1
|
Kirkwood MK, Schenkel C, Hinshaw DC, Bruinooge SS, Waterhouse DM, Peppercorn JM, Subbiah IM, Levit LA. State of Geographic Access to Cancer Treatment Trials in the United States: Are Studies Located Where Patients Live? JCO Oncol Pract 2025; 21:427-437. [PMID: 39356976 PMCID: PMC11925346 DOI: 10.1200/op.24.00261] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2024] [Revised: 07/17/2024] [Accepted: 08/21/2024] [Indexed: 10/04/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE In this study, we describe the geographic distribution of US cancer treatment trials to identify disparities and opportunities for targeted improvements in access to research for people with cancer. METHODS US-based phase I-III cancer treatment trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov were tabulated for the years they were open to enrollment (2017-2022), overall and by county, and supplemented with data from the US Census Bureau, National Cancer Institute, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and US Department of Agriculture. We evaluated geographic differences in trial availability. We assessed 5-year trends in trials per capita and mapped 1-hour drive time areas around sites. RESULTS A total of 6,710 trials were open to enrollment in 2022 across 1,836 sites. Trials increased by 4%, whereas sites decreased by 3% annually per capita from 2017. Seventy percent of US counties had no reported active trials in 2022 (2,211/3,143), representing 19% of people age ≥55 years. Eighty-six percent of nonmetropolitan counties had no trials versus 44% of metropolitan counties. Trial availability varied by county-level cancer mortality and social vulnerability (an index derived from demographic and socioeconomic data from the US Census). Eighteen percent of counties without trials had oncologist care sites (n = 618). Notably, 26% of people age ≥55 years lived beyond an hour drive of a site with ≥100 trials. CONCLUSION Most US counties have limited to no trial offerings, a disparity magnified in counties that are nonmetropolitan, with high social vulnerability, and with high cancer mortality. Effort to facilitate diverse site participation is needed to promote equitable access to trials and to ensure patients participating in trials match the characteristics of patients who will receive interventions once approved. Counties with oncology care sites but no trials provide potential expansion areas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Caroline Schenkel
- Children's National Hospital, OHC (Oncology Hematology Care)/US Oncology Network
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Magnuson A, Loh KP, Stauffer F, Dale W, Gilmore N, Kadambi S, Klepin HD, Kyi K, Lowenstein LM, Phillips T, Ramsdale E, Schiaffino MK, Simmons JF, Williams GR, Zittel J, Mohile S. Geriatric assessment for the practicing clinician: The why, what, and how. CA Cancer J Clin 2024; 74:496-518. [PMID: 39207229 PMCID: PMC11848937 DOI: 10.3322/caac.21864] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2024] [Revised: 07/25/2024] [Accepted: 07/29/2024] [Indexed: 09/04/2024] Open
Abstract
Older adults with cancer heterogeneously experience health care, treatment, and symptoms. Geriatric assessment (GA) offers a comprehensive evaluation of an older individual's health status and can predict cancer-related outcomes in individuals with solid tumors and those with hematologic malignancies. In the last decade, randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the benefits of GA and GA management (GAM), which uses GA information to provide tailored intervention strategies to address GA impairments (e.g., implementing physical therapy for impaired physical function). Multiple phase 3 clinical trials in older adults with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies have demonstrated that GAM improves treatment completion, quality of life, communication, and advance care planning while reducing treatment-related toxicity, falls, and polypharmacy. Nonetheless, implementation and uptake of GAM remain challenging. Various strategies have been proposed, including the use of GA screening tools, to identify patients most likely to benefit from GAM, the systematic engagement of the oncology workforce in the delivery of GAM, and the integration of technologies like telemedicine and mobile health to enhance the availability of GA and GAM interventions. Health inequities in minoritized groups persist, and systematic GA implementation has the potential to capture social determinants of health that are relevant to equitable care. Caregivers play an important role in cancer care and experience burden themselves. GA can guide dyadic supportive care interventions, ultimately helping both patients and caregivers achieve optimal health.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Allison Magnuson
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - Kah Poh Loh
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - Fiona Stauffer
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - William Dale
- Department of Supportive Care, City of Hope, Antelope Valley, Duarte, California, USA
| | - Nikesha Gilmore
- Division of Supportive Care in Cancer, Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - Sindhuja Kadambi
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - Heidi D. Klepin
- Section on Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA
| | - Kaitlin Kyi
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - Lisa M. Lowenstein
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Tanyanika Phillips
- Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics, City of Hope, Antelope Valley, Duarte, California, USA
| | - Erika Ramsdale
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - Melody K. Schiaffino
- Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, California, USA
| | - John F. Simmons
- Cancer and Aging Research Group SCOREboard, City of Hope, Duarte, California, USA
| | - Grant R. Williams
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
| | - Jason Zittel
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - Supriya Mohile
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Faro JM, Dressler EV, Kittel C, Beeler DM, Bluethmann SM, Sohl SJ, McDonald AM, Weaver KE, Nightingale C. Availability of cancer survivorship support services across the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2024; 8:pkae005. [PMID: 38268476 PMCID: PMC10868389 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkae005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2023] [Revised: 11/30/2023] [Accepted: 01/11/2024] [Indexed: 01/26/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND National cancer organizations recommend provision of nutrition, physical activity, and mental health supportive services to cancer survivors. However, the availability of these services across diverse community oncology settings remains unclear. METHODS The National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) is a national network of community oncology practices engaged in cancer research. The 2022 NCORP Landscape Assessment (5UG1CA189824) assessed individual practices' establishment of survivorship clinics and nutrition, physical activity, and mental health services, resources, and/or referrals. Descriptive statistics summarized and logistic regression quantified the association between services, practice, and patient characteristics. RESULTS Of 46 NCORP community sites, 45 (98%) responded to the survey, representing 259 adult practice groups. A total of 41% had a survivorship clinic; 96% offered mental health, 94% nutrition, and 53% physical activity services, resources, and/or referrals. All 3 services were offered in various formats (eg, in-house, referrals, education) by 51% and in-house only by 25% of practices. Practices with advanced practice providers were more likely to have a survivorship clinic (odds ratio [OR] = 3.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04 to 9.76). Practices with at least 30% Medicare patients (OR = 2.54, 95% CI = 1.39 to 4.66) and more oncology providers (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.04) were more likely to have all 3 services in any format. Practices with at least 30% Medicare patients (OR = 3.41, 95% CI = 1.50 to 7.77) and a survivorship clinic (OR = 2.84, 95% CI = 1.57 to 5.14) were more likely to have all 3 services in-house. CONCLUSIONS Larger oncology practices and those caring for more survivors on Medicare provided more supportive services, resources, and/or referrals. Smaller practices and those without survivorship clinics may need strategies to address potential gaps in supportive services.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jamie M Faro
- Department of Population and Quantitative Health Science, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
| | - Emily V Dressler
- Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | - Carol Kittel
- Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | - Dori M Beeler
- Department of Supportive Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Shirley M Bluethmann
- Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | - Stephanie J Sohl
- Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | - Andrew M McDonald
- Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Heersink School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - Kathryn E Weaver
- Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| | - Chandylen Nightingale
- Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|