Disparities in clinical trial enrollment among patients with gastrointestinal cancer relative to minority-serving and safety-netting hospitals

BACKGROUND

For results to be generalizable to all patients with cancer, clinical trials need to include a diverse patient demographic that is representative of the general population. We sought to characterize the effect of receiving care at a minority-serving hospital (MSH) and/or safety-net hospital on clinical trial enrollment among patients with gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies.

METHODS

Adult patients with GI cancer who underwent oncologic surgery and were enrolled in institutional-/National Cancer Institute-funded clinical trials between 2012 and 2019 were identified in the National Cancer Database. Multivariable regression was used to assess the relationship between MSH and safety-net status relative to clinical trial enrollment.

RESULTS

Among 1,112,594 patients, 994,598 (89.4%) were treated at a non-MSH, whereas 117,996 (10.6%) were treated at an MSH. Only 1857 patients (0.2%) were enrolled in a clinical trial; most patients received care at a non-MSH (1794 [96.6%]). On multivariable analysis, the odds of enrollment in a clinical trial were markedly lower among patients treated at an MSH vs non-MSH (odds ratio [OR], 0.32; 95% CI, 0.22-0.46). In addition, even after controlling for receipt of care at MSH, Black patients remained at lower odds of enrollment in a clinical trial than White patients (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45-0.73; both P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Overall, clinical trial participation among patients with GI cancer was extremely low. Patients treated at an MSH and high safety-net burden hospitals and Black individuals were much less likely to be enrolled in a clinical trial. Efforts should be made to improve trial enrollment and address disparities in trial representation.

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

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

Creation of a quality improvement collaborative to address adolescent and young adult cancer clinical trial enrollment: ATAQI (AYA trial access quality initiative)

Adolescent and young adult (AYA) participation in cancer clinical trials (CCTs) is suboptimal, hindering further improvements in survival, quality of life, and basic understanding of cancer pathophysiology in this population. Prior studies have identified barriers and facilitators to AYA CCT enrollment; however, few interventional studies have attempted to address these barriers and measure tangible changes. In September 2020, a task force was established to address CCT enrollment barriers at a multi-institutional level utilizing a quality improvement collaborative model for improvement. The AYA Trial Access Quality Initiative was developed with the goal of bring multidisciplinary teams together across multiple sites to learn, apply and share their methods of improvement. It uses a structured process of learning sessions lead by quality improvement and clinical experts who help facilitate learning and problem solving which are followed by action phases. During the pilot phase of the collaboration, one key driver of CCT enrollment in AYA's will be addressed: communication between adult and pediatric oncology by implementation of various interventions at sites. The number of AYAs screened for and enrolled on CCTs will be tracked over the course of the collaborative along with the process measures. It is expected that the interventions will promote engagement of stakeholders in the process of screening AYA oncology patients for eligibility on CCTs. This will hopefully create a favorable environment conducive for increasing enrollment on CCTs and lead to the development of a system-wide quality improvement framework to improve AYA CCT enrollment.

Clinically stable covid-19 patients presenting to acute unscheduled episodic care venues have increased risk of hospitalization: secondary analysis of a randomized control trial

BACKGROUND

Assessment for risks associated with acute stable COVID-19 is important to optimize clinical trial enrollment and target patients for scarce therapeutics. To assess whether healthcare system engagement location is an independent predictor of outcomes we performed a secondary analysis of the ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention trial.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of the ACTIV-4B trial that was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and August 2021. Participants were enrolled through acute unscheduled episodic care (AUEC) enrollment location (emergency department, or urgent care clinic visit) compared to minimal contact (MC) enrollment (electronic contact from test center lists of positive patients).We report the primary composite outcome of cardiopulmonary hospitalizations, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic arterial thromboembolism, or death among stable outpatients stratified by enrollment setting, AUEC versus MC. A propensity score for AUEC enrollment was created, and Cox proportional hazards regression with inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to compare the primary outcome by enrollment location.

RESULTS

Among the 657 ACTIV-4B patients randomized, 533 (81.1%) with known enrollment setting data were included in this analysis, 227 from AUEC settings and 306 from MC settings. In a multivariate logistic regression model, time from COVID test, age, Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, and body mass index were associated with AUEC enrollment. Irrespective of trial treatment allocation, patients enrolled at an AUEC setting were 10-times more likely to suffer from the adjudicated primary outcome, 7.9% vs. 0.7%; p < 0.001, compared with patients enrolled at a MC setting. Upon Cox regression analysis adjustment patients enrolled at an AUEC setting remained at significant risk of the primary composite outcome, HR 3.40 (95% CI 1.46, 7.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with clinically stable COVID-19 presenting to an AUEC enrollment setting represent a population at increased risk of arterial and venous thrombosis complications, hospitalization for cardiopulmonary events, or death, when adjusted for other risk factors, compared with patients enrolled at a MC setting. Future outpatient therapeutic trials and clinical therapeutic delivery programs of clinically stable COVID-19 patients may focus on inclusion of higher-risk patient populations from AUEC engagement locations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04498273.

Development and implementation of standardized study performance metrics for a VA healthcare system clinical research consortium

The cost of conducting clinical trials is continuously increasing and is driven in large part by the time and resources required to activate trials and reach accrual targets. The impact of low enrollment in a clinical trial can negatively affect the validity of study results and delay its generalizability to the broader population. Quality is a multidimensional concept which could relate to the design, conduct, and analysis of a trial, its clinical relevance, protection/safety of study participants, or quality of reporting. Furthermore, the quality of controlled trials is of obvious relevance to systematic reviews and if the "raw material" or "data" is flawed then the conclusions of systematic reviews cannot be trusted. To date, the literature surrounding the establishment of standardized study enrollment and quality metrics to assess site performance in clinical trial consortiums is scarce. The lack of these metrics presents challenges to study site teams, sponsors, and other clinical research enterprise key stakeholders for adequately monitoring and evaluating study site performance as it relates to fulfilling trial enrollment and quality goals. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) Network of Dedicated Enrollment Sites (NODES) undertook an effort to determine the feasibility of establishing and implementing standardized study enrollment and quality metrics for a clinical research consortium (NODES) as a tool to evaluate its performance. In this manuscript, we describe the development and implementation of standardized study enrollment and quality metrics to assess site performance across studies in our clinical research consortium.

Sex-specific differences in access and response to medical and device therapies in heart failure: State of the art

Women with heart failure (HF) are more symptomatic than their male counterparts. Despite deriving similar benefits from both medical and devices therapies, women continue to be underrepresented in clinic trials. Important sex-based disparities exist in enrollment in clinical trials and access to medical and device-based therapies, in part stemming from differences in medical and psychosocial comorbidities. Disparities in access to beneficial interventions likely contribute to the greater symptom burden identified in women with HF. Improved focus on the enrollment of women in clinical trials will allow a better understanding of the underpinnings of these disparities and improve the care of women with HF.

Developing a Novel Model to Improve Research and care for Cancer Survivors: a Feasibility Study

Despite a growing number of clinical trials and supportive care programs for cancer survivors, recruitment of patients for these opportunities during the survivorship phase of care is challenging. We piloted a novel process to systematically educate patients about available research studies and supportive care programs as part of a survivorship care visit. Between 3/2015 and 8/2015, patients seen in the Adult Survivorship Program who had not previously received a treatment summary and survivorship care plan (TS/SCP) were provided with one accompanied by a list of survivorship research studies and care programs tailored to their diagnosis. Survivorship providers discussed the opportunities and recorded whether the patient was interested in relevant studies and placed referrals to study staff. Following the visit, we tracked study enrollment and surveyed patients about their experience. Fifty of 56 (89%) pilot participants completed the survey. Almost all (98%) reported that the TS/SCP visit and document helped with knowledge of research opportunities and supportive care interventions. Following receipt of the TS/SCP, 44% were interested in at least one study and in further follow-up with research staff. Of the 30 survivors eligible for at least one study, 6 (20%) have enrolled in at least one study to date. This pilot program demonstrates that the systematic sharing of available clinical studies and supportive care programming as part of a survivorship care plan visit is feasible and well received by cancer survivors and may facilitate and enhance accrual to clinical trials in the survivorship phase of care.

Clinical trial enrollment in patients with endocrine neoplasm: Parity achievable, but cancer type-specific

BACKGROUND

We sought to assess participation of underrepresented minorities with endocrine neoplasms in clinical trials conducted in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Intramural Research Program.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients enrolled in Endocrine Oncology Branch (EOB) clinical trials, comparing demographics to regional and national demographics. We compared specific endocrine cancer patient data to data from NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

RESULTS

Comparing EOB patients to national demographics, we found more white (77% vs 74%, P < 0.001) and black patients (14% vs 12%, P < 0.001). For thyroid cancer, there were more black (16% vs 7%, P < 0.0001) and other minority patients (17% vs 11%, P < 0.0001) compared to SEER. For gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEPNETs), there were fewer black (6% vs 19%, P < 0.0001) and other minority patients (6% vs 8%, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Enrollment parity of underrepresented minorities into clinical trials is achievable, although possibly cancer type-specific.

Most children with cancer are not enrolled on a clinical trial in Canada: a population-based study

Background

Primary objective was to describe the proportion of children newly diagnosed with cancer enrolled on a therapeutic clinical trial. Secondary objectives were to describe reasons for non-enrollment and factors associated with enrollment on trials.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we included children newly diagnosed with cancer between 0 and 14 years of age and diagnosed from 2001 to 2012. We used data from the Cancer in Young People in Canada (CYP-C) national pediatric cancer population-based database. CYP-C captures all cases of pediatric cancer (0–14 years) diagnosed and treated at one of the 17 tertiary pediatric oncology centers in Canada. Non-enrollment was evaluated using univariate and multiple logistic regression analysis.

Results

There were 9204 children with cancer included, of whom 2533 (27.5%) were enrolled on a clinical trial. The most common reasons cited for non-enrollment were lack of an available trial (52.2%) and physician choice (11.2%). In multiple regression, Asian and Arab/west Asian race were associated with lower enrollment (P = 0.006 and P = 0.032 respectively). All cancer diagnoses were more likely to be enrolled compared to astrocytoma and children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia had an almost 18-fold increased odds of enrollment compared to astrocytoma (P < 0.0001). Greater distance from the tertiary care center was independently associated with non-enrollment (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

In Canada, 27.5% of children with cancer are enrolled onto therapeutic clinical trials and lack of an available trial is the most common reason contributing to non-enrollment. Future research should better understand reasons for lack of trial availability and physician preferences to not offer trials.

A Brief Report of the Status of Central Nervous System Metastasis Enrollment Criteria for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Clinical Trials: A Review of the ClinicalTrials.gov Trial Registry

INTRODUCTION

Central nervous system (CNS) metastases are common in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet clinical trials of new drugs in advanced NSCLC have varying inclusion and exclusion criteria for CNS disease. The true extent of variation in CNS-related enrollment criteria in NSCLC clinical trials has not been documented.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the ClinicalTrials.gov website to characterize interventional drug trials enrolling adult patients with advanced NSCLC.

RESULTS

Of 413 open trials, 78 (19%) strictly excluded patients with leptomeningeal disease (LMD). Separate from LMD, patients with any history of CNS metastases were strictly excluded in 59 trials (14%), allowed after local treatment in 169 (41%), and allowed with no prior treatment in 106 (26%). No explicit mention of CNS disease was made in 79 trials (19%). In multivariate analysis looking at trial phase, location, sponsor, and treatment type, only sponsor was statistically significant, with pharmaceutical industry-sponsored trials having higher odds of excluding patients with brain metastases than did university or investigator-initiated trials (OR = 2.262, 95% confidence interval: 1.063-4.808, p = 0.0342) CONCLUSIONS: With 14% to 19% of trials excluding any history of LMD or CNS parenchymal metastatic disease and 41% of trials permitting CNS disease only after prior CNS-directed treatment, direct evidence of activity of a treatment on CNS disease cannot be reliably generated in most NSCLC trials. Given the high frequency of CNS disease in NSCLC and only sponsor being associated with specific CNS exclusion criteria, sponsors should consider tailoring trial designs to explore CNS benefit more explicitly.

Patient and physician factors associated with participation in cervical and uterine cancer trials: an NRG/GOG247 study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to identify patient and physician factors related to enrollment onto Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) trials.

METHODS

Prospective study of women with primary or recurrent cancer of the uterus or cervix treated at a GOG institution from July 2010 to January 2012. Logistic regression examined probability of availability, eligibility and enrollment in a GOG trial. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for significant (p<0.05) results reported.

RESULTS

Sixty institutions, 781 patients, and 150 physicians participated, 300/780 (38%) had a trial available, 290/300 had known participation status. Of these, 150 women enrolled (59.5%), 102 eligible did not enroll (35%), 38 (13%) were ineligible. Ethnicity and specialty of physician, practice type, data management availability, and patient age were significantly associated with trial availability. Patients with >4 comorbidities (OR 4.5; CI 1.7-11.8) had higher odds of trial ineligibility. Non-White patients (OR 7.9; CI 1.3-46.2) and patients of Black physicians had greater odds of enrolling (OR 56.5; CI 1.1-999.9) in a therapeutic trial. Significant patient therapeutic trial enrollment factors: belief trial may help (OR 76.9; CI 4.9->1000), concern about care if not on trial (OR12.1; CI 2.1-71.4), pressure to enroll (OR .27; CI 0.12-.64), caregiving without pay (OR 0.13; CI .02-.84). Significant physician beliefs were: patients would not do well on standard therapy (OR 3.6; CI 1.6-8.4), and trial would not be time consuming (OR 3.3; CI 1.3-8.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Trial availability, patient and physician beliefs were factors identified that if modified could improve enrollment in cancer cooperative group clinical trials.