survival for patients were 1.5 and 1.2 months, respectively. FDA-approved indications have reported more positive outcomes in comparison to off-label indications.

CONCLUSION

We found that FDA-approved indications for ramucirumab had better efficacy outcomes than non-approved indications. However, a concerning number of adverse events were observed across all trials assessed. Participants in ramucirumab randomized controlled trials saw meager gains in overall survival when evaluated against a comparison group. Clinicians should carefully weigh the risks associated with ramucirumab therapy given its toxicity burden and poor survival gains.

Addressing transportation barriers in oncology: existing programs and new solutions

Transportation is an underrecognized, but modifiable barrier to accessing cancer care, especially for clinical trials. Clinicians, insurers, and health systems can screen patients for transportation needs and link them to transportation. Direct transportation services (i.e., ride-sharing, insurance-provided transportation) have high rates of patient satisfaction and visit completion. Patient financial reimbursements provide necessary funds to counteract the effects of transportation barriers, which can lead to higher trial enrollment, especially for low socioeconomic status and racially and ethnically diverse patients. Expanding transportation interventions to more cancer patients, and addressing knowledge, service, and system gaps, can help more patients access needed cancer care.

Understanding the financial cost of cancer clinical trial participation

BACKGROUND

Though financial hardship is a well-documented adverse effect of standard-of-care cancer treatment, little is known about out-of-pocket costs and their impact on patients participating in cancer clinical trials. This study explored the financial effects of cancer clinical trial participation.

METHODS

This cross-sectional analysis used survey data collected in December 2022 and May 2023 from individuals with cancer previously served by Patient Advocate Foundation, a nonprofit organization providing social needs navigation and financial assistance to US adults with a chronic illness. Surveys included questions on cancer clinical trial participation, trial-related financial hardship, and sociodemographic data. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted using Cramer's V to estimate the in-sample magnitude of association. Associations between trial-related financial hardship and sociodemographics were estimated using adjusted relative risks (aRR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) from modified Poisson regression models with robust standard errors.

RESULTS

Of 650 survey respondents, 18% (N = 118) reported ever participating in a cancer clinical trial. Of those, 47% (n = 55) reported financial hardship as a result of their trial participation. Respondents reporting trial-related financial hardship were more often unemployed or disabled (58% vs. 43%; V = 0.15), Medicare enrolled (53% vs. 40%; V = 0.15), and traveled >1 h to their cancer provider (45% vs. 17%; V = 0.33) compared to respondents reporting no hardship. Respondents who experienced trial-related financial hardship most often reported expenses from travel (reported by 71% of respondents), medical bills (58%), dining out (40%), or housing needs (40%). Modeling results indicated that respondents traveling >1 h vs. ≤30 min to their cancer provider had a 2.2× higher risk of financial hardship, even after adjusting for respondent race, income, employment, and insurance status (aRR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.3-3.8). Most respondents (53%) reported needing $200-$1000 per month to compensate for trial-related expenses. Over half (51%) of respondents reported less willingness to participate in future clinical trials due to incurred financial hardship. Notably, of patients who did not participate in a cancer clinical trial (n = 532), 13% declined participation due to cost.

CONCLUSION

Cancer clinical trial-related financial hardship, most often stemming from travel expenses, affected almost half of trial-enrolled patients. Interventions are needed to reduce adverse financial participation effects and potentially improve cancer clinical trial participation.

The Inclusion of Underrepresented Populations in Cardiovascular Genetics and Epidemiology

Novel genetic risk markers have helped us to advance the field of cardiovascular epidemiology and refine our current understanding and risk stratification paradigms. The discovery and analysis of variants can help us to tailor prognostication and management. However, populations underrepresented in cardiovascular epidemiology and cardiogenetics research may experience inequities in care if prediction tools are not applicable to them clinically. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to outline the barriers that underrepresented populations can face in participating in genetics research, to describe the current efforts to diversify cardiogenetics research, and to outline strategies that researchers in cardiovascular epidemiology can implement to include underrepresented populations. Mistrust, a lack of diverse research teams, the improper use of sensitive biodata, and the constraints of genetic analyses are all barriers for including diverse populations in genetics studies. The current work is beginning to address the paucity of ethnically diverse genetics research and has already begun to shed light on the potential benefits of including underrepresented and diverse populations. Reducing barriers for individuals, utilizing community-driven research processes, adopting novel recruitment strategies, and pushing for organizational support for diverse genetics research are key steps that clinicians and researchers can take to develop equitable risk stratification tools and improve patient care.

Breast Cancer-Related Financial Toxicity in Sri Lanka: Insights From a Lower Middle-Income Country With Free Universal Public Healthcare

Financial toxicity (FT) describes either objective or perceived excess financial strain due to a cancer diagnosis on the well-being of patients, families, and society. The consequences of FT have been shown to span countries of varied economic tiers and diverse healthcare models. This study attempts to describe FT and its effects in a lower- to middle-income country delivering predominantly public nonfee-levying healthcare. This was a cross-sectional study involving 210 patients with breast cancer of any stage (I to IV), interviewed between 6 and 18 months from the date of diagnosis. Financial toxicity was highly prevalent with 81% reporting 3 or more on a scale of 1 to 5. Costs incurred for travelling (94%), out-of-hospital investigations (87%), and consultation fees outside the public system (81%) were the most common contributors to FT. Daily compromises for food and education were made by 30% and 20%, respectively, with loss of work seen in over one-third. Greater FT was seen with advanced cancer stage and increasing distance to the nearest radiotherapy unit (P = .008 and .01, respectively). Family and relatives were the most common form of financial support (77.6%). In conclusion, FT is substantial in our group, with many having to make daily compromises for basic needs. Many opt to visit the fee-levying private sector for at least some part of their care, despite the availability of an established public nonfee-levying healthcare.

Depression and anxiety in cancer patient enrolled in clinical trials with serious adverse events

OBJECTIVE

Drug-induced side effects, particularly serious adverse events (SAEs), often affect cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials. However, little is known about anxiety and depression in cancer patients who experienced SAEs. This study evaluated the prevalence of anxiety and depression in cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials who experienced SAEs and explored the risk factors.

METHODS

A multi-center, cross-sectional survey was conducted in hospitals affiliated with the University of Science and Technology of China from December 2021 to November 2022. A total of 112 cancer patients who experienced SAEs while enrolled in clinical trials, and who completed the informed consent process and study questionnaires, were included in the final analysis.

RESULTS

The rate of moderate-severe depression in cancer patients was 38.4% and that of moderate-severe anxiety was 13.4%. Among the patients who had moderate-severe anxiety, 93.3% had concurrent moderate-severe depression. Lower cognitive function and lower global quality of life were risk factors for depression in cancer patients who experienced SAEs. Pain, low emotional function, low global quality of life, and a high Impact of Events Scale score were risk factors for anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients enrolled in a clinical trial who experienced SAEs tended to be anxious and depressed, particularly the latter. These results indicate the need to evaluate anxiety and depression, and mental health treatment among cancer patients with SAEs in clinical trials.

Enhancing diversity of clinical trial populations in multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Demographic characteristics, social determinants of health (SDoH), health inequities, and health disparities substantially influence the general and disease-specific health outcomes of people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Participants in clinical trials do not represent all people with MS treated in practice.

OBJECTIVE

To provide recommendations for enhancing diversity and inclusion in clinical trials in MS.

METHODS

We held an international workshop under the Auspices of the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in MS (the "Committee") to develop recommendations regarding diversity and inclusivity of participants of clinical trials in MS. Workshop attendees included members of the Committee as well as external participants. External participants were selected based on expertise in trials, SDoH, health equity and regulatory science, and diversity with respect to gender, race, ethnicity, and geography.

RESULTS

Recommendations include use of diversity plans, community engagement and education, cultural competency training, biologically justified rather than templated eligibility criteria, adaptive designs that allow broadening of eligibility criteria over the course of a trial, and logistical and practical adjustments to reduce study participant burden. Investigators should report demographic and SDoH characteristics of participants.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations provide sponsors and investigators with methods of improving diversity and inclusivity of clinical trial populations in MS.

Current Status and Future Direction to Address Disparities in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Prostate Cancer Care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Disparities in prostate cancer care and outcomes have been well recognized for decades. The purpose of this review is to methodically highlight known racial disparities in the care of prostate cancer patients, and in doing so, recognize potential strategies for overcoming these disparities moving forward.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the past few years, there has been a growing recognition and push towards addressing disparities in cancer care. This has led to improvements in care delivery trends and a narrowing of racial outcome disparities, but as we highlight in the following review, there is more to be addressed before we can fully close the gap in prostate cancer care delivery. While disparities in prostate cancer care are well recognized in the literature, they are not insurmountable, and progress has been made in identifying areas for improvement and potential strategies for closing the care gap.

Qualitative evaluation of barriers and facilitators to hepatocellular carcinoma care in North Carolina

BACKGROUND

Many patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) never receive cancer-directed therapy. In order to tailor interventions to increase access to appropriate therapy, we sought to understand the barriers and facilitators to HCC care.

METHODS

Patients with recently diagnosed HCC were identified through the University of North Carolina (UNC) HCC clinic or local hospital cancer registrars (rapid case ascertainment, RCA). Two qualitative researchers conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded.

RESULTS

Nineteen interviews were conducted (10 UNC, 9 RCA). Key facilitators of care were: physician knowledge; effective communication regarding test results, plan of care, and prognosis; social support; and financial support. Barriers included: lack of transportation; cost of care; provider lack of knowledge about HCC; delays in scheduling; or poor communication with the medical team. Participants suggested better coordination of appointments and having a primary contact within the healthcare team.

LIMITATIONS

We primarily captured the perspectives of those HCC patients who, despite the challenges they describe, were ultimately able to receive HCC care.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies key facilitators and barriers to accessing care for HCC in North Carolina. Use of the RCA system to identify patients from a variety of settings, treated and untreated, enabled us to capture a broad range of perspectives. Reducing barriers through improving communication and care coordination, assisting with out-of-pocket costs, and engaging caregivers and other medical providers may improve access. This study should serve as the basis for tailored interventions aimed at improving access to appropriate, life-prolonging care for patients with HCC.

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.

What's in it for me?: A value assessment of gynecologic cancer clinical trials for Black women

OBJECTIVE

Underrepresented groups may be dissuaded from clinical trial participation without perceived value. We therefore comprehensively assessed gynecologic cancer clinical trial protocols for the inclusion of items of value most important to Black individuals.

METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for NCI-sponsored gynecologic cancer clinical trials in the US between Jan.1994 and Nov.2021. Pre-specified return of value (ROV) items were abstracted from each protocol. Inclusion proportions were calculated for each ROV item and temporal changes assessed with chi-square tests. Temporality of proportional trends was further assessed by slope and departure from linearity calculations.

RESULTS

279 gynecologic cancer clinical trials were included. Most commonly trials had first accrual in 2001-2007 (37%) and involved ovarian cancer (48%), phase II studies (53%), and chemotherapy (60%) or targeted therapy (34%). Trials often included ROV items in basic information (99%), medical record information (99%), and imaging (82%). 41% of trials included ROV items in biomarker testing, 20% genetic testing, and 20% in patient-reported outcome questionnaires. Over time, there were significant increases in the proportion of trials that included genetic (3% to 51%; p < 0.001) and biomarker testing (14 to 78%, p < 0.001). Information on lifestyle risk factors was rare (1%). No trials included ROV items in ancestry, how to connect with other participants, or remuneration.

CONCLUSIONS

Gynecologic cancer clinical trials include few design elements that provide high value to Black individuals like lifestyle risk factors, ancestry, and remuneration. In any multi-pronged effort to improve diversity in clinical trial enrollment, inclusion of items valued by Black individuals should be considered.

Experiences of a Multiethnic Cohort of Patients Enrolled in a Financial Reimbursement Program for Cancer Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

Financial reimbursement programs (FRPs) offset out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses from therapeutic clinical trial (TCT) participation. The study explores patients' experience in TCTs after enrollment in a FRP at two academic medical centers, including barriers and opportunities to improve trial participation.

METHODS

From May 2019 to January 2020, adults diagnosed with cancer and eligible for TCTs and FRP were recruited from the Improving Patient Access to Cancer Clinical Trials randomized trial at the University of California San Francisco and University of Southern California. Patients with income ≤ 700% of national poverty guidelines were eligible. Semistructured interviews were conducted in patients' preferred language. Qualitative analysis was performed by site and preferred language by two independent coders.

RESULTS

Of 65 trial patients, 53 participated (38%, University of California San Francisco; 62%, USC). The median age was 59 (IQR, 46-65) years, and 58% were female. Nearly half (49%) identified as Latinx/Hispanic compared with 32% non-Hispanic White, 10% Asian, 4% Black, 1% Native American, and 4% Others. A third were non-English speakers, 42% had college education or more, and 55% were retired/unemployed. Most common malignancies were gastrointestinal (42%), breast (19%), and genitourinary (13%), and 66% had metastatic disease. Patients experienced long travel time (1-4.5 hours) among 57% and financial toxicity from OOP costs (68%). High acceptability of the FRP was reported (81%). Although 30% of patients reported willingness to discuss finances of cancer treatment/trial with physicians, majority (87%) preferred discussion with social workers or TCT staff. Proposed modifications to TCTs included decentralization, recruitment strategies, voucher structure, and established rates for OOP expenses.

CONCLUSION

Patients' experience with TCTs reveal financial and logistical stressors that may be lessened by the Improving Patient Access to Cancer Clinical Trial reimbursement program. FRPs may address inequities in clinical trial access among low-income and diverse populations.

Perspectives on Access to Novel Therapeutics Through Clinical Trials Among Adolescents and Young Adults with Advanced Cancer: Implications for Patient-Centered Clinical Trials

Purpose: Adolescents and young adults (AYA) with advanced cancer have unequal access to and enrollment in clinical trials. Many AYA use online platforms to share their treatment experiences. The purpose of this analysis was to explore how AYA discuss clinical trials and their access to novel therapeutics through their blogs. Methods: We studied illness blogs from 22 AYA (ages 16-38 years old) with advanced cancer who specifically discussed experiences enrolling in a clinical trial. Nearly 500 excerpts were abstracted from their blogs, and we used qualitative descriptive methodology and thematic analysis to explore their longitudinal perspectives. Results: We describe three themes: (1) "Blinded", which represents the uncertainty in treatment pathway and underrepresentation of AYA in clinical trials, (2) "Totally healthy except for the damn cancer", which represents the numerous challenges associated with meeting eligibility criteria and lack of available clinical trials, and (3) "Go ahead and send me the bill!", which represents the precarious financial challenges associated with participating with clinical trials (both direct costs and indirect costs associated with travel, time away from work) as well as the costs of novel therapeutics. Conclusions: By studying AYA online narratives, we can outline several gaps in accessing clinical trials and generate future research priorities. AYA with advanced cancer are known to have aggressive trajectories, and there are opportunities to integrate patient-reported outcomes and supportive care frameworks embedded within clinical trial study design.

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.

Through the Lens of Patient Partners: Challenges in Accrual of Older Adults to NCI Clinical Trials

The workshop "Engaging Older Adults in Cancer Clinical Trials Conducted in the NCI Clinical Trials Network: Challenges and Opportunities" included a Patient Stakeholder Workgroup that explored the needs and concerns of older adults with cancer regarding clinical trials. To accomplish this, the workgroup conducted patient focus groups in which participants were interviewed, recorded conversations were analyzed and coded, and salient themes were identified. The focus groups identified general barriers to accrual such as complex consent forms, general communication, restrictive eligibility, nonreferrals, patient costs, cultural insensitivity, limited accessibility in community settings, and transportation issues. They also identified the influence of knowledgeable information presenters, improved care, family or caregiver support, and the desire to help others as drivers or reasons to participate in clinical trials. The workshop concluded that multi-level interventions could be used to increase the accrual of older adults to National Cancer Institute clinical trials as well as others.

Influence of Cost-Related Considerations on Clinical Trial Participation: Results from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS)

BACKGROUND

People experiencing financial burden are underrepresented in clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

Describe the prevalence of cost-related considerations influential to trial participation and their associations with person-level characteristics.

DESIGN

This cross-sectional study used and assessed how three cost-related considerations would influence the decision to participate in a hypothetical clinical trial.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 3682 US adult respondents to the Health Information National Trends Survey MAIN MEASURES: Survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression estimated associations between respondent characteristics and odds of reporting cost-related considerations as very influential to participation.

KEY RESULTS

Among 3682 respondents, median age was 48 (IQR 33-61). Most were non-Hispanic White (60%), living comfortably or getting by on their income (74%), with ≥ 1 medical condition (61%). Over half (55%) of respondents reported at least one cost-related consideration as very influential to trial participation, including if usual care was not covered by insurance (reported by 42%), payment for participation (24%), or support for participation (24%). Respondents who were younger (18-34 vs. ≥ 75, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.3, 95% CI 2.3-8.1), more educated (high school vs. <high school, aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.1), or with lower perceived income (having difficulty vs. living comfortably, aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-3.8) had higher odds of reporting any cost-related consideration as very influential to trial participation. Non-Hispanic Black vs. non-Hispanic White respondents had 29% lower odds (95% CI 0.5-0.9) of reporting any cost-related consideration as very influential to trial participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-related considerations would influence many individuals' decisions to participate in a clinical trial, though prevalence of these concerns differed by respondent characteristics. Reducing financial barriers to trial participation may promote equitable trial access and greater trial enrollment diversity.

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.

Patient Experience in Clinical Trials: Quality of Life, Financial Burden, and Perception of Care in Patients With Multiple Myeloma or Lymphoma Enrolled on Clinical Trials Compared With Standard Care

PURPOSE

Patients' concerns regarding clinical trial (CT) participation include apprehension about side effects, quality of life (QoL), financial burden, and quality of care.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the experience of patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma who were treated on CTs (CT group, n = 35) versus patients treated with standard approaches (non-CT group, n = 88) focusing on QoL, financial burden of care, and patients' perception of quality of care over a 1-year period.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in any of the patient-reported outcomes in CT versus non-CT groups. We observed an initial decline in overall QoL in the first 3 months across both groups, driven primarily by physical and functional well-being. QoL gradually improved and was above baseline by month 12. Patients reported highest improvement in the functional well-being subdomain. Patients in both groups reported high satisfaction with the quality of care received, and there were no differences in overall satisfaction, communication with team, or access to care. At baseline, 16%-19% of patients reported financial burden, which increased to a peak of 33% in the CT group and to 49% in the non-CT group over the course of 1 year. There was no significant difference in financial burden in the two groups overall. Most of the patients reported getting all the care that was deemed medically necessary in both groups. However, a significant proportion of patients reported having to make other kinds of financial sacrifices because of their cancer (CT group: 33% of patients at baseline and 21%-40% over 1 year; non-CT group: 19% at baseline and 25%-36% over 1 year).

CONCLUSION

Patients treated on CTs reported comparable QoL and quality of care with the non-CT group. A high proportion of patients reported financial burden over time in both groups. Our findings can serve as a guide to educate patients regarding CT participation and highlight the need to address the significant financial burden experienced by patients with cancer.

Cancer clinical trials in the Philippines

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

Practices of patient engagement in drug development: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

During the past decade, patient engagement (PE) has attracted significant attention in the field of drug development. Readiness to accept the central importance of patients' knowledge and contributions has become evident. This study aimed to synthesize evidence on the current state of PE in drug development: what is actually being done and how.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was conducted based on a PRISMA-informed protocol. Search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science, covering the period between 2011 and 2021. For analysis of extracted data, we developed a framework for analyzing PE in Drug Development. The Framework distinguishes a number of different PE types that take place at different stages of drug development and are characterized by the different degrees of power patients have in the process. It allowed us to assess depth and intensity of PE initiatives included in this review.

RESULTS

Most included PE initiatives took place at the stage of designing studies (40 in total). At this stage drug development goals are already set, but the mode of reaching them has not yet been fully determined. PE initiatives on the finetuning details stage followed (16 in total). The finetuning details stage covers the last parts of the drug development trajectory, when only relatively minor issues are still open for patients' contributions. The least numerous were PE initiatives on the stage of setting up R&D program (13 in total). This stage refers to the early steps in drug development where PE has the potential to make the most impact on shaping the subsequent process. In terms of intensity of engagement, most PE initiatives included in this review align with consultation and involvement types, 26 and 30 initiatives, respectively. Partnership was less frequent in the published accounts of PE (13 initiatives).

CONCLUSIONS

This review delineated a contemporary landscape of PE in drug development. Although attention to PE in drug development is relatively recent, a wide range of PE practices has already been initiated. The results indicate the necessity of distinguishing between different types of PE in order to understand consequences of choices regarding depth and intensity of PE.

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

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

Strategies to Advance Equity in Cancer Clinical Trials

Cancer clinical trials are critical for testing new treatments, yet less than 5% of patients with cancer enroll in these trials. Minority groups, elderly individuals, and rural populations are particularly underrepresented in cancer treatment trials. Strategies for advancing equity in cancer clinical trials for these populations include (1) optimizing clinical trial matching by broadening eligibility criteria, screening all patients for trial eligibility, expanding the number of trials against which patients are screened, and following up on all patient matches with an enrollment invitation; (2) conducting site self-assessments to identify clinical-, patient-, provider-, and system-level barriers that contribute to low rates of clinical trial screening and enrollment; (3) creating a quality improvement plan that addresses the barriers to enrollment and incorporates the use of tools and strategies such as clinical trial checklists; workforce development and trainings to improve cultural competence and reduce unconscious bias; guides to promote community education, outreach and engagement with cancer clinical trials; screening and accrual logs designed to measure participation by demographics; models of informed consent that improve understanding; clinical trial designs that reduce accessibility barriers; use of cancer clinical trial patient navigators; and programs to eliminate barriers to participation and out-of-pocket expenses; and (4) working with stakeholders to develop both protocols that are inclusive of diverse populations' geographic locations, and strategies to access those trials. These actions will support greater access for populations that have remained underrepresented in cancer clinical trials and thereby increase the generalizability and efficiency of cancer research.

Implementation of a Multisite Financial Reimbursement Program in Cancer Clinical Trials Integrated With Patient Navigation: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE:

Cancer clinical trial participants face considerable indirect costs associated with participation, such as travel and lodging, which may contribute to poor enrollment. Here, we report the findings in IMproving Patient Access to Cancer clinical Trials, a pilot feasibility study investigating the efficacy of offering a financial reimbursement program (FRP) during a therapeutic clinical trial discussion with or without additional outreach in improving patient enrollment.

METHODS:

Study participants for this study were recruited at two National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) from April 8, 2019, to September 19, 2019. Eligible participants were adults with a cancer diagnosis being approached to consider enrollment in a clinical trial. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive no follow-up (usual care) or a follow-up telephone call to facilitate FRP utilization stratified by study site. The target enrollment was 132 patients, with 66 patients in each study arm. The primary outcome was the consent rate to the multisite interventional study on the FRP among participants enrolling in clinical trials.

RESULTS:

The study had a 78% consent rate and enrolled a total of 132 participants, of whom 51% were non-White compared with 28% of CCC treatment clinical trial participants in 2019. No difference in enrollment in clinical trials between the two study arms was observed as the proportion of enrollment was 70% for both study arms. The most common reason for not enrolling in a clinical trial was due to ineligibility determined through screening procedures (75%).

CONCLUSION:

The current study observed that implementation of FRP at CCCs is feasible and serves a diverse patient population. Future studies will measure the impact of programs on overall clinical trial accrual and among racial/ethnic minorities.

Advancing Inclusive Research: Establishing Collaborative Strategies to Improve Diversity in Clinical Trials

Well-characterized disparities in clinical research have disproportionately affected patients of color, particularly in underserved communities. To tackle these barriers, Genentech formed the External Council for Advancing Inclusive Research, a 14-person committee dedicated to developing strategies to increase clinical research participation. To help improve the recruitment and retention of patients of color, this article chronicles our efforts to tangibly address the clinical research barriers at the system, study, and patient levels over the last four years. These efforts are one of the initial steps to fully realize the promise of personalized health care and provide increased patient benefit at less cost to society. Instead of simply acknowledging the problem, here we illuminate the collaborative and multilevel strategies that have been effective in delivering meaningful progress for patients.

OUP accepted manuscript

We define cancer equity as all people having as the same opportunity for cancer prevention, treatment, and survivorship care. However, marginalized populations continue to experience avoidable and unjust disparities in cancer care, access to clinical trials, and cancer survival. Racial and ethnic minorities, and individuals with low socioeconomic status, Medicaid insurance, limited health literacy, disabilities, and mental health disorders are more likely to experience delays to cancer diagnosis and less likely to receive guideline-concordant cancer care. These disparities are impacted by the social determinants of health including structural discrimination, racism, poverty, and inequities in access to healthcare and clinical trials. There is an urgent need to develop and adapt evidence-based interventions in collaboration with community partners that have potential to address the social determinants of health and build capacity for cancer care for underserved populations. We established the Virtual Equity Hub by developing a collaborative network connecting a comprehensive cancer center, academic safety net hospital, and community health centers and affiliates. The Virtual Equity Hub utilizes a virtual tumor board, an evidence-based approach that increases access to multi-specialty cancer care and oncology subspecialty expertise. We adapted the tumor board model by engaging person-centered teams of multi-disciplinary specialists across health systems, addressing the social determinants of health, and applying community-based research principles with a focus on populations with poor cancer survival. The virtual tumor board included monthly videoconferences, case discussion, sharing of expertise, and a focus on addressing barriers to care and trial participation. Specifically, we piloted virtual tumor boards for breast oncology, neuro-oncology, and individuals with cancer and serious mental illness. The Virtual Equity Hub demonstrated promise at building capacity for clinicians to care for patients with complex needs and addressing barriers to care. Research is needed to measure the impact, reach, and sustainability of virtual equity models for patients with cancer.

You've Got a Friend in Me: How Cognitively Unimpaired Older Adults Select a Study Partner to Participate with Them in Alzheimer's Disease Research

BACKGROUND

Participants in Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevention studies are generally required to enroll with a study partner; this requirement constitutes a barrier to enrollment for some otherwise interested individuals. Analysis of dyads enrolled in actual AD trials suggests that the study partner requirement shapes the population under study.

OBJECTIVE

To understand if individuals can identify someone to serve as their study partner and whether they would be willing to ask that individual.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with cognitively unimpaired, English-speaking older adults who had previously expressed interest in AD research by signing up for a research registry. We also interviewed their likely study partners. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and coded in an iterative, team-based process guided by a content analysis approach.

RESULTS

We interviewed 60 potential research participants and 17 likely study partners. Most potential participants identified one or two individuals they would be willing to ask to serve as their study partner. Interviewees saw value in the study partner role but also understood it to entail burdens that could make participation as a study partner difficult. The role was seen as relatively more burdensome for individuals still in the workforce or with family responsibilities. Calls from the researcher to discuss the importance of the role and the possibility of virtual visits were identified as potential strategies for increasing study partner availability.

CONCLUSION

Efforts to increase recruitment, particularly representative recruitment, of participants for AD prevention studies should reduce barriers to participation by thoughtfully designing the study partner role.

Patient Assessment: Using the Oncology Nurse Navigator Patient Assessment for Rural and Other Resource-Poor Settings

Oncology nurse navigators (ONNs) rely on assessment tools to identify patient priorities so that care may be expedited along the cancer continuum. Few nonproprietary assessment tools exist for ONNs who work in rural and other resource-poor settings to reliably identify and track patient needs and barriers for seamless and timely oncology care.

Analysis of Population Differences in Digital Conversations About Cancer Clinical Trials: Advanced Data Mining and Extraction Study

Background

Racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trials for cancer treatment is essential for the development of treatments that are effective for all patients and for identifying potential differences in toxicity between different demographics. Mining of social media discussions about clinical trials has been used previously to identify patient barriers to enrollment in clinical trials; however, a comprehensive breakdown of sentiments and barriers by various racial and ethnic groups is lacking.

Objective

The aim of this study is to use an innovative methodology to analyze web-based conversations about cancer clinical trials and to identify and compare conversation topics, barriers, and sentiments between different racial and ethnic populations.

Methods

We analyzed 372,283 web-based conversations about cancer clinical trials, of which 179,339 (48.17%) of the discussions had identifiable race information about the individual posting the conversations. Using sophisticated machine learning software and analyses, we were able to identify key sentiments and feelings, topics of interest, and barriers to clinical trials across racial groups. The stage of treatment could also be identified in many of the discussions, allowing for a unique insight into how the sentiments and challenges of patients change throughout the treatment process for each racial group.

Results

We observed that only 4.01% (372,283/9,284,284) of cancer-related discussions referenced clinical trials. Within these discussions, topics of interest and identified clinical trial barriers discussed by all racial and ethnic groups throughout the treatment process included health care professional interactions, cost of care, fear, anxiety and lack of awareness, risks, treatment experiences, and the clinical trial enrollment process. Health care professional interactions, cost of care, and enrollment processes were notably discussed more frequently in minority populations. Other minor variations in the frequency of discussion topics between ethnic and racial groups throughout the treatment process were identified.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the power of digital search technology in health care research. The results are also valuable for identifying the ideal content and timing for the delivery of clinical trial information and resources for different racial and ethnic groups.

Demographic and Health Behavior Factors Associated With Clinical Trial Invitation and Participation in the United States

IMPORTANCE

Representative enrollment in clinical trials is critical to ensure equitable and effective translation of research to practice, yet disparities in clinical trial enrollment persist.

OBJECTIVE

To examine person-level factors associated with invitation to and participation in clinical trials.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study analyzed responses from 3689 US adults who participated in the nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey, collected February through June 2020 via mailed questionnaires.

EXPOSURES

Demographic, clinical, and health behavior-related characteristics.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

History of invitation to and participation in a clinical trial, primary information sources, trust in information sources, and motives for participation in clinical trials were described. Respondent characteristics are presented as absolute numbers and weighted percentages. Associations between respondent demographic, clinical, and health behavior-related characteristics and clinical trial invitation and participation were estimated using survey-weighted logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The median (IQR) age of the 3689 respondents was 48 (33-61) years, and most were non-Hispanic White individuals (2063 [59%]; non-Hispanic Black, 452 [10%]; Hispanic, 521 [14%]), had more than a high school degree (2656 [68%]), were employed (1809 [58%]), and had at least 1 medical condition (2535 [61%]). Overall, 439 respondents (9%) had been invited to participate in any clinical trial. Respondents with increased odds of invitation were non-Hispanic Black compared with non-Hispanic White (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.13-3.02), had greater than a high school education compared with less than high school education (eg, ≥college degree: aOR, 4.84; 95% CI, 1.89-12.39), were single compared with married or living as married (aOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.73), and had at least 1 medical condition compared to none (eg, 1 medical condition: aOR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.32-3.82). Respondents residing in rural vs urban areas had 77% decreased odds of invitation to a clinical trial (aOR 0.33; 95% CI 0.17-0.65). Of invited respondents, 199 (47%) participated. Compared with non-Hispanic White respondents, non-Hispanic Black respondents had 72% decreased odds of clinical trial participation (aOR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.87). Respondents most frequently reported "health care providers" as the first and most trusted source of clinical trial information (first source: 2297 [59%]; most trusted source: 2597 [70%]). The most frequently reported motives for clinical trials participation were "wanting to get better" (2294 [66%]) and the standard of care not being covered by insurance (1448 [41%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this study suggest that invitation to and participation in clinical trials may differ by person-level demographic and clinical characteristics. Strategies toward increasing trial invitation and participation rates across diverse patient populations warrant further research to ensure equitable translation of clinical benefits from research to practice.

Increased Utilization of Virtual Visits and Electronic Approaches in Clinical Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Thereafter

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research and the use of electronic approaches to mitigate this impact.

METHODS

We compared the utilization of electronic consenting, remote visits, and remote monitoring by study monitors in all research studies conducted at Mayo Clinic sites (Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (ie, between May 1, 2019 and December 31, 2020). Participants are consented through a participant-tracking system linked to the electronic health record.

RESULTS

Between May 2019, and December 2020, there were 130,800 new consents across every modality (electronic and paper) to participate in a non-trial (107,176 [82%]) or a clinical trial (23,624 [18%]). New consents declined from 5741 in February 2020 to 913 in April 2020 but increased to 11,864 in November 2020. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) proportion of electronic consent increased from 22 (2%) before to 45 (20%) during the pandemic (P=.001). Mean (SD) remote electronic consenting increased from 0.3 (0.5%) to 29 (21%) (P<.001). The mean (SD) number of patients with virtual visits increased from 3.5 (2.4%) to 172 (135%) (P=.003) per month between pre-COVID (July 2019 to February 2020) and post-COVID (March to December 2020) periods. Virtual visits used telemedicine (68%) or video (32%). Requests for remote monitor access to complete visits increased from 44 (17%) per month between May 2019 and February 2020 to 111 (74%) per month between March and December 2020 (P=.10).

CONCLUSION

After a sharp early decline, the enrollment of new participants and ongoing study visits recovered during the COVID-19 pandemic. This recovery was accompanied by the increased use of electronic tools.

Enhancing Recruitment and Retention of Minority Populations for Clinical Research in Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Well-designed clinical research needs to obtain information that is applicable to the general population. However, most current studies fail to include substantial cohorts of racial/ethnic minority populations. Such underrepresentation may lead to delayed diagnosis or misdiagnosis of disease, wide application of approved interventions without appropriate knowledge of their usefulness in certain populations, and development of recommendations that are not broadly applicable.Goals: To develop best practices for recruitment and retention of racial/ethnic minorities for clinical research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.Methods: The American Thoracic Society convened a workshop in May of 2019. This included an international interprofessional group from academia, industry, the NIH, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, with expertise ranging from clinical and biomedical research to community-based participatory research methods and patient advocacy. Workshop participants addressed historical and current mistrust of scientific research, systemic bias, and social and structural barriers to minority participation in clinical research. A literature search of PubMed and Google Scholar was performed to support conclusions. The search was not a systematic review of the literature.Results: Barriers at the individual, interpersonal, institutional, and federal/policy levels were identified as limiting to minority participation in clinical research. Through the use of a multilevel framework, workshop participants proposed evidence-based solutions to the identified barriers.Conclusions: To date, minority participation in clinical research is not representative of the U.S. and global populations. This American Thoracic Society research statement identifies potential evidence-based solutions by applying a multilevel framework that is anchored in community engagement methods and patient advocacy.

Fair payment and just benefits to enhance diversity in clinical research

Routine, nonmedical and ancillary medical costs associated with participation in clinical research create barriers to enrollment for economically disadvantaged individuals. To the extent that race, ethnicity, and gender are linked to SES, such barriers impact efforts to diversify clinical research enrollment. But payment policies and practices often reflect the longstanding and singular concern that payment to participants will bias decision-making and compromise informed consent. We argue that this concern must be viewed in a larger ethical context in which the untoward consequences for the individual participant and for the broader research enterprise are considerable when either inadequate or no payment is provided for expenses incurred ("reimbursement") and time committed ("compensation"). Fairness in payment and protection from undue influence of payment on the informed consent process are important but distinct ethical considerations. Fundamentally, approaches to payment that leave participants financially worse off as a consequence of taking part in research are inherently unjust as they have a differential impact on recruitment and retention based on socioeconomic status. Sponsors, funders, investigators, and IRBs must be cognizant of the impact of inadequate payment on clinical trial inclusion of historically understudied groups. We address practical and fair payment strategies to advance inclusion, the additional barrier of ancillary medical costs, and potential unintended consequences of payment.

Differences in Toxicity and Outcomes in Clinical Trial Participants From Minority Populations

Black men have a higher prevalence of and mortality rate from prostate cancer compared with White men and have been shown to present with more aggressive and later-stage disease. How prostate cancer treatment affects these racial disparities is still unclear. Several studies have shown that Black men who receive treatment have a more pronounced decrease in prostate cancer-specific death; however, there remains a large disparity in all-cause mortality. This disparity may be in part related to a higher risk of death resulting from comorbidities, given the higher rates of cardiovascular disease and diabetes in Black men, both of which are complicated by the use of androgen-deprivation therapy. To further understand these disparities, it is important that we analyze the racial differences in adverse event rates and severity. Increasing the percentage of Black men in clinical trials will improve the understanding of the biologic drivers of racial disparities in prostate cancer. To evaluate the potential differences in adverse event reporting and demonstrate the feasibility of enrolling equal numbers of Black and White men in trials, we performed a prospective, multicenter study of abiraterone plus prednisone with androgen-deprivation therapy in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, stratified by race. Racial differences in prostate-specific antigen kinetics and toxicity profile were demonstrated. Higher rates and severity of adverse events related to adrenal hormone suppression, including hypertension, hypokalemia, and hypomagnesemia, were seen in the Black cohort, not previously reported. Increased enrollment of Black men in prostate cancer clinical trials is imperative to further understand the impact of race on clinical outcomes and treatment tolerability.

Automated Electronic Health Record-Based Tool for Identification of Patients With Metastatic Disease to Facilitate Clinical Trial Patient Ascertainment

PURPOSE

To facilitate identification of clinical trial participation candidates, we developed a machine learning tool that automates the determination of a patient's metastatic status, on the basis of unstructured electronic health record (EHR) data.

METHODS

This tool scans EHR documents, extracting text snippet features surrounding key words (such as metastatic, progression, and local). A regularized logistic regression model was trained and used to classify patients across five metastatic categories: highly likely and likely positive, highly likely and likely negative, and unknown. Using a real-world oncology database of patients with solid tumors with manually abstracted information as reference, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV). We validated the performance in a real-world data set, evaluating accuracy gains upon additional user review of tool's outputs after integration into clinic workflows.

RESULTS

In the training data set (N = 66,532), the model sensitivity and specificity (% [95% CI]) were 82.4 [81.9 to 83.0] and 95.5 [95.3 to 96.7], respectively; the PPV was 89.3 [88.8 to 90.0], and the NPV was 94.0 [93.8 to 94.2]. In the validation sample (n = 200 from five distinct care sites), after user review of model outputs, values increased to 97.1 [85.1 to 99.9] for sensitivity, 98.2 [94.8 to 99.6] for specificity, 91.9 [78.1 to 98.3] for PPV, and 99.4 [96.6 to 100.0] for NPV. The model assigned 163 of 200 patients to the highly likely categories. The error prevalence was 4% before and 2% after user review.

CONCLUSION

This tool infers metastatic status from unstructured EHR data with high accuracy and high confidence in more than 75% of cases, without requiring additional manual review. By enabling efficient characterization of metastatic status, this tool could mitigate a key barrier for patient ascertainment and clinical trial participation in community clinics.

Sociodemographic diversity in cancer clinical trials: New findings on the effect of race and ethnicity

BACKGROUND

Cancer clinical trials (CCT) offer significant potential benefit, not only for future patients but also for enrolled participants, yet a very small minority of cancer patients participate, resulting in low levels of enrollment that have stalled clinical trials dramatically. Though many have endeavored to study this phenomenon, relatively little research has explored the demographic factors which may affect CCT enrollment. Understanding patient demographics is critical to optimizing enrollment, evaluating generalizability, and ensuring equity of CCT.

METHODS

To better understand the effect of social determinants of health on CCT enrollment, the authors constructed a multivariable logistic regression model to analyze data collected in the last ten years in the CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) Survey, an annual national survey conducted among the non-institutionalized adult population of the U.S.

RESULTS

In multivariable regression analysis, enrollment varied significantly with sociodemographic factors. Individuals of higher income, Hispanic ethnicity, and younger age were most likely to participate in CCTs. Enrollment did not vary significantly by educational attainment.

CONCLUSION

Our multivariable analysis indicated people of color are more likely to participate in CCT, perhaps demonstrating that structural barriers shape participation more than race alone. Efforts to improve CCT enrollment may benefit from a shift in focus towards access to care by alleviating structural and financial barriers to enrollment.

Promoting Ethical Payment in Human Infection Challenge Studies

To prepare for potential human infection challenge studies (HICS) involving SARS-CoV-2, we convened a multidisciplinary working group to address ethical questions regarding whether and how much SARS-CoV-2 HICS participants should be paid. Because the goals of paying HICS participants, as well as the relevant ethical concerns, are the same as those arising for other types of clinical research, the same basic framework for ethical payment can apply. This framework divides payment into reimbursement, compensation, and incentives, focusing on fairness and promoting adequate recruitment and retention as counterweights to concerns about undue inducement. Within the basic framework, several factors are especially salient for HICS, and for SARS-CoV-2 HICS in particular, including the nature of participant confinement, anticipated discomfort, risks and uncertainty, participant motivations, and trust. These factors are reflected in a payment worksheet created to help sponsors, researchers, and ethics reviewers systematically develop and assess ethically justifiable payment amounts.

Cancer Disparities and Health Equity: A Policy Statement From the American Society of Clinical Oncology

ASCO strives, through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality of patient care, to create a world where cancer is prevented and every survivor is healthy. In this pursuit, cancer health equity remains the guiding institutional principle that applies to all its activities across the cancer care continuum. In 2009, ASCO committed to addressing differences in cancer outcomes in its original policy statement on cancer disparities. Over the past decade, despite novel diagnostics and therapeutics, together with changes in the cancer care delivery system such as passage of the Affordable Care Act, cancer disparities persist. Our understanding of the populations experiencing disparate outcomes has likewise expanded to include the intersections of race/ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation and gender identity, sociodemographic factors, and others. This updated statement is intended to guide ASCO's future activities and strategies to achieve its mission of conquering cancer for all populations. ASCO acknowledges that much work remains to be done, by all cancer stakeholders at the systems level, to overcome historical momentum and existing social structures responsible for disparate cancer outcomes. This updated statement affirms ASCO's commitment to moving beyond descriptions of differences in cancer outcomes toward achievement of cancer health equity, with a focus on improving equitable access to care, improving clinical research, addressing structural barriers, and increasing awareness that results in measurable and timely action toward achieving cancer health equity for all.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Clinical Trial Execution at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

Interventions designed to limit the spread of COVID-19 are having profound effects on the delivery of healthcare, but data showing the impact on oncology clinical trial enrollment, treatment, and monitoring are limited. We prospectively tracked relevant data from oncology clinical trials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) from January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2020, including the number of open trials, new patient enrollments, in-person and virtual patient visits, dispensed investigational infusions, dispensed/shipped oral investigational agents, research biopsies, and blood samples. We ascertained why patients came off trials and determined on-site clinical research staffing levels. We used two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum tests to assess the statistical significance of the reported changes. Nearly all patients on interventional treatment trials were maintained, and new enrollments continued at just under half the pre-pandemic rate. The median number of investigational prescriptions shipped to patients increased from 0-74 (range: 22-107) per week from March-June 2020. The median number of telemedicine appointments increased from 0-107 (range: 33-267) per week from March-June 2020. Research biopsies and blood collections decreased dramatically after DFCI implemented COVID-19-related policies in March 2020. The number of research nurses and clinical research coordinators on-site also decreased after March 2020. Substantial changes were required to safely continue clinical research during the pandemic; yet, we observed no increases in serious adverse events or major violations related to drug dosing. Lessons learned from adapting research practices during COVID-19 can inform industry sponsors and governmental agencies to consider altering practices to increase operational efficiency and convenience for patients.

How current reporting practices may mask differences: A call for examining cancer-specific demographic enrollment patterns in cancer treatment clinical trials

Background

A lack of diversity among clinical trial (CT) participants remains a critical problem. Few studies have examined recruitment variability in cancer treatment CTs by cancer type. Given the increasing organ-specific specialization of oncologic care, an understanding of this variability may affect institutional recruitment practices.

Methods

This study examines three data sources from 2010 through 2014. The analyzed sample includes 3,580 CT participants identified in the institutional Clinical Trials Management System (CTMS) database and 20,305 incident cases of invasive cancer within a Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) institutional catchment area. A total of 341,114 incident cases of primary invasive cancer were identified through the California Cancer Registry (CCR). The primary study measurements were sociodemographic characteristics of the three populations (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and health insurance).

Results

Racial/ethnic disparities were observed, with more incident cases of Whites seen in cancer center (68%) and enrolled in CTs (72%) compared to incident cases in catchment area (67%) (p < 0.001) overall. More older adults (65) were enrolled in prostate cancer CTs (58%) than seen in cancer center (45%) (p < 0.001). Alternatively, fewer older adults were enrolled in breast and colorectal CTs than seen in cancer center (p < 0.001). Among colon (p < 0.001), breast (p < 0.001), and prostate (p<0.001) cancer types, insurance type significantly varied between incident cases in catchment area, cancer center, and among CT participants. For colorectal cancer, no difference in sex distribution was observed overall. A significant difference in insurance type within each cancer type was observed (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

These findings suggest that reporting overall recruitment frequencies may mask differences by cancer type.

Addressing the Financial Burden of Cancer Clinical Trial Participation: Longitudinal Effects of an Equity Intervention

BACKGROUND

The financial burden experienced by patients with cancer represents a barrier to clinical trial participation, and interventions targeting patients' financial concerns are needed. We sought to assess the impact of an equity intervention on clinical trial patients' financial burden.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed an equity intervention to reimburse nonclinical expenses related to trials (e.g., travel and lodging). From July 2015 to July 2017, we surveyed intervention and comparison patients matched by age, sex, cancer type, specific trial, and trial phase. We longitudinally assessed financial burden (e.g., trial-related travel and lodging cost concerns, financial wellbeing [FWB] with the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity [COST] measure) at baseline, day 45, and day 90. We used longitudinal models to assess intervention effects over time.

RESULTS

Among 260 participants, intervention patients were more likely than comparison patients to have incomes under $60,000 (52% vs. 24%, p < .001) and to report travel-related (41.0% vs. 6.8%, p < 0.001) and lodging-related (32.5% vs. 2.0%, p < .001) cost concerns at baseline. Intervention patients were more likely to report travel to appointments as their most significant financial concern (24.0% vs. 7.0%, p = .001), and they had worse FWB than comparison patients (COST score: 15.32 vs. 23.88, p < .001). Over time, intervention patients experienced greater improvements in their travel-related (-10.0% vs. +1.2%, p = .010) and lodging-related (-3.9% vs. +4.0%, p = .003) cost concerns. Improvements in patients reporting travel to appointments as their most significant financial concern and COST scores were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Cancer clinical trial participants may experience substantial financial issues, and this equity intervention demonstrates encouraging results for addressing these patients' longitudinal financial burden.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Clinical trials are critical for developing novel therapies for patients with cancer, yet financial barriers may discourage some patients from participating in cancer clinical trials. This study found that patients who received financial assistance from an equity intervention experienced significant improvements over time in their concerns about the cost of travel and lodging associated with clinical trials compared with comparison patients who did not receive financial assistance from the equity intervention. Among cancer clinical trial participants, an equity intervention shows potential for addressing patients' concerns regarding clinical trial-related travel and lodging expenses.

Science in the Heartland: Exploring determinants of offering cancer clinical trials in rural-serving community urology practices

OBJECTIVE

Engaging community urologists in referring patients to clinical trials could increase the reach of cancer trials and, ultimately, alleviate cancer disparities. We sought to identify determinants of referring patients to clinical trials among urology practices serving rural communities.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework at nonmetropolitan urology practices located in communities offering urological cancer trials. Participants were asked to consider barriers and strategies that might support engaging their patients in discussions about urological cancer clinical trials and referring them appropriately. Recorded interviews were transcribed and coded using template analysis.

RESULTS

Most participants were not aware of available trials and had no experience with trial referral. Overall, participants held positive attitudes toward clinical trials and recognized their potential roles in accrual, but limited local resources reduced opportunities for offering trials. Most participants expressed a need for increased human, financial, and other resources to support this role. Many participants requested information and training to increase their knowledge of clinical trials and confidence in offering them to patients. Participants highlighted the need to build efficient pathways to identify available trials, match eligible patients, and facilitate communication and collaboration with cancer centers for patient follow-up and continuity of care.

CONCLUSIONS

With adequate logistical and informational support, community urology practices could play an important role in clinical trial accrual, advancing cancer research and increasing treatment options for rural cancer patients. Future studies should explore the effectiveness of strategies to optimize urology practices' role in clinical trial accrual.

A Multidisciplinary Evaluation of Barriers to Enrolling Cancer Patients into Early Phase Clinical Trials: Challenges and Patient-centric Recommendations

Introduction: Early phase clinical trials are the first clinical research step to bringing new cancer therapeutics to patients. At this stage, a new drug's safety, dosing, and scheduling profiles are established as the main endpoints. However, excellent responses due to biomarker-guided and immune checkpoint trials in early phase have resulted in direct approvals of new anti-cancer drugs. Despite doubling of the success rate of new drug approvals, many barriers exist to expeditiously bring active new drugs to the clinic. Areas covered: This review covers roles of members of the early phase program and the challenges they face in enrolling advanced cancer patients to trials. Practical solutions are provided from the perspective of the investigators, regulatory, investigational pharmacy, research nurses, clinical research coordinators, budgets, contracts, and data management. Expert opinion: We are witnessing a burgeoning era in drug development with rapid approval of efficacious drugs. This is achieved by a strong collaboration between investigators, academic institutions, pharmaceutical sponsors, scientists, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and community practices. Herein, we discuss some of the challenges faced by early phase clinical trials programs and discuss methods of improvement.

Tailoring survivorship to diverse populations with genitourinary malignancies

Socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities in genitourinary malignancies remain a critical problem. Variations in initial and subsequent treatments, including survivorship care, likely contribute to these disparities. While the prevalence of genitourinary cancer survivors continues to grow, heterogeneity in survivorship care threatens to increase disparities. Several social factors, such as insurance status, language, and geography, drive heterogeneity observed in survivorship care. Linguistically tailored, culturally relevant survivorship is an essential component of a multidisciplinary effort to address racial/ethnic disparities among patients with genitourinary malignancies. Survivorship care is an essential component of cancer treatment, however if it is not developed and tested among a diverse patient population, it can lead to a widening of disparities observed among patients with genitourinary malignancies.