Racial and ethnic enrollment disparities in clinical trials of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for gynecologic cancers

Race, Ethnicity, and Sex Representation Trends among Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery Fellowship Trainees and Graduates

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To study the race, ethnicity, and sex representation and annual trends of AAGL FMIGS fellows and graduates.

DESIGN

A retrospective cross-sectional study.

SETTING

AAMC databases were queried for demographic information between 2011 - 2023.

PATIENTS/SUBJECTS

AAGL FMIGS fellows and graduates.

INTERVENTIONS

N/A MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Descriptive statistical analysis and the actual-to-expected (AE) ratio of each race, ethnicity, and sex were performed. AE ratio was calculated by dividing the 13-year average actual percentage of FMIGS trainees and graduates by the expected percentage based demographics of OBGYN residents and the US general population. 477 fellows graduated or were in training between 2011 and 2023; race and ethnicity information was obtained for 347 (72.7%) individuals, and sex information was available for 409 (85.7%). Representation of females ranged from 66.7% in 2017 to 93.3% in 2022. There was a significantly increasing slope for the representation of females (+1.3% per year; 95% CI 0.00-0.03; p=0.027). Compared to their distribution among US OBGYN residents, White fellows' representation was lower [AE ratio, 95% CI 0.60 (0.44-0.81)] and of Asian fellows was higher [AE ratio, 95% CI 2.17 (1.47-3.21)]. Female fellows' representation was lower than expected [AE ratio, 95% CI 0.68 (0.48-0.96)] compared to their distribution among US OBGYN residents. Compared to the general US population, White fellows [AE ratio, 95% CI 0.65 (0.48-0.87)] and Hispanic fellows [AE ratio, 95% CI 0.53 (0.34-0.83)] representation was lower. Asian fellows' representation was higher compared to the general US population [AE ratio, 95% CI 5.87 (3.48-9.88)].

CONCLUSION

White and Hispanic fellows' representation was lower than expected, while Asian fellows' representation was higher in AAGL-accredited FMIGS programs. Female representation increased throughout the years, but overall, female fellows' representation was lower than expected compared to their distribution among OBGYN residents. These findings may help develop equitable recruitment strategies for FMIGS programs and reduce health disparities within complex gynecology.

Demographic Diversity of Clinical Trials for Therapeutic Drug Products: A Systematic Review of Recently Published Articles, 2017-2022

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) encourages the use of enrollment practices that will lead to clinical trials that reflect the population most likely to use the therapeutic product (drug or biologic), if approved. In doing so, the benefit-risk profile of the product may be assessed more completely and offer patients and their health care providers a better understanding of the drug profile and greater confidence in clinical trial results. The objective of this systematic review was to assess recent literature on the demographic diversity of clinical trial participants, describe the methods used in defining clinical trial diversity, and address knowledge gaps to enhance clinical trial diversity. Our literature search initially yielded 246 articles. After applying our eligibility criteria, we conducted a full-text review and analyzed the contents of the 28 remaining articles in our systematic review. Eleven (39%) of the 28 articles used a reference standard to compare the participation of populations in clinical trials to assess diversity. The majority of the 28 articles reported on adult participants; only 5 included pediatric populations. Most articles found that women and minority populations were underrepresented in clinical trials. Some articles proposed solutions to improve clinical trial diversity; however, several did not comment on clinical trial diversity. Despite a growing emphasis on demographic diversity in research, certain populations continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials. There is a need to standardize the definition of diversity in clinical trials. Future research into effective enrollment approaches and appropriate reference standards could improve demographic diversity.

Clinical Trial Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To study racial and ethnic disparities in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Online review of all published MIGS RCTs in high-impact journals from 2012 to 2023.

PATIENTS

Journals included all first quartile obstetrics and gynecology journals, as well as The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The British Medical Journal, and The Journal of the American Medical Association. The National Institutes of Health's PubMed and the ClinicalTrials.gov websites were queried using the following search terms from the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology's certifying examination bulletin 2022 to obtain relevant trials: adenomyosis, adnexal surgery, abnormal uterine bleeding, cystectomy, endometriosis, fibroids, gynecology, hysterectomy, hysteroscopy, laparoscopy, leiomyoma, minimally invasive gynecology, myomectomy, ovarian cyst, and robotic surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

The US Census Bureau data were used to estimate the expected number of participants. We calculated the enrollment ratio (ER) of actual to expected participants for US trials with available race and ethnicity data.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 352 RCTs were identified. Of these, race and/or ethnicity data were available in 65 studies (18.5%). We analyzed the 46 studies that originated in the United States, with a total of 4645 participants. Of these RCTs, only 8 (17.4%) reported ethnicity in addition to race. When comparing published RCT data with expected proportions of participants, White participants were overrepresented (70.8% vs. 59.6%; ER, 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.52-1.81), as well as Black or African American participants (15.4% vs. 13.7%; ER, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.29). Hispanic (6.7% vs. 19.0%; ER, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.27-0.35), Asian (1.7% vs. 6.1%; ER, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.20-0.34), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (0.1% vs. 0.3%; ER, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.74), and Indian or Alaska Native participants (0.2% vs. 1.3%; ER, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.08-0.32) were underrepresented. When comparing race/ethnicity proportions in the 20 states where the RCTs were conducted, Black or African American participants were underrepresented.

CONCLUSION

In MIGS RCTs conducted in the United States, White and Black or African American participants are overrepresented compared with other races, and ethnicity is characterized in fewer than one-fifth of trials. Efforts should be made to improve racial and ethnic recruitment equity and reporting in future MIGS RCTs.

A Public Health Emergency: Breast Cancer Among Black Communities in the United States

While Black people have a similar incidence of breast cancer compared to White people, they have a 40% increased death rate. Black people are more likely to be diagnosed with aggressive subtypes such as triple-negative breast cancer. However, despite biological factors, systemic racism and social determinants of health create delays in care and barriers to treatment. While genetic testing holds incredible promise for Black people, uptake remains low and results may be challenging to interpret. There is a need for more robust, multidisciplinary, and antiracist interventions to reverse breast cancer-related racial disparities.

Racial and socioeconomic disparities in survival among women with advanced-stage ovarian cancer who received systemic therapy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the association between race/ethnicity and all-cause mortality among women with advanced-stage ovarian cancer who received systemic therapy.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the National Cancer Database on women diagnosed with advanced-stage ovarian cancer from 2004 to 2015 who received systemic therapy. Race/ethnicity was categorized as Non-Hispanic (NH) White, NH-Black, Hispanic, NH-Asian/Pacific Islander, and Other. Income and education were combined to form a composite measure of socioeconomic status (SES) and categorized into low-, mid-, and high-SES. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess whether race/ethnicity was associated with the risk of death after adjusting for sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment factors. Additionally, subgroup analyses were conducted by SES, age, and surgery receipt.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 53,367 women (52.4% ages ≥ 65 years, 82% NH-White, 8.7% NH-Black, 5.7% Hispanic, and 2.7% NH-Asian/Pacific Islander) in the analysis. After adjusting for covariates, the NH-Black race was associated with a higher risk of death versus NH-White race (aHR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.07,1.18), while Hispanic ethnicity was associated with a lower risk of death compared to NH-White women (aHR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.80, 0.95). Furthermore, NH-Black women versus NH-White women had an increased risk of mortality among those with low-SES characteristics (aHR:1.12; 95% CI:1.03-1.22) and mid-SES groups (aHR: 1.13; 95% CI:1.05-1.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Among women with advanced-stage ovarian cancer who received systemic therapy, NH-Black women experienced poorer survival compared to NH-White women. Future studies should be directed to identify drivers of ovarian cancer disparities, particularly racial differences in treatment response and surveillance.

Underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minority groups in gynecologic oncology: An analysis of over 250 trials

OBJECTIVE

To describe the participation of racial and ethnic minority groups (REMGs) in gynecologic oncology trials.

METHODS

Gynecologic oncology studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 2007 and 2020 were identified. Trials with published results were analyzed based on reporting of race/ethnicity in relation to disease site and trial characteristics. Expected enrollment by race/ethnicity was calculated and compared to actual enrollment, adjusted for 2010 US Census population data.

RESULTS

2146 gynecologic oncology trials were identified. Of published trials (n = 252), 99 (39.3%) reported race/ethnicity data. Recent trials were more likely to report these data (36% from 2007 to 2009; 51% 2013-2015; and 53% from 2016 to 2018, p = 0.01). Of all trials, ovarian cancer trials were least likely to report race/ethnicity data (32.1% vs 39.3%, p = 0.011). Population-adjusted under-enrollment for Blacks was 7-fold in ovarian cancer, Latinx 10-fold for ovarian and 6-fold in uterine cancer trials, Asians 2.5-fold in uterine cancer trials, and American Indian and Alaska Native individuals 6-fold in ovarian trials. Trials for most disease sites have enrolled more REMGs in recent years - REMGs made up 19.6% of trial participants in 2007-2009 compared to 38.1% in 2016-2018 (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Less than half of trials that published results reported race/ethnicity data. Available data reveals that enrollment of REMGs is significantly below expected rates based on national census data. These disparities persisted even after additionally adjusting for population size. Despite improvement in recent years, additional recruitment of REMGs is needed to achieve more representative and equitable participation in gynecologic cancer clinical trials.

Effects of food and ethnicity on the pharmacokinetics of venadaparib, a next-generation PARP inhibitor, in healthy Korean, Caucasian, and Chinese male subjects

AIM

Venadaparib is a next-generation poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor under development for treating gastric cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of food and ethnicity on the pharmacokinetics (PKs) and safety of venadaparib after a single oral administration in healthy Korean, Caucasian, and Chinese male subjects.

METHODS

In this randomized, open-label, single-dose, two-sequence, two-period, and crossover study, Korean and Caucasian subjects received venadaparib 80 mg in each period (fasted or fed state) with a seven-day washout. In an open-label, single-dose study, Chinese subjects received venadaparib 80 mg only in the fasted state. Serial blood samples were collected up to 72 h post-dosing.

RESULTS

Twelve subjects from each ethnic group completed the study. The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) of the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last measurable time point (AUClast) of venadaparib for the fed to fasted state were 0.82 (0.7457-0.9094) and 1.02 (0.9088-1.1339) in Koreans, and 0.77 (0.6871-0.8609) and 0.96 (0.9017-1.0186) in Caucasians, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed in Cmax (P-value = 0.45) or AUClast (P-value = 0.30) among the three ethnic groups. A single venadaparib dose was well-tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The overall systemic exposure of venadaparib was not affected by the high-fat meal, despite delayed absorption with a decreased Cmax in the fed state. The PK profiles were comparable among the Korean, Caucasian, and Chinese subjects. A single venadaparib 80 mg dose was safe and well-tolerated in both fasted and fed states.

A review of racial disparities in ovarian cancer and clinical trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ovarian cancer ranks fifth in mortality among women with cancer and accounts for more death compared to any other gynecological cancers. This review summarizes the most recent literature on disparities in ovarian cancer as well as within recent clinical trials.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have identified a notable disparity in genetic testing utilization, disease stage at the time of diagnosis, and adherence to treatment guidelines between Black women and their White counterparts, ultimately leading to increased mortality rates among Black women from ovarian cancer. Additionally, there is an underreporting of race in clinical trials and those that do report race demonstrate significant racial disparities within trial participants with the majority of participants being White.

SUMMARY

It is imperative that we address the significant racial disparities within ovarian cancer and clinical trials to establish a framework of equitable healthcare provision. Multiple determinants, such as implicit bias, provider mistrust, accessibility hurdles, and socioeconomic influences, appear to contribute to the current disparities faced by women of color. Further investigation is warranted, encompassing a deeper understanding of diverse patient perspectives and identifying barriers to receiving optimal care and participating in clinical trials.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Clinical Trial Enrollment Among Women With Gynecologic Cancer

Importance

Racial and ethnic disparities in clinical trial enrollment are unjust and hinder development of new cancer treatments.

Objective

To examine the association of race and ethnicity with clinical trial enrollment among women with endometrial, ovarian, or cervical cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used data from the National Cancer Database, a hospital-based cancer registry, and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER), a population-based cancer registry. Population-based race and ethnicity-specific proportions for each cancer site were derived from SEER. Participants included women with an endometrial, ovarian, or cervical cancer diagnosed from 2004 to 2019. Analyses were performed from February 2 to June 14, 2023.

Exposure

Race and ethnicity were categorized as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic (any race), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, White, and other (not defined in the National Cancer Database).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were the odds of clinical trial enrollment and representation in clinical trials compared with the US population. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for associations of race and ethnicity with clinical trial enrollment within the National Cancer Database sample. Participation-to-prevalence ratios (PPRs) according to diagnosis period (2004-2011 vs 2012-2019) were calculated by dividing the race and ethnicity-specific percentage of clinical trial participants in the study sample by the percentage of racial and ethnic groups in SEER.

Results

Among 562 592 patients with gynecologic cancer (mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 62.9 [11.3] years), 1903 were American Indian/Alaska Native, 18 680 were Asian, 56 421 were Black, 38 145 were Hispanic, 1453 were Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 442 869 were White, and 3121 were other race and ethnicity. Only 548 (<1%) were enrolled in clinical trials. Compared with White women, clinical trial enrollment was lower for Asian (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.25-0.78), Black (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.99), and Hispanic (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.83) women. Compared with the US population, White women were adequately or overrepresented for all cancer types (PPRs ≥1.1), Black women were adequately or overrepresented for endometrial and cervical cancers (PPRs ≥1.1) but underrepresented for ovarian cancer (PPR ≤0.6), and Asian and Hispanic women were underrepresented among all 3 cancer types (PPRs ≤0.6).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort of patients with gynecologic cancer, clinical trial enrollment was lower among certain minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Continued efforts are needed to address disparate clinical trial enrollment among underrepresented groups.

Obstetric Clinical Trial Diversity: Analysis of Trial Focus and Representation From 2007 to 2020

Inclusive clinical trials are necessary to improve maternal health equity. We aimed to analyze the current state of race and ethnicity reporting and representation in obstetric trials and the association with trial focus for all U.S.-based obstetric trials between 2007 and 2020. In this cross-sectional, multivariable regression analysis, the exposure variable was clinical trial focus (eg, prematurity), and the outcomes were race and ethnicity reporting and representation of diverse cohorts. Obstetric anesthesia trials reported race and ethnicity the least frequently of all trial foci (adjusted odds ratio 0.2, 95% CI 0.08-0.48). Hypertension and obstetric anesthesia trials enrolled the lowest proportion of Black participants, and prematurity trials enrolled the lowest proportion of Latinx and Asian participants. All researchers should strive to improve measurement and reporting of demographic data as well participation of diverse cohorts.

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.

Diversity and transparency in gynecologic oncology clinical trials

PURPOSE

Clinical trials advance the standard of care for patients. Patients enrolled in trials should represent the population who would benefit from the intervention in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess whether clinical trials enrolling patients with gynecologic cancers report racial and ethnic participant composition and to examine the level of diversity in clinical trials.

METHODS

Using ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified clinical trials enrolling patients with ovarian, uterine/endometrial, cervical, vaginal, and vulvar cancers from 1988 to 2019. Race and ethnicity data were extracted from participant demographics. Descriptive statistics on race, ethnicity, cancer type, location, study status, and sponsor type were calculated. Among trials which reported race and/or ethnicity, sub-analyses were performed on composition of race and ethnicity by funding source, location, and completed study status.

RESULTS

A total of 1,882 trials met inclusion criteria; only 179 trials (9.5%) reported race information. Of these, the racial distribution of enrollees was 66.9% White, 8.6% Asian, 8.5% Black/African American, 0.4% Indian/Alaskan Native, 0.1% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 1.0% more than one race, and 14.5% unknown. Only 100 (5.3%) trials reported ethnicity. Except for trials enrolling patients with cervical cancer which enrolled 65.2% White and 62.1% Non-Hispanic/Latino/a patients, enrollees in trials for other gynecologic cancers were over 80% White and 88% Non-Hispanic/Latino/a. Industry funded trials enrolled higher proportions of White (68.4%) participants than non-industry funded trials (57.5%). Domestic trials report race (11.5%) and ethnicity (7.6%) at higher rates than international trials (6.9% and 2.3%, respectively). Reporting of race (1.7% vs. 13.9%) and ethnicity (1.7% vs. 11.1%) has increased over time for patients enrolled in 2000 vs. 2018.

CONCLUSION

Less than 10% of trials enrolling patients with gynecologic malignancies report racial/ethnic participant composition on ClinicalTrials.gov. Accurate reporting of participant race/ethnicity is imperative to ensuring minority representation in clinical trials.

Race and Ethnicity Reporting and Representation in Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinical Trials and Publications From 2007-2020

Importance

Clinical trials guide evidence-based obstetrics and gynecology (OB-GYN) but often enroll nonrepresentative participants.

Objective

To characterize race and ethnicity reporting and representation in US OB-GYN clinical trials and their subsequent publications and to analyze the association of subspecialty and funding with diverse representation.

Design and Setting

Cross-sectional analysis of all OB-GYN studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (2007-2020) and publications from PubMed and Google Scholar (2007-2021). Analyses included logistic regression controlling for year, subspecialty, phase, funding, and site number. Data from 332 417 studies were downloaded. Studies with a noninterventional design, with a registration date before October 1, 2007, without relevance to OB-GYN, with no reported results, and with no US-based study site were excluded.

Exposures

OB-GYN subspecialty and funder.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Reporting of race and ethnicity data and racial and ethnic representation (the proportion of enrollees of American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black, Latinx, or White identity and odds of representation above US Census estimates by race and ethnicity).

Results

Among trials with ClinicalTrials.gov results (1287 trials with 591 196 participants) and publications (1147 trials with 821 111 participants), 662 (50.9%) and 856 (74.6%) reported race and ethnicity data, respectively. Among publications, gynecology studies were significantly less likely to report race and ethnicity than obstetrics (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.38-0.75). Reproductive endocrinology and infertility trials had the lowest odds of reporting race and ethnicity (aOR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.07-0.27; reference category, obstetrics). Obstetrics and family planning demonstrated the most diverse clinical trial cohorts. Compared with obstetric trials, gynecologic oncology had the lowest odds of Black representation (ClinicalTrials.gov: aOR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02-0.09; publications: aOR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03-0.11) and Latinx representation (ClinicalTrials.gov: aOR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.14; publications: aOR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10-0.48), followed by urogynecology and reproductive endocrinology and infertility. Urogynecology (ClinicalTrials.gov: aOR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.39; publications: aOR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09-0.58) had the lowest odds of Asian representation.

Conclusions and Relevance

Race and ethnicity reporting and representation in OB-GYN trials are suboptimal. Obstetrics and family planning trials demonstrate improved representation is achievable. Nonetheless, all subspecialties should strive for more equitably representative research.

Enrollment of Individuals From Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups in Gynecologic Cancer Precision Oncology Trials

OBJECTIVE

To characterize whether enrollment patterns in precision oncology clinical trials for gynecologic cancers reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of patients with gynecologic cancers in the United States.

METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov was queried to perform this cross-sectional review. We included precision oncology trials -defined as trials using molecular profiling of a tumor or the patient genome to identify targetable alterations to guide treatment-of ovarian, uterine, cervical, and vulvar cancers in the United States. National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and United States Census Bureau data were used to estimate cancer burden and the expected number of trial participants by race and ethnicity for each gynecologic cancer. The ratio of actual-to-expected participants was calculated. A ratio greater than 1 signified overenrollment. A random effects meta-analysis was performed to assess the relative weights of individual trials.

RESULTS

We identified 493 trials, 61 of which met inclusion criteria. There were 2,573 patients enrolled in ovarian cancer trials, 1,197 in uterine cancer trials and 162 in cervical cancer trials. Non-Hispanic White women were overrepresented overall (enrollment ratio 1.26, 95% CI 1.20-1.32) and across all cancer types on subgroup analysis. Asian women, non-Hispanic Black women, and Hispanic women were underrepresented overall (enrollment ratios 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.86; 0.51, 95% CI 0.36-0.66 and 0.30, 95% CI 0.23-0.36, respectively). In subgroup analyses, Asian women and non-Hispanic Black women were underrepresented in ovarian and uterine cancer trials and Hispanic women were underrepresented across all cancer types.

CONCLUSION

Non-Hispanic Black women, Asian women, and Hispanic women with gynecologic cancers are underrepresented in precision oncology trials. Few U.S.-based precision oncology trials exist for uterine and cervical cancers, which have a high burden of morbidity and mortality among racial and ethnic minority groups. Failure to equitably enroll patients who belong to racial and ethnic minority groups may perpetuate existing disparities in gynecologic cancer outcomes.

PARPs: All for One and One for All? Enhancing Diversity in Clinical Trials

PARP inhibitors have revolutionized the management of ovarian cancer and are being licenced for other cancer indications. The clinical trials prompting licencing decisions in ovarian cancer were dominated by white participants or participant ethnicity was not documented. To compensate for this, replicative studies like L-MOCA can be run in specific ethnic groups. In future, strategies such as mandatory collection and publication of race and ethnicity data are essential alongside concerted efforts to widen the inclusivity of trial recruitment.