Racial/ethnic differences in clinical trial enrollment, refusal rates, ineligibility, and reasons for decline among patients at sites in the National Cancer Institute's Community Cancer Centers Program

Reducing Health Disparities Among African American and Black Caribbean Patients by Improving the Communication Practices of Clinical Research Coordinators

This manuscript focuses on the communication factors that affect the willingness of African Americans and Black Caribbean patients to participate in clinical trials and research studies. Low rates of research participation by members of communities of color have long been linked to health disparities. While there are many factors that contribute to low rates of accrual of African American and Black patients to clinical trials, a lack of attention to communication factors that enhance or inhibit the recruitment process is central to the problem. In this study, we describe results from the analysis of six focus groups (N = 31) consisting of African American (k = 3) and Black Caribbean (k = 3) participants. Our analyses focus on verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors and how they affect participants' willingness to participate in clinical trials. Specifically, when clinical research coordinators (CRCs) had a professional appearance, made the effort to explain a study in detail, made eye contact, took the time to listen and answer questions patiently, and gave the sense that the CRC was being truthful and transparent, patients felt respected and valued. Additionally, participants emphasized the importance of the process of developing and maintaining a trusting relationship between study participants and CRCs. The results of this study will be used to develop a clinical trial communication training program designed to enhance the communication skills of clinical research coordinators who discuss research participation with African American and Caribbean Black patients.

Increasing Clinical Trial Participation of Black Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer

Despite racial disparities in breast cancer mortality, Black women remain underrepresented in clinical trials. In this mixed methods research, 48 Black women were engaged via focus group discussions and in-depth interviews to better understand the lived experience of women with breast cancer. The results of this qualitative study informed the development of a subsequent online survey to identify barriers, motivators, and other factors that influence decision-making by Black women diagnosed with breast cancer when considering clinical trial participation. Among the 257 Black survey participants, most (95%) were aware of clinical trials; of those, most viewed them as lifesaving (81%) and/or benefiting others (90%). Negative perceptions such as serious side effects (58%), not receiving real treatment (52%), or risk of potential harm (62%) were indicated. Barriers included financial expenses (49%), concerns that their condition could be made worse (29%), that they would receive a placebo (28%), or that treatment was unapproved (28%). Participants were more likely than their health care providers (HCPs) to initiate discussions of clinical trials (53% versus 33%), and 29% of participants indicated a need for more information about risks and benefits, even after having those conversations. The most trustworthy sources of information on clinical trials were HCPs (66%) and breast cancer support groups (64%). These results suggest that trusted communities are key for providing education on clinical trials. However, there is also a need for HCPs to proactively discuss clinical trials with patients to ensure that they are adequately informed about all aspects of participation.

Perspectives of European Patient Advocacy Groups on Volunteer Registries and Vaccine Trials: VACCELERATE Survey Study

BACKGROUND

The VACCELERATE Pan-European Scientific network aims to strengthen the foundation of vaccine trial research across Europe by following the principles of equity, inclusion, and diversity. The VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry network provides access to vaccine trial sites across the European region and supports a sustainable volunteer platform for identifying potential participants for forthcoming vaccine clinical research.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to approach members of patient advocacy groups (PAGs) across Europe to assess their willingness to register for the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry and their perspectives related to participating in vaccine trials.

METHODS

In an effort to understand how to increase recruitment for the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry, a standardized survey was developed in English and translated into 8 different languages (Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Spanish, and Swedish) by the respective National Coordinator team. The online, anonymous survey was circulated, from March 2022 to May 2022, to PAGs across 10 European countries (Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Sweden) to share with their members. The questionnaire constituted of multiple choice and open-ended questions evaluating information regarding participants' perceptions on participating in vaccine trials and their willingness to become involved in the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry.

RESULTS

In total, 520 responses were collected and analyzed. The PAG members reported that the principal criteria influencing their decision to participate in clinical trials overall are (1) the risks involved, (2) the benefits that will be gained from their potential participation, and (3) the quality and quantity of information provided regarding the trial. The survey revealed that, out of the 520 respondents, 133 individuals across all age groups were "positive" toward registering in the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry, with an additional 47 individuals reporting being "very positive." Respondents from Northern European countries were 1.725 (95% CI 1.206-2.468) times more likely to be willing to participate in the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry than respondents from Southern European countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors discouraging participants from joining vaccine trial registries or clinical trials primarily include concerns of the safety of novel vaccines and a lack of trust in those involved in vaccine development. These outcomes aid in identifying issues and setbacks in present registries, providing the VACCELERATE network with feedback on how to potentially increase participation and enrollment in trials across Europe. Development of European health communication strategies among diverse public communities, especially via PAGs, is the key for increasing patients' willingness to participate in clinical studies.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Study Protocol for the Social Interventions for Support During Treatment for Endometrial Cancer and Recurrence (SISTER) study: a community engaged national randomized trial

Aim: Social isolation in cancer patients is correlated with prognosis and is a potential mediator of treatment completion. Black women with endometrial cancer (EC) are at increased risk for social isolation when compared with White patients. We developed the Social Interventions for Support during Treatment for Endometrial Cancer and Recurrence (SISTER) study to compare and evaluate interventions to address social isolation among Black women with high-risk EC in USA. The primary objective of the SISTER study is to determine whether virtual support interventions improve treatment completion compared with Enhanced Usual Care. Secondary objectives include comparing effectiveness virtual evidence-based interventions and evaluating barriers and facilitators to social support delivery. Patients & methods: This is a multi-site prospective, open-label, community-engaged randomized controlled trial, consisting of three intervention arms: enhanced usual care, facilitated support group and one-to-one peer support. Primary outcome will be measured using relative dose. Qualitative semi-structured interviews will be conducted with a subset of participants to contextualize the relative degree or lack thereof of social isolation, over time. Data analysis: Primary analysis will be based on an intent-to-treat analysis. Multivariable analysis will be performed to determine the effect of the intervention on the primary and secondary outcomes of interest, relative dose and social isolation score. Semi-structured interviews will be qualitatively analyzed using inductive and deductive approaches of content analysis. Discussion/conclusion: Endometrial cancer mortality disproportionately affects Black women, and social isolation contributes to this disparity. The SISTER study aims to identify whether and to what extent differing social support vehicles improve key outcomes for Black women in the United States with high-risk EC. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04930159 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

The current status of clinical trials on cancer and age disparities among the most common cancer trial participants

OBJECTIVE

To illustrate the status of all cancer clinical trials and characterize clinical trial enrollment disparities in the most common cancer.

METHODS

Clinical trial data were extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov website. All searched clinical trials were included in the current status analysis of clinical trials on cancer. Among all the clinical trials, only trials addressing single disease sites of breast, prostate, colorectal, or lung (BPCRL) cancer were included in the age disparities analysis. The difference in median age (DMA) between the trial participant median age and the population-based disease-site-specific median age was calculated for each trial.

RESULTS

A total of 7747 clinical trials were included in the current status analysis of clinical trials on cancer. The number of registered trials had been increasing from 2008 to 2021 (AAPC = 50.60, 95% CI 36.60, 66.00, P < 0.05). Of the 7747 trials, 1.50% (116) of the studies were clinical trials for the elderly aged 60 years or older. 322 trials were included in the age disparities analysis. For all trials, the median DMA was - 8.15 years (P25, P75, - 10.83 to - 2.98 years, P < 0.001). The median DMA were - 9.55 years (P25, P75, - 11.63 to - 7.11 years), - 7.10 years (P25, P75, - 9.80 to - 5.70 years), - 9.75 years (P25, P75, - 11.93 to - 7.35 years), 3.50 years (P25, P75, 0.60 to 4.55 years), respectively, for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer and prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION

The numbers of registered clinical trials show an upward trend. Age disparities between trial participants and diagnosed disease population are present in BPCRL cancer trials and appear to be increasing over time. Equitable participation in clinical trials on the basis of age is crucial for advancing medical knowledge and evaluating the safety and efficacy of new treatments that are generalizable to aging populations.

An absence of translated consent forms limits oncologic clinical trial enrollment for limited English proficiency participants

OBJECTIVES

A lack of diversity amongst participants in cancer clinical trials has raised scrutiny over the past decade. Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) are further excluded. One modifiable reason for low LEP participation is a lack of non-English consent forms.

METHODS

We queried the clinical trials registry database at an academic hospital serving a predominantly Spanish-speaking patient population. Clinical trials related to gynecology oncology were evaluated for the availability of fully translated Spanish consent forms, the racial and ethnic identification of enrolled patients, and the number of signed Spanish consents. Enrolment data was compared before and after 2019, when institutional financial support for document translation was withdrawn.

RESULTS

Sixteen gynecologic oncology clinical trials were opened between 2014 and 2022, with 10 trials enrolling 128 patients. Eight trials opened prior to 2019, all with fully translated consent forms. Seven of these trials enrolled 99 participants, 70% of whom identified as Hispanic and 60% who signed a Spanish consent. Eight trials opened after 2019 and one had a fully translated consent form. Three of the trials enrolled 29 participants, with 10% of subjects identifying as Hispanic and none signing a Spanish consent form.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a decrease in fully translated clinical trial consent forms for gynecologic oncology studies following the loss of subsidized translation services in our single institution with a predominantly LEP population. This correlated with a decrease in enrollment of Hispanic subjects. To increase enrollment of diverse participants, including those with LEP, simple actions such as fully translating consent forms would help maintain equity in research conduct and improve clinical outcomes through trial involvement.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Finerenone in Black Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and CKD: A Post hoc Analysis of the Pooled FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD Trials

Rationale & Objective

In FIDELITY, finerenone improved cardiorenal outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). This analysis explored the efficacy and safety of finerenone in Black patients.

Study Design

Subanalysis of randomized controlled trials.

Setting & Participants

Patients with T2D and CKD.

Intervention

Finerenone or placebo.

Outcomes

Composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure; composite of kidney failure, sustained ≥57% estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline from baseline maintained for ≥4 weeks, or renal death.

Results

Of the 13,026 patients, 522 (4.0%) self-identified as Black. Finerenone demonstrated similar effects on the cardiovascular composite outcome in Black (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.51-1.24]) and non-Black patients (HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.79-0.96; P = 0.5 for interaction]). Kidney composite outcomes were consistent in Black (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.43-1.16]) and non-Black patients (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.66-0.88; P = 0.9 for interaction]). Finerenone reduced urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio by 40% at month 4 (least-squares mean treatment ratio, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.52-0.69; P < 0.001]) in Black patients and 32% at month 4 (least-squares mean treatment ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.66-0.70; P < 0.001]) in non-Black patients, versus placebo. Chronic eGFR decline (month 4 to end-of-study) was slowed in Black and non-Black patients treated with finerenone versus placebo (between-group difference, 1.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year [95% CI, 0.33-2.44; P = 0.01] and 1.1 mL/min/1.73 m2 per year [95% CI, 0.89-1.28; P < 0.001], respectively). Safety outcomes were similar between subgroups.

Limitations

Small number of Black patients; analysis was not originally powered to determine an interaction effect based on Black race.

Conclusions

The efficacy and safety of finerenone appears consistent in Black and non-Black patients with CKD and T2D.

Funding

Bayer AG.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02540993, NCT02545049.

Plain-Language Summary

Diabetes is a major cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD), affecting more Black adults than White adults. Most adults with CKD ultimately die from heart and vascular complications (eg, heart attack and stroke) rather than kidney failure. This analysis of 2 recent trials shows that the drug finerenone was beneficial for patients with diabetes and CKD. Along with reducing kidney function decline and protein in the urine, it also decreased heart and vascular issues and lowered blood pressure in both Black and non-Black adults with diabetes and CKD. These findings have promising implications for slowing the progression of CKD and protecting against cardiovascular problems in diverse populations.

Precision Recruitment and Engagement of Individuals at Risk for Diabetes and Hypertension in Clinical Trials (PREDHICT): A Randomized Trial for an E-Persuasive Mobile Application to Inform Decision Making about Clinical Trials

The primary objective of this randomized trial was to test the effectiveness of the PREDHiCT digital application, which provides educational and supportive navigation to increase willingness to participate in a future clinical trial. The second objective was to test whether PREDHiCT increased clinical trial literacy or enhanced psychological facilitators of clinical trial participation, such as altruism. To test these two objectives, we conducted a 1-month remote decentralized trial with 100 participants who either have a personal or family history of cardiometabolic health conditions, such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. Results indicated significant changes in altruism (mean: -2.94 vs. 0.83; p-value = 0.011) and clinical trial literacy (mean: 0.55 vs. 2.59; p-value = 0.001) from baseline to 1-month follow-up between the control and intervention groups. Additionally, participants exposed to personalized clinical trial navigation had greater clinical trial literacy at the end of the study relative to the individuals in the control arm of the study. Our findings indicate that tailored education, navigation, and access to clinical trials-three unique features of our PREDHiCT app-increased altruism and clinical trial literacy but not willingness to participate in a trial.

Investigating potential disparities in clinical trial eligibility and enrollment at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center

BACKGROUND

Although barriers to trial accrual are well-reported, few studies have explored trial eligibility and trial offers as potential drivers of disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment.

METHODS

We identified patients with gastrointestinal (GI) or head/neck (HN) malignancies who were seen as new patients at the University of Michigan Health Rogel Cancer Center in 2016. By exhaustive review of the electronic medical record, we assessed the primary outcomes: (1) eligibility for, (2) documented offer of, and (3) enrollment in a clinical trial. All 41 of the clinical trials available to these patients were considered. Independent variables included clinical and non-clinical patient-related factors. We assessed associations between these variables and the primary outcomes using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

Of 1446 patients, 43% were female, 15% were over age 75, 6% were Black. 305 (21%) patients were eligible for a clinical trial. Among eligible patients, 154 (50%) had documentation of a trial offer and 90 (30%) enrolled. Among the GI cohort, bivariate analyses demonstrated that older age was associated with decreased trial eligibility. Bivariate analyses also demonstrated that Black race was associated with increased trial offer. After adjustment, patients 75 or older were less likely to be eligible for a clinical trial in the GI cohort; however, we found no significant associations between race and any of the outcomes after adjustment. Among eligible GI patients, we found no significant associations between non-clinical factors and enrollment. Among the HN cohort, bivariate analyses demonstrated that female sex, older age, Black race, and unpartnered marital status were associated with decreased likelihood of trial offer; however, we found no significant associations between race, age, and marital status and any of the outcomes after adjustment. We found no significant associations between non-clinical factors and eligibility after adjustment; however, women were less likely to be offered and to enroll in a clinical trial in the HN cohort.

CONCLUSION

Factors associated with eligibility, documented offer, and enrollment differed between disease site cohorts at our institution. Future work is needed to ensure the equitable inclusion of women and elderly patients in clinical trials.

"There's not enough studies": Views of black breast and ovarian cancer patients on research participation

BACKGROUND

Black breast and ovarian cancer patients are underrepresented in clinical cancer trials disproportionate to the prevalence of these cancers in Black females. Historically, lower enrollment has been attributed to individualized factors, including medical mistrust, but more recently structural factors, including systemic racism, have received additional scrutiny. We interviewed Black women with a personal or family history of breast and ovarian cancer to understand their views and experiences related to research participation.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted via telephone or video conference and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were qualitatively analyzed for iterative themes related to the offer and participation in cancer clinical trials and research studies, impact on cancer care, and recommendations to increase enrollment of Black patients.

RESULTS

Sixty-one Black women completed an interview. Participants expressed that Black women are underrepresented in cancer research, and that this negatively impacted their own care. Many cited past historical abuses, including the Tuskegee syphilis trial, as a potential factor for lower enrollment but suggested that lower enrollment was better understood in the context of the entirety of their healthcare experiences, including present-day examples of patient mistreatment or dismissal. Participants suggested that proactive community engagement, transparency, and increased representation of Black research team members were strategies likely to foster trust and bolster research participation.

CONCLUSION(S)

Medical mistrust is only a partial factor in the lower participation of Black patients in cancer research. Researchers should implement the strategies identified by our participants to promote diverse enrollment and ensure that Black patients are included in future therapeutic advances.

A qualitative investigation of reasoning behind decisions to decline participation in a research intervention: A study-within-a-trial

The current study-within-a-trial explored individuals' decisions to decline participation in research trialling a chronic illness-focused therapy (i.e. multiple sclerosis). Four themes were identified from seven semi-structured interviews with participation decliners and were confirmed by the host trial's Patient & Public Involvement (PPI) panel: acknowledgement of the value of research; 'fit' of the study; misinterpretation of participant information; and 'ignorance is bliss' - discussed in light of theory and research. This study-within-a-trial extends research on trial recruitment and participation decline; while also suggesting that PPI can be utilised in both a practical and impactful manner.

Enrollment of Racial and Ethnic Minoritized Groups in Gynecologic Oncology Clinical Trials: A Review of the Scope of the Problem, Contributing Factors, and Strategies to Improve Inclusion

Racial inequities are well-documented across the gynecologic oncology care continuum, including the representation of racial and ethnic minoritized groups (REMGs) in gynecologic oncology clinical trials. We specifically reviewed the scope of REMG disparities, contributing factors, and strategies to improve inclusion. We found systematic and progressively worsening under-enrollment of REMGs, particularly of Black and Latinx populations. In addition, race/ethnicity data reporting is poor, yet a prerequisite for accountability to recruitment goals. Trial participation barriers are multifactorial, and successful remediation likely requires multi-level strategies. More rigorous, transparent data on trial participants and effectiveness studies on REMG recruitment strategies are needed to improve enrollment.

Challenges to Recruiting Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer in Clinical Chemoprevention Trials

Clinical trials play a critical role in evidence-based medicine, when rigorous scientific methodology is utilized to discover and test the effectiveness and safety of new drugs to prevent or cure diseases, including cancer. Participation in clinical trials thus becomes key to successful completion of these trials. Although it is estimated that >70% of Americans are inclined to participate in clinical trials, less than 5% of adult cancer patients participate in clinical trials. There is thus a large gap between those inclined to participate in clinical trials and actual participation in clinical trials. As with trials targeting men with prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS), where the target population is mostly over 50 years of age, others have observed several challenges with recruitment and accrual in clinical trials. The participation rate is currently unavailable for men on primary and secondary chemoprevention trials. Additionally, with unanticipated environmental factors such as a pandemic or other natural emergencies that may severely impact the economy, personal property, travel and person-to person contact for study-related procedures, there is a need to continuously identify these challenges and determine solutions to recruitment barriers in chemoprevention trials to ensure timely completion of early phase trials. Recent studies regarding the impact of the pandemic on clinical trial recruitment have shown that cancer prevention trials were relatively more negatively impacted compared to cancer treatment trials. The goal of this manuscript is to review our experience in continuously evaluating the protocol and patient level challenges to recruiting subjects on AS for PCa in this cancer chemoprevention trial conducted at the Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) and report the contemporary strategies that we are utilizing to continue to recruit subjects in this trial. We provide data from our current trial as an example while discussing future strategies to improve overall clinical trial recruitment. These strategies can inform future design of contemporary cancer chemoprevention trials and, additionally, better select, focus and invest in strategies that are the most productive and efficient for recruiting target populations.

Cross-Sectional Analysis of Clinical Trial Availability and North Carolina Neighborhood Social Vulnerability

PURPOSE

Residents of communities facing social vulnerability (eg, poverty) have limited access to clinical trials, leaving them susceptible to experiencing poor health outcomes. We examined the association between North Carolina county-level social vulnerability and available multiple myeloma (MM) trials.

METHODS

Using a novel data linkage between ClinicalTrials.gov, the 2019 American Community Survey, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index, we investigated at the county level (1) availability of MM trial sites and (2) the relationship between Social Vulnerability Index and MM trial site availability using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Between 2002 and 2021, 229 trials were registered across 462 nonunique trial sites in 34 counties. Nearly 50% of trial sites were in academic medical centers, 80% (n = 372) of all trials were industry-sponsored, 60% (n = 274) were early-phase, and 50% (n = 232) were for patients with relapsed or refractory MM. Counties with low as opposed to high poverty rates had six times greater odds of having ≥ 1 MM trial sites (odds ratio [OR], 5.60; 95% CI, 1.85 to 19.64; P = .004). Counties with the lowest percentage of Black Indigenous Persons of Color and non-native English speakers had 77% lower odds (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.69; P = .011) of having ≥ 1 trial sites. The effect remained significant after accounting for the presence of five academic medical centers (n = 95; OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.6; P = .008) and adjustment for metropolitan, suburban, or rural status (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.81; P = .025).

CONCLUSION

Counties with the lowest poverty rates had more MM trial sites, whereas those with the lowest percentage of Black Indigenous Persons of Color populations had fewer MM trial sites. Multilevel efforts are needed to improve the availability and access to trials for socially vulnerable populations.

Real time patient-reported outcome measures in patients with cancer: Early experience within an integrated health system

BACKGROUND

While patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have benefit in cancer clinical trials, real-world applications are lacking. This study describes the method of implementation of a cancer enterprise-wide PROMs platform.

METHODS

After establishing a multispecialty stakeholder group within a large integrated health system, domain-specific instruments were selected from the National Institutes of Health's Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments (pain interference, fatigue, physical function, and depression) and were administered at varying frequencies throughout each patient's cancer journey. All cancer patients with an oncologic visit were eligible to complete the PROMs prior to the visit using a patient portal, or at the time of the visit using a tablet. PROMs were integrated into clinical workflow. Clinical partnerships were essential for successful implementation. Descriptive preliminary data were compared using multivariable logistic regression to determine the factors associated with method of PROMs completion.

RESULTS

From September 16, 2020 to July 23, 2021, 23 of 38 clinical units (60.5%) implemented PROMs over 2392 encounters and 1666 patients. Approximately one third of patients (n = 629, 37.8%) used the patient portal. Black patients (aOR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.97) and patients residing in zip codes with higher percentage of unemployment (aOR: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01-0.41) were among the least likely to complete PROMs using the patient portal.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful system-wide implementation of PROMs among cancer patients requires engagement from multispecialty stakeholders and investment from clinical partners. Attention to the method of PROMs collection is required in order to reduce the potential for disparities, such as Black populations and those residing in areas with high levels of unemployment.

Addressing multilevel barriers to clinical trial participation among Black and White men with prostate cancer through the PACCT study

BACKGROUND

Cancer clinical trial participation is low and inequitable. Partnering Around Cancer Clinical Trials (PACCT) addressed systemic and interpersonal barriers through an observational study of eligibility and an intervention to improve patient-physician communication and trial invitation rates.

METHODS

Physicians at two comprehensive cancer centers and Black and White men with prostate cancer participated. Patients were followed for 2 years to determine whether they became potentially eligible for an available therapeutic trial. Potentially eligible patients were randomized to receive a trials-focused Question Prompt List or usual care. Patient-physician interactions were video-recorded. Outcomes included communication quality and trial invitation rates. Descriptive analyses assessed associations between sociodemographic characteristics and eligibility and effects of the intervention on outcomes.

RESULTS

Only 44 (22.1%) of participating patients (n = 199) became potentially eligible for an available clinical trial. Patients with higher incomes were more often eligible (>$80,000 vs. <$40,000, adjusted OR = 6.06 [SD, 1.97]; $40,000-$79,000 vs. <$40,000, adjusted OR = 4.40 [SD, 1.81]). Among eligible patients randomized to the intervention (n = 19) or usual care (n = 25), Black patients randomized to the intervention reported participating more actively than usual care patients, while White intervention patients reported participating less actively (difference, 0.41 vs. -0.34). Intervention patients received more trial invitations than usual care patients (73.7% vs. 60.0%); this effect was greater for Black (80.0% vs. 30.0%) than White patients (80.0% vs. 66.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest the greatest enrollment barrier is eligibility for an available trial, but a communication intervention can improve communication quality and trial invitation rates, especially for eligible Black patients.

Physicians' use of plain language during discussions of prostate cancer clinical trials with patients

OBJECTIVE

This study described physicians' use of plain language during patient-physician cancer clinical trial discussions.

METHODS

Video-recorded clinical interactions and accompanying transcripts were taken from a larger study of communication and clinical trials (PACCT). Interactions (n = 25) were selected if they included invitations to participate in a clinical trial. We used descriptive, qualitative discourse analysis, a method that identifies language patterns at or above the sentence level. We first excerpted discussions of clinical trials, then identified instances of plain language within those discussions. Finally, we inductively coded those instances to describe physicians' plain language practices.

RESULTS

The analysis identified four plain language practices. Lexical simplification replaced medical terminology with simpler words. Patient-centered definition named, categorized, and explained complex medical terminology. Metaphor explained medical terminology by comparing it with known concepts. Finally, experience-focused description replaced medical terminology with descriptions of patients' potential physical experiences.

CONCLUSION

These plain language practices hold promise as part of effective information exchange in discussions of cancer clinical trials. Testing is needed to identify patient preferences and the extent to which these practices address patient health literacy needs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Pending further testing, these plain language practices may be integrated into physician clinical trial and other communication training.

Interventions to increase racial and ethnic minority accrual into cancer clinical trials: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Racial and ethnic minorities (REMs) continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials despite the 1993 National Institutes of Health's Revitalization Act mandating the representation of women and underrepresented minority groups in clinical trials. Although Blacks represent 15% and Hispanics 13% of the cancer population, their clinical trial enrollment rates are disproportionately low at 4% to 6% and 3% to 6%, respectively. A systematic review exploring interventions aimed at improving cancer clinical trial (CCT) enrollment for REMs was conducted.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Ovid PsycINFO was conducted for English-language studies since 1993. Inclusion criteria included peer-reviewed, US-based studies with interventions aimed to recruit underrepresented minority adult patients into cancer clinical trials. REM groups were defined as Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander.

RESULTS

The systematic search identified 3123 studies, of which nine met inclusion criteria. Interventions included patient navigation/coaching (n = 4), a clinical trial educational video (n = 2), institutional research infrastructure changes (n = 1), a relationship building and social marketing recruitment model (n = 1), and cultural competency training for providers (n = 1). A statistically significant improvement in accrual was shown in three of the patient navigation interventions, one of the clinical trial educational videos and an institutional research infrastructure change.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review illustrates several potential mechanisms by which to increase CCT recruitment for patients of REM backgrounds in various clinical settings. More randomized controlled trials are needed to further explore the benefits of these interventions for REMs.

An evaluation of race-based representation among men participating in clinical trials for prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction

Background

Inclusion of ethnic/racial minorities in clinical trials is essential to fully assess therapeutic efficacy. It is well-known that populations respond dissimilarly to interventions. Our objective is to analyze the inclusion of minority men in clinical trials for erectile dysfunction (ED).

Methods

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for the disease keyword: "Erectile Dysfunction" and used "Prostate Cancer" for comparison. Completed trials which reported demographic data were included for analysis. Literature was reviewed to determine the prevalence of ED and prostate cancer (PC) among Hispanic, Black, White, and Asian men. The proportion of individuals of each group that participated in trials is divided by the proportion of each group in the disease population to calculate the "Participation to Prevalence Ratio" (PPR). PPRs between 0.8 and 1.2 indicates adequate representation, <0.8 is under-representation and >1.2 is over-representation.

Results

A total of 312 trials were assessed: 289 for prostate cancer and 23 for ED. Hispanic men comprised 11.8% of ED trial participants and 4.6% of prostate cancer trial participants, yet represented 18% of ED patients and 7.3% of PC patients. Black/African-American (AA) men accounted for 10.2% of ED trial participants and 9.4% of PC trial participants, but comprise 16% of ED patients, and 16.3% of PC patients. Hispanic and AA men are under-represented in trials for ED and Prostate Cancer (Hispanic ED PPR = 0.66; Hispanic PC PPR = 0.63; AA ED PPR = 0.64; AA PC PPR = 0.58).

Conclusion

Our analysis shows that both Hispanic and AA men are underrepresented in both ED and PC clinical trials.

Racial disparities in prostate cancer among black men: epidemiology and outcomes

Prostate cancer has the widest racial disparities of any cancer, and these disparities appear at every stage of the cancer continuum. This review focuses on the disparities in prostate cancer between Black and White men, spanning from prevention and screening to clinical outcomes. We conduct an expansive review of the literature on racial disparities in prostate cancer, interpret the findings, and discuss areas of unmet need in research. We provide an overview of epidemiologic concepts necessary to understanding the current state of prostate cancer disparities, discuss the complexities of studying race, and review potential drivers of disparities in incidence and mortality. We argue that the cause of this disparity is multifactorial and due to a combination of social and environmental factors. The path forward needs to focus on enrolling and retaining Black men in prostate cancer clinical trials and observational studies and identifying potential interventions to improve prevention and clinical outcomes in Black men.

Trial Forge Guidance 3: randomised trials and how to recruit and retain individuals from ethnic minority groups-practical guidance to support better practice

Randomised trials, especially those intended to directly inform clinical practice and policy, should be designed to reflect all those who could benefit from the intervention under test should it prove effective. This does not always happen. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) INCLUDE project identified many groups in the UK that are under-served by trials, including ethnic minorities.This guidance document presents four key recommendations for designing and running trials that include the ethnic groups needed by the trial. These are (1) ensure eligibility criteria and recruitment pathway do not limit participation in ways you do not intend, (2) ensure your trial materials are developed with inclusion in mind, (3) ensure staff are culturally competent and (4) build trusting partnerships with community organisations that work with ethnic minority groups. Each recommendation comes with best practice advice, public contributor testimonials, examples of the inclusion problem tackled by the recommendation, or strategies to mitigate the problem, as well as a collection of resources to support implementation of the recommendations.We encourage trial teams to follow the recommendations and, where possible, evaluate the strategies they use to implement them. Finally, while our primary audience is those designing, running and reporting trials, we hope funders, grant reviewers and approvals agencies may also find our guidance useful.

Eligibility Criteria Perpetuate Disparities in Enrollment and Participation of Black Patients in Pancreatic Cancer Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

Clinical trials determine safety and efficacy of cancer therapeutics and establish standards of care. Minority patient participation in cancer clinical trials is dismal. We aimed to determine the impact of eligibility criteria on disparities in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) clinical trial candidacy.

METHODS

Traditional PDAC trial eligibility criteria were obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov. Patients with PDAC who sought care at Virginia Commonwealth University Health from 2010 to 2019 were included. Clinical data were obtained from billing codes and discrete values in the electronic medical record. Eligibility criteria differences between racial groups were determined using chi-squared tests and unconditional maximum likelihood-based odds ratios.

RESULTS

Among 676 patients, most identified as Black or White race (42.5% and 51.6%, respectively). Using traditional criteria, Black patients were more likely to be ineligible for participation compared with White patients (42.4% v 33.2%, P = .023) secondary to hypoalbuminemia (14.1% v 7.9%, P = .023), HIV (3.1% v 0.3%, P = .010), hepatitis B (1.7% v 0%, P = .043), and hepatitis C (9.1% v 3.4%, P = .005). Black patients were also numerically more likely to be ineligible because of renal dysfunction, recent coronary stenting, and uncontrolled diabetes mellitus. Prior cancer treatment excluded fewer Black than White patients (9.1% v 14.0%, P = .072), most attributable to lower rates of neoadjuvant chemotherapy received. Strategic eligibility criteria revisions could equalize ineligibility rates between Black and White patients (26.8% v 24.8%, P = .581).

CONCLUSION

Traditional eligibility criteria differentially exclude Black patients from participating in PDAC clinical trials. These criteria perpetuate disparities, limit generalizability, and are often not medically justifiable. Revised criteria may improve participant diversity, without compromising safety or study results.

Overcoming racial disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment of Asians and Native Hawaiians

Background

Asians and Native Hawaiians are two of the fastest growing minority populations in the United States, however these racial minority groups are severely underrepresented in clinical trials. This study looks at cancer clinical trial accrual among Asians and Native Hawaiians in a community-based network with a mission of increasing minority accrual to studies.

Methods

The University of Hawaii Cancer Center (UHCC) network enrolls patients to treatment and non-treatment cancer studies. Enrollment on studies opened between 2009 and 2013 were obtained from UHCC's clinical trial management system. Incidence of cancer by race was acquired from the Hawaii Tumor Registry. Enrollment fractions were compared for the most common races in the state: White, Asian (specifically Chinese, Filipino, Japanese), and Native Hawaiian.

Results

Whites comprised the largest proportion of cancer patients and participants in trials. Asians and Native Hawaiians were enrolled into cancer clinical trials at the same or higher enrollment fraction compared to Whites. Chinese, Japanese, and Native Hawaiian patients participated in treatment trials significantly more often than Whites (p < 0.05). Similarly, Chinese and Native Hawaiians enrolled in non-treatment trials at a significantly higher rate compared to Whites (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The UHCC network has instituted many strategies to increase minority accrual that have likely led to Asian and Native Hawaiian patients participating in studies at least as often as White patients. The strategies implemented at UHCC may benefit similar communities with a high number of minority cancer patients.

Black Americans' willingness to participate in pediatric sickle cell clinical trials: A retrospective, systematic review

Black individuals are underrepresented in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Willingness to participate is a frequently cited explanation. However, the few studies that have investigated willingness to participate demonstrated no difference between Black individuals and other groups. We sought to measure willingness to participate by focusing on sickle cell disease (SCD), in which approximately 90% of affected individuals are Black. We conducted an analysis of 17 RCTs. A level of clarity was defined and correlated with each article's transparency in reporting patient enrollment data. Calculated measures of acceptance ranged from 32% to 93.5%. Calculated completion rates ranged from 58.8% to 100%. Weighted measures of acceptance and completion were 59.1% and 83.8%, respectively. Our study is limited by focusing solely on studies pertinent to SCD and only a minority of publications reviewed provided sufficient patient enrollment data. Yet, our results suggest that decreased willingness to participate does not account for underrepresentation of Black individuals.

Access and Representation: A Narrative Review of the Disparities in Access to Clinical Trials and Precision Oncology in Black men with Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To provide commentary on the disparities in access to clinical trials and precision oncology specific to Black men with Prostate Cancer (PCa) in the United States and lend a general framework to aid in closing these gaps.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The ideas, commentaries and data presented in this narrative review were synthesized by utilizing qualitative and quantitative studies, reviews, and randomized control trials performed between 2010 and 2021. We searched PubMed using the key words "Medicaid", "Medicare", "clinical trials", "African Americans", "Black", "underrepresentation", "access", "Prostate Cancer", "minority recruitment", "racial disparities", "disparity", "genomics", "biomarkers", "diagnostic" "prognostic", "validation", "precision medicine", and "precision oncology" to identify important themes, trends and data described in the current review. Keywords were used alone and combination with both "AND" and "OR" terms.

RESULTS

Black men with prostate cancer (PCa) in the United States have earlier onset of disease, present with more advanced stages, and worse prostate cancer-specific survival than their White counterparts. Potential causative factors vary from disparities in health care access to differences in tumor immunobiology and genomics along with disparate screening rates, management patterns and underrepresentation in clinical and translational research such as clinical trials and precision oncology.

CONCLUSION

To avoid increasing the racial disparity in PCa outcomes for Black men, we must increase inclusion of Black men into precision oncology and clinical trials, using multilevel change. Underrepresentation in clinical and translational research may potentiate poorly validated risk calculators and biomarkers, leading to poor treatment decisions in high-risk populations. Relevant actions include funding to include minority-serving institutions as recruitment sites, and inclusion of evidence based recruitment methods in funded research to increase Black representation in clinical trials and translational research.

Disparity in Clinical Trial Participation Among Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial participation among cancer patients remains low. We sought to examine the impact of patient- and system-level factors on clinical trial participation among gastrointestinal (GI) surgical patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Adult patients with a GI cancer who underwent oncologic surgery who were enrolled in National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded clinical trials from 2000 through 2019 were compared with trial-eligible adult patients in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) between 2004 and 2017. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with clinical trial participation.

RESULTS

Participants from 36 NCI-funded clinical trials (n = 10,518) were compared with 2,255,730 trial-eligible nonparticipants from the NCDB. Patients aged 65 years or younger (odds ratio [OR] = 0.5, 95% CI 0.47-0.53), Medicare (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.43-0.49) or Medicaid (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.46-0.58) insurance, as well as lower levels of education (OR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.89) were associated with a lower likelihood of clinical trial enrollment. Black (OR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.67-0.78) and Asian/Pacific Islander (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.85-1.08) patients were less likely to participate in trials vs White patients. There were interactions between race/ethnicity and income; high-income (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.81) and low-income Black (OR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.87) patients were less likely, respectively, to participate than high- or low-income White individuals (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trial participation is low among adult GI cancer patients who undergo surgery in the US. Programs aimed at improving trial participation among vulnerable populations are needed to improve trial participation.

Health Disparities in Recruitment and Enrollment in Research

Despite advances in thoracic oncology research, the benefits of new discoveries are not universally experienced. A lack of representation of racial/ethnic minorities and individuals of low socioeconomic status in clinical trials and thoracic research contributes to persistent health care disparities. It is critical that improved racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity is achieved in our trials and research, if we are to attain generalizability of findings and reduction of health care disparities. Culturally tailored and community-based approaches can help improve recruitment and enrollment of marginalized groups in thoracic research, which is an essential step toward achieving health equity and advancing medical science.

Disparities in older adult accrual to cancer trials: Analysis from the alliance for clinical trials in oncology (A151736)

BACKGROUND

Older adults are under-represented in cancer clinical trials. However, it remains unclear which types of trials under-enroll aging patients. We aimed to identify associations between trial characteristics and disparate enrollment of older adults onto trials sponsored by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance).

METHODS

Actual age ≥ 65 percentage and trial data were extracted from the Alliance closed study list. Each trial, based on its cancer type and years of enrollment, was assigned an expected age ≥ 65 percentage extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) US population-based database. Enrollment disparity difference (EDD), the difference between the expected age ≥ 65 percentage and the actual age ≥ 65 percentage, was calculated for each trial. Linear regression determined trial variables associated with larger EDDs and variables with an overall association p-value <0.20 were included in a multivariable fixed-effects linear model.

RESULTS

The median age of 66,708 patients across 237 trials was 60 years (range 18-102). The average actual age ≥ 65 percentage enrolled per trial was lower than each trial's expected age ≥ 65 percentage average (39% vs. 58%; EDD 19, 95% CI 17.1-21.3%, p < 0.0001). In multivariable analyses, non-genitourinary (GU) cancer types (p < 0.001), trimodality+ trials (estimate 8.78, 95%CI 2.21-15.34, p = 0.009), and phase 2 trials (estimate 4.43 95% CI -0.06-8.91; p = 0.05) were all associated with larger EDDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Disparate enrollment of older adults is not equal across cancer trials. Future strategies to improve older adult inclusion should focus on trial types associated with the highest disparate enrollment.

Development and pilot test of a physician-focused cancer clinical trials communication training intervention

Objective

We describe the development and pilot test of a physician-focused, web-based training module designed to improve physician communication related to clinical trials in a diverse cancer patient population.

Methods

Researchers and stakeholders developed the training module, which included a video explaining patient-centered communication strategies for discussing trials, and re-enactments of actual clinical interactions. For the pilot test, the module was provided to physician participants in the Partnering Around Cancer Clinical Trials (PACCT) trial at two major urban cancer centers. Questionnaires assessed change in beliefs, behavioral attitudes, knowledge and comfort; and perceptions of the module.

Results

Nineteen physicians participated in the pilot test. Most were experienced in discussing trials. Assessments of change were mixed regarding beliefs; they showed marginal improvement in attitudes, and significant improvement in knowledge, but no change in comfort. Feedback on the module was favorable.

Conclusions

This stakeholder-developed physician communication training module was acceptable and effective, albeit in this small and highly-experienced physician sample. Future research should determine its effectiveness on communication in clinical settings.

Innovation

This is the first physician training module to focus on communicating about clinical trials in a diverse patient population. It offers a web-based format and re-enactments of naturally-occurring clinical interactions.

Trial Registration Number: NCT02906241

Factors Associated With Racial and Ethnic Diversity Among Heart Failure Trial Participants: A Systematic Bibliometric Review

BACKGROUND

Heart failure has a disproportionate burden on patients who are Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), but not much is known about representation of these groups in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We explored temporal trends in and RCT factors associated with the reporting of race and ethnicity data and the enrollment of BIPOC in heart failure RCTs.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL for heart failure RCTs published in journals with an impact factor ≥10 between January 1, 2000 and June 17, 2020. We used the Cochran-Armitage and Jonchkeere-Terpstra tests to examine temporal trends, and multivariable regression to assess the association between trial characteristics and outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 414 RCTs meeting inclusion criteria, only 157 (37.9% [95% CI, 33.2%-2.8%]) reported race and ethnicity data. Among 158 200 participants in these 157 RCTs, 29 512 (18.7% [95% CI, 18.5%-18.9%]) were BIPOC. There was a temporal increase in reporting of race and ethnicity data (29.5% in 2000-2003 to 54.7% in 2016-2020, P<0.001) and in enrollment of BIPOC (14.4% in 2000-2003 to 22.2% in 2016-2020, P=0.038). Trial leadership by a woman was independently associated with twice the odds of reporting race and ethnicity data (odds ratio, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.1-3.8]; P=0.028) and an 8.4% increase (95% CI, 1.9%-15.0%; P=0.013) in BIPOC enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS

A minority of heart failure RCTs reported race and ethnicity data, and among these, BIPOC were under-enrolled relative to disease distribution. Both reporting of race and ethnicity as well as enrollment of BIPOC increased between 2000 and 2020. After multivariable adjustment, trials led by women had greater odds of reporting race and ethnicity and enrolling BIPOC.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD42021237497.

African American participation in cancer clinical trials

Background

According to the Food and Drug Administration, African Americans (AAs) have been habitually underrepresented in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). This under-enrolment has contributed to cancer disparities despite the implementation of policies to improve AA accrual. This systematic review aimed to determine (1) Why AAs are participating in CCT at lower rates compared to other ethnic/racial groups and (2) Are there any tools that have definitively improved AA participation or addressed the barriers associated with their lack of participation.

Methods

Searches were carried out in PubMed, Project MUSE and EBSCO which were confined to four databases (BASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and MEDLINE). Literature published between 2010 and 2020 were filtered with the inclusion and exclusion criteria and then a mixed methods appraisal tool was used to check the quality of the articles. Studies were separated into two categories to extract and synthesise data based on the emerging themes.

Results

Frequent reasons for a lack of participation involved provider related issues, family concerns, health literacy and trust among others. Interventions cited as successful in improving AA participation or addressing a barrier often revolved around community-based participatory research and educational CCT videos/tools.

Recommendations/Conclusion

Educating AA patients about the biomedical research process, addressing concerns about CCTs, building trust with community members and improving communication with healthcare providers could improve AA participation in CCTs. Future interventions should consider the effect of diversified healthcare teams in addressing trust deficit in CCTs among AAs. Healthcare practitioners seeking to consent AA into CCTs and biomedical research could consider incorporating cultural competence into their practice for effective interaction with this population and to address their questions about biomedical research.

Disparities and Inequities Among Patients with Central Nervous System Tumor

Since the 2002 Institute of Medicine report, which many cite as a landmark in first defining and calling attention to the concept of health disparities in medicine, much work has been dedicated to characterizing health disparities in medical care with the aim of eliminating them. Importantly, this report, "Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care," laid bare the differences in quality of health care that are based on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Here, the authors elaborate on these issues and discuss the role of the neuro-oncologic workforce in potentially mitigating these disparities.

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.

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.

Participation of Black Americans in Cancer Clinical Trials: Current Challenges and Proposed Solutions

Low participation of Black Americans in cancer clinical trials is a well-established predicament. Many factors resulted in this current dilemma with racism being the fundamental unit. Here, we discuss some current challenges and proposed solutions to help in increasing the enrollment of Black Americans in cancer clinical trials. We suggest implementing the least acceptable race-specific percentage as a new bar that registrational clinical trials need to pass before cancer drugs approval. Clinical trials will continue to draw the future of cancer therapeutics in which we believe that a prompt improvement of Black Americans participation is warranted.

"When Offered to Participate": A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Agreement to Participate in Cancer Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Patient participation in clinical trials is vital for knowledge advancement and outcomes improvement. Few adult cancer patients participate in trials. Although patient.

decision-making about trial participation has been frequently examined, the participation rate for patients actually offered a trial is unknown.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis using 3 major search engines was undertaken. We identified studies from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2020, that examined clinical trial participation in the United States. Studies must have specified the numbers of patients offered a trial and the number enrolled. A random effects model of proportions was used. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

We identified 35 studies (30 about treatment trials and 5 about cancer control trials) among which 9759 patients were offered trial participation. Overall, 55.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 49.4% to 60.5%) of patients agreed to enroll. Participation rates did not differ between treatment (55.0%, 95% CI = 48.9% to 60.9%) and cancer control trials (55.3%, 95% CI = 38.9% to 71.1%; P = .98). Black patients participated at similar rates (58.4%, 95% CI = 46.8% to 69.7%) compared with White patients (55.1%, 95% CI = 44.3% to 65.6%; P = .88). The main reasons for nonparticipation were treatment choice or lack of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of all cancer patients offered a clinical trial do participate. These findings upend several conventional beliefs about cancer clinical trial participation, including that Black patients are less likely to agree to participate and that patient decision-making is the primary barrier to participation. Policies and interventions to improve clinical trial participation should focus more on modifiable systemic structural and clinical barriers, such as improving access to available trials and broadening eligibility criteria.

Use of a clinical trial screening tool to enhance patient accrual

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial patient accrual continues to be challenging despite the identification of multiple physician, patient, and system barriers. Expanded collection of demographic data, including socioeconomic status (employment, income, education) and comorbidities, can enhance our understanding of the identified barriers, inform the development of interventions to overcome these barriers, and recognize their impact on treatment outcomes. A clinical trials screening tool was developed to collect expanded demographic data and barriers to trial enrollment; it has been implemented in the National Cancer Institute Clinical Oncology Research Program. The purpose of this article is to describe the development and implementation of the tool and to share information obtained during the first 43 months of its use.

METHODS

There were 19,373 entries collected; 74% of those screened enrolled in a clinical trial. Demographic characteristics were compared between those screened and those enrolled. They varied significantly between the groups.

RESULTS

Reasons for nonenrollment included ineligibility (50%), eligible but declined (47%), eligible but physician declined to offer participation (2%), and eligible but the study was suspended (1%). The most common reasons for ineligibility were failure to meet the protocol-specific stage of cancer, the presence of comorbidities, and the symptom-eligibility score was not met. The most common reason for eligible patients declining participation was that they had no desire to participate in research.

CONCLUSIONS

The tool provides valuable information about the characteristics of individuals who are screened and enrolled in National Cancer Institute-sponsored trials, as well as about barriers to enrollment in trials. The data also inform protocol development and interventions at the patient, provider, and institutional level.

Willingness to Discuss Clinical Trials Among Black vs White Men With Prostate Cancer

Importance

Black individuals are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials.

Objective

To examine whether Black and White men with prostate cancer differ in their willingness to discuss clinical trials with their physicians and, if so, whether patient-level barriers statistically mediate racial differences.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional survey study used baseline data from Partnering Around Cancer Clinical Trials, a randomized clinical trial to increase Black individuals' enrollment in prostate cancer clinical trials. Data were collected from 2016 through 2019 at 2 National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers; participants were Black and White men with intermediate-risk to high-risk prostate cancer. In mediation analysis, path models regressed willingness onto race and each potential mediator, simultaneously including direct paths from race to each mediator. Significant indirect effect sizes served as evidence for mediation.

Exposures

Race was the primary exposure. Potential mediators included age, education, household income, perceived economic burden, pain/physical limitation, health literacy, general trust in physicians, and group-based medical suspicion.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the answer to a single question: "If you were offered a cancer clinical trial, would you be willing to hear more information about it?"

Results

A total of 205 participants were included (92 Black men and 113 White men), with a mean (range) age of 65.7 (45-89) years; 32% had a high school education or lower, and 27.5% had a household income of less than $40 000. Most (88.3%) reported being definitely or probably willing to discuss trials, but White participants were more likely to endorse this highest category of willingness than Black participants (82% vs 64%; χ22 = 8.81; P = .01). Compared with White participants, Black participants were younger (F1,182 = 8.67; P < .001), less educated (F1,182 = 22.79; P < .001), with lower income (F1,182 = 79.59; P < .001), greater perceived economic burden (F1,182 = 42.46; P < .001), lower health literacy (F1,184 = 9.84; P = .002), and greater group-based medical suspicion (F1,184 = 21.48; P < .001). Only group-based medical suspicion significantly mediated the association between race and willingness to discuss trials (indirect effect, -0.22; P = .002).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study of men with prostate cancer, most participants were willing to discuss trials, but Black men were significantly less willing than White men. Black men were more likely to believe that members of their racial group should be suspicious of the health care system, and this belief was associated with lower willingness to discuss trials. Addressing medical mistrust may improve equity in clinical research.

Health Communication and Decision Making about Vaccine Clinical Trials during a Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified the importance of clinical trials for finding a safe and effective vaccine to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. Although communication about vaccines and vaccine hesitancy were challenges long before COVID-19, the twin facts of a pandemic and an "infodemic" of health information, misinformation, and disinformation have raised new challenges for vaccine-related communication and decision-making. The goal of this commentary is to highlight strategies to improve communication and decision-making for adults considering participation in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. First, I present a general conceptual model for clinical trial participation that can be applied to various vaccine and other clinical trial contexts. Next, I introduce the ASK (Assume, Seek, Know) approach for enhancing clinical trial participation: (1) assume that all patients will want to know their options, (2) seek the counsel of stakeholders, and (3) know your numbers. The ideas presented in this commentary are intended to enhance vaccine-specific clinical trial communication, decision-making, and literacy, while dually offering strategies and resources that may help reduce vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine uptake over time.

Development of "Advancing People of Color in Clinical Trials Now!": Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol

BACKGROUND

Participation in clinical trials among people of color remains low, compared with white subjects. This protocol describes the development of "Advancing People of Color in Clinical Trials Now!" (ACT Now!), a culturally tailored website designed to influence clinical trial decision making among people of color.

OBJECTIVE

This cluster randomized study aims to test the efficacy of a culturally tailored website to increase literacy, self-efficacy, and willingness to enroll in clinical trials among people of color.

METHODS

ACT Now! is a randomized trial including 2 groups: (1) intervention group (n=50) with access to the culturally tailored website and (2) control group (n=50) exposed to a standard clinical recruitment website. Clinical trial literacy and willingness to enroll in a clinical trial will be measured before and after exposure to the website corresponding to their assigned group (intervention or control). Surveys will be conducted at baseline and during the 1-month postintervention and 3-month follow-up. Website architecture and wireframing will be informed by the literature and experts in the field. Statistical analysis will be conducted using a two-tailed t test, with 80% power, at .05 alpha level, to increase clinical trial literacy, self-efficacy, and willingness to enroll in clinical trials 3 months post intervention.

RESULTS

We will design a culturally tailored website that will provide leverage for community stakeholders to influence clinical trial literacy, self-efficacy, and willingness to enroll in clinical trials among racial and ethnic groups. ACT Now! applies a community-based participatory research approach through the use of a community steering committee (CSC). The CSC provides input during the research study conception, development, implementation, and enrollment. CSC relationships help foster trust among communities of color. ACT Now! has the potential to fill a gap in clinical trial enrollment among people of color through an accessible web-based website. This study was funded in July 2017 and obtained institutional review board approval in spring 2017. As of December 2019, we had enrolled 100 participants. Data analyses are expected to be completed by June 2020, and expected results are to be published in fall 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

ACT Now! has the potential to fill an important gap in clinical trial enrollment among people of color through an accessible web-based website.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03243071; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00102401.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/17589.

Development of a Plain Language Decision Support Tool for Cancer Clinical Trials: Blending Health Literacy, Academic Research, and Minority Patient Perspectives

Despite the promise of clinical trials for improving cancer care, less than 5% of all cancer patients participate. Racial/ethnic minorities continue to be underrepresented in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). To address this gap, we developed a plain language, web-based decision support tool (CHOICES DST) in English and Spanish to support decision-making about CCTs among Blacks and Hispanics. In phase 1 (information collection), we conducted qualitative interviews with 45 cancer patients, completed a thorough literature review, and reviewed results from a telephone survey of 1100 cancer patients. In phase 2 (content generation), we created the first iteration of the CHOICES DST. In phase 3 (usability testing), we gathered user experience and acceptability data from a small sample of cancer survivors (n = 9). The Knowledge, Empowerment, and Values Clarification (KEV) model of decision-making was developed based on data from phase 1. The KEV model and other phase 1 data allowed us to create the CHOICES DST platform. Usability testing of the CHOICES DST showed highly favorable responses from users, satisfaction with content, ease of navigation, and a desire to use the tool. Qualitative results identified addressable points that would benefit from content and navigation-related alterations. The final version of the CHOICES DST was well received and understood by Black and Hispanic participants, and adheres to the mandates for plain language communication. This research provides preliminary data that CHOICES DST holds promise for improving knowledge of CCTs and potentially improving informed decision-making about participation in trials.

Missing diversity in brain tumor trials

Background

Clinical trials for brain tumors represent a significant opportunity for both patients and providers to understand and combat a disease with substantial morbidity. The aim of this study was to quantify and map ethnic and racial representation in brain tumor trials and examine the potential gaps in trial recruitment. We also show that these representation gaps persist even in large multicultural cities like New York City.

Methods

We analyzed brain tumor clinical trials registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov between July 1, 2005 and completed on or before November 11, 2017. We used a combination of PubMed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar to find associated publications and obtained trial information as well as patient demographic information (when available) including race or ancestry.

Results

Out of 471 trials, 27% had no published results. Only 28.4% of trials with results reported race or ethnicity of trial participants, with no observed upward trend by year. Whites were significantly overrepresented in trials for metastatic brain tumors (P < .001) and high-grade trials (P < .001). Blacks/African Americans (AAs), Hispanics, and Asians were significantly underrepresented (P < .001) in high-grade trials, while only Blacks/AAs were underrepresented in trials for metastatic brain tumors (P < .001). Representation gaps were not observed in pediatric trials. Despite being a multicultural hub, New York City displayed similar gaps in trial representation.

Conclusions

Despite increasing representation in the American population, minorities are underrepresented in brain tumor trials. In addition, despite numerous legal requirements and ethical mandates, published results including race-based information are remarkably absent from 70% of brain tumor trials.

Project PLACE: Enhancing community and academic partnerships to describe and address health disparities

Achieving cancer health equity is a national imperative. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States and in North Carolina (NC), where the disease disproportionately impacts traditionally underrepresented race and ethnic groups, those who live in rural communities, the impoverished, and medically disenfranchised and/or health-disparate populations at high-risk for cancer. These populations have worse cancer outcomes and are less likely to be participants in clinical research and trials. It is critical for cancer centers and other academic health centers to understand the factors that contribute to poor cancer outcomes, the extent to which they impact the cancer burden, and develop effective interventions to address them. Key to this process is engaging diverse stakeholders in the development and execution of community and population health assessments, and the subsequent programs and interventions designed to address the need across the catchment area. This chapter describes the processes and lessons learned of the Duke Cancer Institute's (DCI) long standing community partnerships that led to Project PLACE (Population Level Approaches to Cancer Elimination), a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded community health assessment reaching 2315 respondents in 7 months, resulting in a community partnered research agenda to advance cancer equity within the DCI catchment area. We illustrate the application of a community partnered health assessment and offer examples of strategic opportunities, successes, lessons learned, and implications for practice.

Factors associated with biomedical research participation within community-based samples across 3 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers

BACKGROUND

Engaging diverse populations in biomedical research, including biospecimen donation, remains a national challenge. This study examined factors associated with an invitation to participate in biomedical research, intent to participate in biomedical research in the future, and participation in biomedical research and biospecimen donation among a diverse, multilingual, community-based sample across 3 distinct geographic areas.

METHODS

Three National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers engaged in community partnerships to develop and implement population health assessments, reaching a convenience sample of 4343 participants spanning their respective catchment areas. Data harmonization, multiple imputation, and multivariable logistic modeling were used.

RESULTS

African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, and other racial minority groups were more likely to be offered opportunities to participate in biomedical research compared to whites. Access to care, history of cancer, educational level, survey language, nativity, and rural residence also influenced opportunity, intent, and actual participation in biomedical research.

CONCLUSIONS

Traditionally underserved racial and ethnic groups reported heightened opportunity and interest in participating in biomedical research. Well-established community partnerships and long-standing community engagement around biomedical research led to a diverse sample being reached at each site and may in part explain the current study findings. However, this study illustrates an ongoing need to establish trust and diversify biomedical research participation through innovative and tailored approaches. National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers have the potential to increase opportunities for diverse participation in biomedical research through community partnerships and engagement. Additional work remains to identify and address system-level and individual-level barriers to participation in both clinical trials and biospecimen donation for research.

Diversity and inclusion for the All of Us research program: A scoping review

The All of Us Research Program (All of Us) is a national effort to accelerate health research by exploring the relationship between lifestyle, environment, and genetics. It is set to become one of the largest research efforts in U.S. history, aiming to build a national resource of data from at least one million participants. All of Us aims to address the need for more diversity in research and set the stage for that diversity to be leveraged in precision medicine research to come. This paper describes how the program assessed demographic characteristics of participants who have enrolled in other U.S. biomedical research cohorts to better understand which groups are traditionally represented or underrepresented in biomedical research. We 1) reviewed the enrollment characteristics of national cohort studies like All of Us, and 2) surveyed the literature, focusing on key diversity categories essential to the program's enrollment aims. Based on these efforts, All of Us emphasizes enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities, and has formally designated the following additional groups as historically underrepresented: individuals-with inadequate access to medical care; under the age of 18 or over 65; with an annual household income at or below 200% of the federal poverty level; who have a cognitive or physical disability; have less than a high school education or equivalent; are intersex; identify as a sexual or gender minority; or live in rural or non-metropolitan areas. Research accounting for wider demographic variability is critical. Only by ensuring diversity and by addressing the very barriers that limit it, can we position All of Us to better understand and tackle health disparities.

Clinical Trials Participation Among African Americans and the Ethics of Trust: Leadership Perspectives

Background

Assuring health equity throughout the U.S. continues to challenge the public and private research enterprise. Even with some progress, racial and ethnic health disparities continue, particularly among African Americans. Health equity for African Americans is improbable unless participation in clinical trials is measurably increased.

Method

To inform efforts to enhance participation, interviews were conducted with three African American leadership groups from across the country to document their perceptions of why the research community is unable to engage African Americans effectively in clinical trials. The results of thirty-five interviews, conducted from three leadership groups, were analyzed and are reported in this article. The leadership groups include health/education, faith, and civic society.

Ethical Considerations

This research was conducted based upon the ethical protocols of the National Center for Bioethics in Research and Health Care, research ethics, and confidentiality.

Results

Findings indicate that trustworthiness must precede trust; both are essential in enhancing African American participation in research, especially in less understood clinical trials.

Conclusion

Respondents agreed that the research community must demonstrate trustworthiness before trust can be established. They also indicated the importance of increasing the number of African American researchers in leadership roles. Also, suggestions were made regarding the need to develop short and long-term positive relationships between the research community and the African American population, at various levels, if increases in participation in clinical trials are expected. With the likely development of new clinical research and the attention to increasing excess deaths among African Americans, there must be representative numbers of African Americans and other underserved populations in leadership roles if health disparities are to be eliminated and health equity is to be achieved.