Disparities in phase 1 cancer clinical trial enrollment

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

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

"They don't care to study it": Trust, race, and health care experiences among patient-caregiver dyads with multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

Medical mistrust, rooted in unethical research, is a barrier to cancer-related health care for Black/African American (AA) persons. Understanding trust, mistrust, and health care experiences is crucial, especially in multiple myeloma (MM), which disproportionately burdens Black/AA persons in incidence and survival.

STUDY PURPOSE

This study qualitatively examines the experiences of Black/AA and White dyads (patient with MM and adult caregiver) to gain insights into these phenomena.

METHODS

From November 2021 to April 2022, we recruited 21 dyads from the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center. Participants completed a sociodemographic survey and a 60-90 min semi-structured interview. We used ATLAS.ti v9 for project management and to facilitate data analysis using the Sort and Sift, Think and Shift approach (ResearchTalk Inc).

RESULTS

We interviewed 21 racially concordant dyads (11 Black/AA, 10 White) with mean patient ages of 70 (Black/AA) and 72 (White) at enrollment. Both Black/AA and White caregivers had a mean enrollment age of 68. The mean duration from MM diagnosis to enrollment for all patients was 5.5 years. Four key themes emerged: (1) knowledge and trust, (2) heightened emotions and discomfort, (3) differing mental constructs of health care experiences, and (4) mitigating mistrust, which varied by self-identified race. Black/AA participants had greater knowledge of historical events like the U.S. Public Health Service Untreated Syphilis Study at Tuskegee and carried the emotional burden longer. They also emphasized self-learning and self-guided research about MM for informed medical decision-making. Both Black/AA and White dyads emphasized the pivotal role of patient-provider relationships and effective communication in fostering trust and addressing concerns.

CONCLUSION

Our study offers contextual insights into the enduring challenges of medical mistrust, particularly within the Black/AA community, and its implications for patients and caregivers accessing and receiving MM-related care. Future studies should leverage these insights to guide the development of multilevel interventions addressing medical mistrust within the Black/AA community.

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.

Exploring the barriers to, and importance of, participant diversity in early-phase clinical trials: an interview-based qualitative study of professionals and patient and public representatives

OBJECTIVES

To explore the importance of, and barriers to achieving, diversity in early-phase clinical trials.

DESIGN

Qualitative interviews analysed using thematic analysis.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Five professionals (clinical researchers and methodologists) and three patient and public representatives (those with experience of early-phase clinical trials and/or those from ethnic minority backgrounds) were interviewed between June and August 2022. Participants were identified via their institutional web page, existing contacts or social media (eg, X, formerly known as Twitter).

RESULTS

Professionals viewed that diversity is not currently considered in all early-phase clinical trials but felt that it should always be taken into account. Such trials are primarily undertaken at a small number of centres, thus limiting the populations they can access. Referrals from clinicians based in the community may increase diversity; however, those referred are often not from underserved groups. Referrals may be hindered by the extra resources required to approach and recruit underserved groups and participants often having to undertake 'self-driven' referrals. Patient and public representatives stated that diversity is important in research staff and that potential participants should be informed of the need for diversity. Those from underserved groups may require clarification regarding the potential harms of a treatment, even if these are unknown. Education may improve awareness and perception of early-phase clinical trials. We provide 14 recommendations to improve diversity in early-phase clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Diversity should be considered in all early-phase trials. Consideration is required regarding the extent of diversity and how it is addressed. The increased resources needed to recruit those from underserved groups may warrant funders to increase the funds to support the recruitment of such participants. The potential harms and societal benefits of the research should be presented to potential participants in a balanced but accurate way to increase transparency.

Strengths and opportunities to clinical trial enrollment among BIPOC, rural dwelling patients in the northwest United States: a retrospective study

Introduction: Clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of experimental drugs and devices are the cornerstone of medicinal advancement. Enrolling sufficient participants in these trials is vital to ensure adequate statistical power and generalizability. Clinical trial participation is particularly low among certain populations, including medically underserved communities (i.e., rural areas) and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC). Methods: A retrospective study design was used to understand patient outcomes and access/barriers to clinical trial participation in the rural northwest United States. A quantitatively focused retrospective chart review was conducted for adult participants enrolled in at least one clinical trial in a single northwest health system between 1999 and 2022. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed to assess trial outcomes at a significance level 0.05. Results: The retrospective chart review yielded 833 clinical trial records with 753 individual enrolled participants. The all-cause relative frequency of death at last known follow-up amongst clinical trial participants was 8.90% (n = 67). Based on logistic regression, the death was significantly associated with the participants' age at initial trial screening (β = 0.09, p-value <0.001), those that resided in non-metro areas (β = -0.86, p-value = 0.045), and those that lived in Northeastern Montana (β = 1.27, p-value = 0.025). Additionally, death at last known follow-up was significantly associated with enrollment in 2021-2022 (β = -1.52, p-value <0.001), enrolled in more than one study (β = 0.84, p-value = 0.023), in internationally sponsored trials (β = -2.08, p-value <0.001), in Phase I (β = 5.34, p-value <0.001), in Phase II trials (β = 1.37, p-value = 0.013), diabetes as a primary trial target (β = -2.04, p-value = 0.003). Conclusion: As decentralized trial design and remote or virtual elements of traditional trials become normative, representation of rural and frontier populations is imperative to support the generalizability of trial data encouraged by the FDA.

Shifting Sociodemographic Characteristics of a Phase I Clinical Trial Population at an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in the Southeast

Racial and ethnic minority populations are consistently under-represented in oncology clinical trials despite comprising a disproportionate share of a cancer burden. Phase I oncology clinical trials pose a unique challenge and opportunity for minority inclusion. Here we compared the sociodemographic characteristics of patients participating in phase 1 clinical trials a National Cancer Institute ( NCI)-designated comprehensive center to all patients at the center, patients with new cancer diagnosis in metropolitan Atlanta and patients with new cancer diagnoses in the state of Georgia. From 2015 to 2020, 2325 patients (43.4% female, 56.6% male) consented to participate in a phase I trial. Grouped self-reported race distribution was 70.3% White, 26.2% Black, and 3.5% other. Of new patient registrations at Winship Cancer Institute (N = 107 497) (50% F, 50% M), grouped race distribution was 63.3% White, 32.0% Black, and 4.7% other. Patients with new cancer diagnoses in metro Atlanta from 2015 to 2016 (N = 31101) were 58.4% White, 37.2% Black, and 4.3% other. Race and sex distribution of phase I patients was significantly different than Winship patients (P < .001). Over time, percent of White patients decreased in both phase I and Winship groups (P = .009 and P < .001, respectively); percentage of females did not change in either group (P = .54 phase I, P = .063 Winship). Although phase I patients were more likely to be White, male, and privately ensured than the Winship cohort, from 2015 to 2020 the percentage of White patients in phase I trials and among all new patients treated at Winship decreased. The intent of characterizing existing disparities is to improve the representation of patients from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds in phase I clinical trials.

Inequality factors in access to early-phase clinical trials in oncology in France: results of the EGALICAN-2 study

BACKGROUND

Investigation of the disparities in the access to experimental treatment in early-phase clinical trials is lacking. The objective of the EGALICAN-2 study was to identify the factors underpinning such inequalities.

METHODS

A national prospective survey was conducted in 11 early-phase clinical trial centers (CLIP2) certified by the French National Cancer Institute. Sociodemographic, socioeconomic and medical data were collected. Univariate logistic regression models were carried out to estimate odds ratios and 90% confidence intervals associated with the effect of each study variable. A multivariate logistic regression model was built to explore the independent factors associated with the administration of the experimental treatment (C1D1). A post hoc analysis was carried out excluding female cancer patients.

RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2016, 1355 patients referred from 11 CLIP2 centers in France were included in the study. Eight hundred and forty-eight patients received C1D1 (73%) and 320 patients (27%) were screening failure. Median age was 58 years (range 17-97 years) and 667 patients (54%) were female. Most patients had a metastatic disease (n = 751, 87%). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the significant independent factors associated with C1D1 were male sex, initial care received in a hospital with an early-phase unit and living in wealthy metropolitan areas (P values <0.05). In the post hoc analysis, the sex factor was no longer significant [odds ratio = 1.21 (95% confidence interval 0.86-1.70), P value = 0.271].

CONCLUSIONS

This study investigated the factors producing social inequalities in the context of early-phase clinical trials in oncology. Our research highlights factors of sex, care pathway and geographic location. Gynecological cancer was found to impact C1D1 significantly, unlike breast cancer. The results of this study should contribute to improve patient access to early-phase clinical trials.

Cancer survivorship experiences in Utah: an evaluation assessing indicators of survivors' quality of life, health behaviors, and access to health services

PURPOSE

The 2016-2020 Utah Comprehensive Cancer Prevention and Control Plan prioritized strategies to address cancer survivorship experiences. In this paper we present estimates for nine indicators evaluating these priorities, trends over time, and assess disparities in survivorship experiences across demographic subgroups.

METHODS

We surveyed a representative sample of Utah cancer survivors diagnosed between 2012 and 2019 with any reportable cancer diagnosis. We calculated weighted percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each indicator. We assessed change over time using a test for trend across survey years in a logistic regression model and used Rao-Scott F-adjusted chi-square tests to test the association between demographic characteristics and each survivorship indicator.

RESULTS

Most of the 1,793 respondents (93.5%) reported their pain was under control, 85.7% rated their overall health as good, very good, or excellent, but 46.5% experienced physical, mental, or emotional limitations. Only 1.7% of survivors aged 75 or older were current smokers, compared to 5.8% of 65-74-year-olds and 7.9% of survivors aged 55-74 (p < 0.006). No regular physical activity was reported by 20.6% and varied by survivor age and education level. The proportion who received a survivorship care plan increased from 34.6% in 2018 to 43.0% in 2021 (p = 0.025). However, survivors under age 55 were significantly less likely to receive a care plan than older survivors.

CONCLUSION

This representative survey of cancer survivors fills a gap in understanding of the cancer survivorship experience in Utah. Results can be used to evaluate and plan additional interventions to improve survivorship quality of life.

Socioeconomic Barriers to Randomized Clinical Trial Retention in Patients Treated With Adjuvant Radiation for Early-Stage Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Socioeconomic barriers contribute to breast cancer clinical trial enrollment disparities. We sought to identify whether socioeconomic disadvantage also is associated with decreased trial retention.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We performed a secondary analysis of 253 (of 287) patients enrolled in a randomized phase 3 trial of conventionally fractionated versus hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation. The outcome of trial retention versus dropout was defined primarily based on whether the patient completed breast cosmesis outcomes assessment at 3-year follow-up, and secondarily, at 5-year follow-up. Associations of retention with severity of socioeconomic disadvantage, quantified by patients' home neighborhood area deprivation index (ADI) rank (1 [least] to 100 [most deprivation]), were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test and multivariate logistic regression. Associations of retention with patients' use of social resource assistance were analyzed using the χ² test.

RESULTS

In total, 21.7% (n = 55) of patients dropped out by 3 years and 36.7% (n = 92) by 5 years. Median ADI was 36.5 (interquartile range, 22-57) for retained and 46.0 (interquartile range, 29-60) for dropout patients. Dropout was associated with more severe socioeconomic deprivation (ADI ≥45 vs <45) at 3 years (odds ratio, 3.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-8.15; P = .002) and 5 years (odds ratio, 2.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-4.76; P = .003). While on study, patients who ultimately dropped out were more likely to require resource assistance for practical (transportation, housing, financial) than psychological needs (distress, grief) or advance care planning (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, ADI was associated with disparities in clinical trial retention of patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant radiation treatment. Results suggest that developing multidimensional interventions that extend beyond routine social determinants needs screening are needed, not only to enhance initial clinical trial access and enrollment but also to enable robust long-term retention of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients and improve the validity and generalizability of reported long-term trial clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

Expanding access to early phase trials: the CATCH-UP.2020 experience

BACKGROUND

Disparities in cancer outcomes persist for underserved populations; one important aspect of this is limited access to promising early phase clinical trials. To address this, the National Cancer Institute-funded Create Access to Targeted Cancer Therapy for Underserved Populations (CATCH-UP.2020) was created. We report the tools developed and accrual metrics of the initial year of CATCH-UP.2020 with a focus on racial, ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomically underserved populations.

METHODS

CATCH-UP.2020 is a P30 supplement awarded to 8 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers with existing resources to rapidly open and accrue to Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (ETCTN) trials with emphasis on engaging patients from underserved populations. Sites used patient-based, community-based, investigator-based, and program-based tools to meet specific program goals.

RESULTS

From September 2020 to August 2021, CATCH-UP.2020 sites opened 45 ETCTN trials. Weighted average trial activation time for the 7 sites reporting this was 107 days. In the initial year, sites enrolled 145 patients in CATCH-UP.2020 with 68 (46.9%) representing racial, ethnic, rural, and socioeconomically underserved populations using the broader definition of underserved encompassed in the grant charge. During the initial year of CATCH-UP.2020, a time impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, 15.8% (66 of 417) and 21.4% (31 of 145) of patients enrolled to ETCTN trials at network and at CATCH-UP sites, respectively, were from racial and ethnic minority groups, a more limited definition of underserved for which comparable data are available.

CONCLUSION

Targeted funding accelerated activation and accrual of early phase trials and expanded access to this therapeutic option for underserved populations.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities among Participants in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Clinical Studies Evaluating Transarterial Therapies

PURPOSE

To evaluate the racial and ethnic representation of transarterial therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) clinical trials in the United States.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The ClinicalTrials.gov database was examined to identify all completed studies with transarterial therapies for the management of HCC in the United States and extract information about the observed number of participants for each racial and ethnic group (based on the Office of Management and Budget definitions). The expected number of participants was calculated by multiplying the total number of participants in a trial with the U.S.-population HCC-based proportion for each group. The effects of the study phase, funding source, number of centers involved in the study, and the location of the participating center on racial and ethnic distribution were explored.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine relevant studies were identified, of which 27 (34.2%) and 18 (22.8%) reported ethnic and race characteristics, respectively. Most study participants were White (81%, 1,591/1,964) by ethnicity and not Hispanic or Latino (93%, 937/1,008) by race. In terms of the observed-to-expected ratios by race and ethnicity in all trials, White and not Hispanic or Latino participants were overrepresented with a ratio of 1.22 (1.10-1.37) and 1.33 (1.26-1.41), respectively, and all other racial and ethnic groups were underrepresented. The enrollment of African Americans and Asian Americans varied by the study phase, and a higher enrollment of African Americans was noted in the National Institutes of Health-funded and multicenter studies (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

This cross-sectional study demonstrates that in HCC transarterial therapy clinical trials, racial and ethnic minorities were underrepresented and the majority of the studies identified failed to report this demographic information.

Disparities in trial enrollment and outcomes of Hispanic adolescent and young adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Contrary to population data, survival of Hispanic AYA ALL patients enrolled on CALGB 10403 was equivalent to non-Hispanic patients.

Geographical alignment between Hispanic patient incidence and trial sites may increase Hispanic patient enrollment onto clinical trials.

In this secondary analysis of Hispanic adolescents and young adults (AYA) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) treated on Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 10403, we evaluated outcomes and geographic enrollment patterns relative to US population data. We used demographic, clinical, and survival data on AYAs enrolled on CALGB 10403 (N = 295, 2007-2012). Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries provided overall survival (OS) for US AYA ALL by ethnicity/race. North American Association of Cancer Registries provided AYA ALL incidence overall and proportion among Hispanics by US state. Of AYAs enrolled on CALGB 10403, 263 (89%) reported ethnicity/race: 45 (17%) Hispanic, 172 (65%) non-Hispanic White (NHW), 25 (10%) non-Hispanic Black (NHB), and 21 (8%) other. Compared with NHWs, Hispanic and NHB patients had lower household income, and Hispanic patients were more likely to harbor high-risk CRLF2 aberrations. Relative to US estimates, where Hispanic patients represented 46% of newly diagnosed AYA ALL patients and experienced inferior OS compared with NHW (P < .001), Hispanic AYAs on CALGB 10403 did as well as NHW patients (3 year OS, 75% vs 74%; P = NS). Hispanic patients also had higher rates of protocol completion (P = .05). Enrollments on CALGB 10403 differed relative to the distribution of Hispanic AYA ALL in the United States: enrollment was highest in the Midwest; t and only 15% of enrollees were from states with a high proportion of Hispanic AYA ALL patients. In summary, Hispanic patients treated on CALGB 10403 did as well as NHWs and better than population estimates. Geographical misalignment between trial sites and disease epidemiology may partially explain the lower-than-expected enrollment of Hispanic AYA ALL patients.

OUP accepted manuscript

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