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

Comparison of baseline patient characteristics in Italian oncology drug monitoring registries and clinical trials: a real-world cross-sectional study

Background

Generalizability of registrative clinical trials to real-world clinical practice is influenced by comparability of patients in the two settings. We compared characteristics of cancer patients in registrative trials with real-world clinical practice in Italy.

Methods

Data on age, sex and performance status (PS) were derived from web-based monitoring registries developed by Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) and corresponding registrative trials reported in the European Public Assessment Reports (EPAR) of European Medicines Agency (EMA). Weighted means were calculated in registries and trials and differences were described. Multivariate analysis was performed using Principal Component Analysis and Cluster Analysis.

Findings

From January, 2013 to April, 2023, 419,461 unique pairs of patients and therapeutic indications were recorded in 129 AIFA registries. Within 140 related trials, 87,452 patients had been enrolled. Median age and rate of elderly (≥65 years old) patients were higher in monitoring registries than in clinical trials [mean difference of median age 5.3 years, p < 0.001; mean difference of elderly rate 17.17% (95% CI 1.06, 1.48)]. Overall, rate of female patients was not different between registries and trials [mean difference -0.55% (95% CI -1.06, -0.05)]. Mean rate of patients with deteriorated PS was low both in trials (3.1%) and in registries (4.3%) with a mean difference of 1.27% (95% CI 1.06, 1.48). Two clusters were identified with multivariate analysis: one including more registries (higher median age and elderly rate, lower female rate, higher rate of deteriorated patients), the other more trials (lower median age and elderly rate, higher female rate, lower rate of deteriorated patients).

Interpretation

This study supports that cancer patients enrolled in trials do only partially represent those who have been treated in Italy in clinical practice. Inclusiveness of registrative trials should be increased to ensure generalizability of results to real-world population.

Funding

Partially supported by Italian Ministry of Health.

Racial Disparities in Endometrial Cancer Clinical Trial Representation: Exploring the Role of Eligibility Criteria

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine whether Black patients with recurrent endometrial cancer were more likely than White patients to be ineligible for a recently published clinical trial due to specific eligibility criteria.

METHODS

Patients with recurrent or progressive endometrial cancer diagnosed from January 2010 to December 2021 who received care at a single institution were identified. Demographic and clinicopathologic information was abstracted and determination of clinical trial eligibility was made based on 14 criteria from the KEYNOTE-775 trial. Characteristics of the eligible and ineligible cohorts were compared, and each ineligibility criterion was evaluated by race.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-five patients were identified, 89 who would have met all inclusion and no exclusion criteria for KEYNOTE-775, and 86 who would have been ineligible by one or more exclusion criteria. Patients in the ineligible cohort were more likely to have lower BMI (median 26.5 vs. 29.2, P <0.001), but were otherwise similar with regard to insurance status, histology, and stage at diagnosis. Black patients had 33% lower odds of being eligible (95% CI: 0.33-1.34) and were more likely to meet the exclusion criterion of having a previous intestinal anastomosis, but the result was not statistically significant. If this criterion were removed, the racial distribution of those ineligible for the trial would be more similar (46.4% Black vs. 42.2% White).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trial eligibility criteria may contribute to the underrepresentation of racial groups in clinical trials, but other factors should be explored. Studies to quantify and lessen the impact of implicit bias are also needed.

Use, variability, and justification of eligibility criteria for phase II and III clinical trials in acute leukemia

Clinical trial eligibility criteria can unfairly exclude patients or unnecessarily expose them to known risks if criteria are not concordant with drug safety. There are few data evaluating the extent to which acute leukemia eligibility criteria are justified. We analyzed criteria and drug safety data for front-line phase II and/or III acute leukemia trials with start dates 1/1/2010-12/31/2019 registered on clinicaltrials.gov. Multivariable analyses assessed concordance between criteria use and safety data (presence of criteria with a safety signal, or absence of criteria without a signal), and differences between criteria and safety-based limits. Of 250 eligible trials, concordant use of ejection fraction criteria was seen in 34.8%, corrected QT level (QTc) in 22.4%, bilirubin in 68.4%, aspartate transaminase/alanine aminotransferase (AST/ALT) in 58.8%, renal function in 68.4%, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in 54.8%, and hepatitis B and C in 42.0% and 41.2%. HIV and hepatitis B and C criteria use was concordant with safety data (adjusted Odds Ratios 2.04 [95%CI: 1.13, 3.66], 2.64 [95%CI: 1.38, 5.04], 2.27 [95%CI: 1.20, 4.32]) but organ function criteria were not (all P>0.05); phase III trials were not more concordant. Bilirubin criteria limits were the same as safety-based limits in 16.0% of trials, AST/ALT in 18.1%, and renal function in 13.9%; in 75.7%, 51.4%, and 56.5% of trials, criteria were more restrictive, respectively, by median differences of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.5 times the upper limits of normal. We found limited drug safety justifications for acute leukemia eligibility criteria. These data define criteria use and limits that can be rationally modified to increase patient inclusion and welfare.

Broadening Eligibility Criteria and Diversity among Patients for Cancer Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Certain populations have been historically underrepresented in clinical trials. Broadening eligibility criteria is one approach to inclusive clinical research and achieving enrollment goals. How broadened trial eligibility criteria affect the diversity of eligible participants is unknown.

METHODS

Using a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database, we identified a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with 22 cancer types between April 1, 2013 and December 31, 2022 who received systemic therapy (N=235,234) for cancer. We evaluated strict versus broadened eligibility criteria using performance status and liver, kidney, and hematologic function around first line of therapy. We performed logistic regression to estimate odds ratios for exclusion by strict criteria and their association with measures of patient diversity, including sex, age, race or ethnicity, and area-level socioeconomic status (SES); estimated the impact of broadening criteria on the number and distribution of eligible patients; and performed Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios for real-world overall survival (rwOS) comparing patients meeting strict versus broadened criteria.

RESULTS

When applying common strict cutoffs for eligibility criteria to patients with complete data and weighting each cancer type equally, 48% of patients were eligible for clinical trials. Female (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25 to 1.35), older (age 75+ vs. 18 to 49 years old: odds ratio, 3.04; 95% CI, 2.85 to 3.24), Latinx (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.39 to 1.54), non-Latinx Black (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.16), and lower-SES patients were more likely to be excluded using strict eligibility criteria. Broadening criteria increased the number of eligible patients by 78%, with the strongest impact for older, female, non-Latinx Black, and lower-SES patients. Patients who met only broadened criteria had worse rwOS versus those with strict criteria (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.34).

CONCLUSIONS

Data-driven evaluation of clinical trial eligibility criteria may optimize the eligibility of certain historically underrepresented groups and promote access to more inclusive trials. (Sponsored by Flatiron Health.).

Addressing disparities in cancer clinical trials: a roadmap to more equitable accrual

The Georgia Center for Oncology Research and Education (Georgia CORE) and the Georgia Society of Clinical Oncology (GASCO) held a one-day summit exploring opportunities and evidence-based interventions to address disparities in cancer clinical trials. The purpose of the summit was to identify clear and concise recommendations aimed at decreasing clinical trial accrual disparities in Georgia for rural and minority populations. The summit included expert presentations, panel discussions with leaders from provider organizations throughout Georgia, and breakout sessions to allow participants to critically discuss the information presented. Over 120 participants attended the summit. Recognizing the need for evidence-based interventions to improve clinical trial accrual among rural Georgians and persons of color, summit participants identified four key areas of focus that included: improving clinical trial design, providing navigation for all, enhancing public education and awareness of cancer clinical trials, and identifying potential policy and other opportunities. A comprehensive list of takeaways and action plans was developed in the four key areas of focus with the expectation that implementation of the strategies that emerged from the summit will enhance cancer clinical trial accrual for all Georgians.

The Degree of Preoperative Hypoalbuminemia Is Associated with Risk of Postoperative Complications in Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Patients

BACKGROUND

The incidence and impact of hypoalbuminemia in bariatric surgery patients is poorly characterized. We describe its distribution in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) patients undergoing primary or revision surgeries and assess its impact on postoperative complications.

METHODS

The Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Quality Improvement Program Database (2015 to 2021) was analyzed. Hypoalbuminemia was defined as Severe (< 3 g/dL), Moderate (3 ≤ 3.5 g/dL), Mild (3.5 ≤ 4 g/dL), or Normal (≥ 4 g/dL). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to calculate odds ratios of postoperative complications compared to those with Normal albumin after controlling for procedure, age, gender, race, body mass index, functional status, American Society of Anesthesia class, and operative length.

RESULTS

A total of 817,310 patients undergoing Primary surgery and 69,938 patients undergoing Revision/Conversion ("Revision") surgery were analyzed. The prevalence of hypoalbuminemia was as follows (Primary, Revision): Severe, 0.3%, 0.6%; Moderate, 5.2%, 6.5%; Mild, 28.3%, 31.4%; Normal, 66.2%, 61.4%. Primary and Revision patients with hypoalbuminemia had a significantly higher prevalence (p < 0.01) of several co-morbidities, including hypertension and insulin-dependent diabetes. Any degree of hypoalbuminemia increased the odds ratio of several complications in Primary and Revision patients, including readmission, intervention, and reoperation. In Primary patients, all levels of hypoalbuminemia also increased the odds ratio of unplanned intubation, intensive care unit admission, and venous thromboembolism requiring therapy.

CONCLUSION

Over 30% of patients present with hypoalbuminemia. Even mild hypoalbuminemia was associated with an increased rate of several complications including readmission, intervention, and reoperation. Ensuring nutritional optimization, especially prior to revision surgery, may improve outcomes in this challenging population.

Examining Exclusion Criteria in Advanced Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials: An Assessment of recommendations From the American Society Of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research

PURPOSE

Eligibility criteria illustrate the characteristics of the study population and promote the safety of participants. However, overreliance on restrictive eligibility criteria may limit the generalizability of outcomes. As a result, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research (Friends) issued statements to curtail these challenges. In this study, we aimed to assess restrictiveness in eligibility criteria across advanced prostate cancer clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified all phase I, II, and III advanced prostate cancer clinical trials between June 30, 2012, and June 30, 2022, through Clinicaltrials.gov. We evaluated whether a clinical trial excluded, conditionally included, or did not report 4 common criteria: brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, HIV infection, and hepatitis B virus (HBV)/hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Performance status (PS) criteria were recorded based on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scale.

RESULTS

Out of 699 clinical trials within our search strategy, 265 (37.9%) trials possessed all the required data and were included in our analysis. The most common excluded condition of our interest was brain metastases (60.8%), followed by HIV positivity (46.4%), HBV/HCV positivity (46.0%), and concurrent malignancies (15.5%). Additionally, 50.9% of clinical trials only included patients with ECOG PS 0 to 1. HIV and HBV/HCV infection were exclusion criteria of 22 (80.8%) and 19 (73.1%) immunotherapy trials, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients with brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, HIV infection, HBV/HCV infection, or low-functioning PS were overly restricted from participating in advanced prostate clinical trials. Advocating for broader criteria may ameliorate generalizability.

Attitudes and barriers to participation in window-of-opportunity trials reported by White and Asian/Asian British ethnicity patients who have undergone treatment for endometrial cancer

PURPOSE

Window-of-opportunity trials (WOT) are a study design that have been used to investigate drug activity in endometrial cancer (EC). Recruitment to cancer clinical trials by patients from ethnic minority groups is reported to be lower than for patients of White ethnicity.

METHODS

A verbal questionnaire was conducted with White and Asian/Asian British ethnicity patients who had undergone treatment for EC. Strategic purposeful sampling was used to recruit patients from diverse social/educational backgrounds. Questions explored: background knowledge of clinical research, WOT study design, and views on medications that might be investigated. Thematic analysis was used to explore motivations for WOT participation and perceived barriers.

RESULTS

In total, 21 patients were recruited to the study (15 White and 6 Asian/Asian British). Views on optimum time to receive trial information differed, preferences ranging from 'at the time of diagnosis' to 'a few days after diagnosis'. The choice of medication under investigation had a strong influence on potential willingness to participate, with greater interest reported in medications derived from vitamins or food supplements rather than hormone-based drugs. Potential barriers to participation included concern over potential side-effects and the emotional/physical burden of a cancer diagnosis prior to major surgery.

DISCUSSION

This study provides important insights into patients' views on WOT participation in EC and raises issues that need to be considered for future trial design and participant recruitment materials. The timing and format of study information and type of substance under investigation were factors influencing potential participation. Future studies should consider using multi-lingual visual information videos to address information needs, as this may encourage participation by ethnic minority patients.

Comorbidities were associated with cancer clinical trial discussion and participation: findings from the Health Information National Trends Survey-Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (2021)

OBJECTIVES

Oncology clinical trials are recommended to better reflect real-world cancer patient populations and to increase patient access to new treatments in trials. The influence of comorbidities on trial participation is unclear. This study examined the association of having comorbidities and patients' experiences with clinical trial discussion or actual participation.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We included 958 cancer survivors from Health Information National Trends Survey-Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Trial discussion was defined as whether their medical team discussed cancer clinical trials, and trial participation was defined as whether they participated. Comorbidities included diabetes, hypertension, heart condition, chronic lung disease, and depression/anxiety disorder. Design-based logistic regression results were conducted.

RESULTS

Seventy-five percent of patients had one or more comorbidities, commonly having hypertension (56%) and diabetes (26%). Only 15% of participants reported trial discussion and 8% reported trial participation. Having one or more comorbidities was significantly associated with lower rates of trial discussion in univariate analysis (22.9% vs. 12.1%, odds ratio = 0.46, P = 0.001), and such association was pertained in adjusted logistic regression (20.5% vs. 12.8%, adjusted odds ratio = 0.54, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest patients with comorbidities were underrepresented in cancer clinical trials, implying a potential lack of representativeness among trial participants.

Pancreatic Cancer Health Disparity: Pharmacologic Anthropology

Pancreatic cancer (PCa) remains a formidable global health challenge, with high mortality rates and limited treatment options. While advancements in pharmacology have led to improved outcomes for various cancers, PCa continues to exhibit significant health disparities, disproportionately affecting certain populations. This paper explores the intersection of pharmacology and anthropology in understanding the health disparities associated with PCa. By considering the socio-cultural, economic, and behavioral factors that influence the development, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of PCa, pharmacologic anthropology provides a comprehensive framework to address these disparities and improve patient care.

Racial and Ethnic Inequities in US Oncology Clinical Trial Participation From 2017 to 2022

Importance

There is increasing recognition from regulatory agencies that racial and ethnic representation in clinical trials is inadequate and linked to health inequities. The extent of racial inequities in clinical trial participation is unclear because prior studies have synthesized enrollment data from published trials, which often do not report participant race and ethnicity.

Objective

To evaluate racial and ethnic inequities in oncology clinical trial participation in a contemporary cohort of patients with cancer before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database, which includes data for approximately 280 US cancer clinics (approximately 800 sites of care). The study included Latinx, non-Latinx Black (hereinafter, Black), and non-Latinx White (reference; hereinafter, White) patients aged 18 years or older who had been diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, metastatic colorectal cancer, metastatic breast cancer, multiple myeloma, or metastatic pancreatic cancer between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2022 (follow-up through December 31, 2022). Data analysis was performed between August 1, 2022, and February 7, 2023.

Exposures

Electronic health record-documented race and ethnicity.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was oncology trial participation (ie, receipt of a clinical study drug). Stratified cause-specific hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for likelihood of participation. Participation was assessed overall, by cancer type, and by period of diagnosis (2017-2019 vs 2020-2022).

Results

Of the 50 411 patients in this study, 28 878 (57.3%) were women and 21 533 (42.7%) were men. Black and Latinx patients were younger than White patients, with a median age of 65 (IQR, 57-72), 64 (IQR, 54-73), and 68 (IQR, 60-76) years, respectively. Oncology trial participation was lower among Black patients (307 of 6912 [4.4%]) and Latinx patients (166 of 3973 [4.2%]) relative to White patients (2858 of 39 526 [7.2%]) over the entire study period. Inequities in participation were observed across the 5 cancer types studied, with notably large inequities observed among Black patients (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.36-0.81]) and Latinx patients (HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.27-0.77]) with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Moreover, inequities between Black and White patients in terms of participation widened among those diagnosed in the COVID-19 era (2020-2022: HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.40-0.60] vs 1.00 [95% CI, 0.93-1.09]) relative to those diagnosed before the pandemic (2017-2019: HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.53-0.70] vs 1 [reference]).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cohort study suggest that oncology trial participation was lower among Black and Latinx patients relative to White patients across all 5 cancer types examined. These findings, including potentially widening inequities in the COVID-19 era, support the need for regulatory guidance to improve enrollment of participants from historically excluded racial and ethnic populations in clinical trials.

Race and Ethnicity Reporting and Enrollment Disparities in Clinical Trials Leading to FDA Approvals for Breast Cancer Between 2010 and 2020

BACKGROUND

We determined the race and ethnicity demographics and reporting trends of clinical trials leading to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for breast cancer.

METHODS

We collected enrollment and reporting data from clinical trials leading to FDA novel and new use approvals for breast cancer from 2010 to 2020 from Drugs@FDA, ClinicalTrials.gov, and associated journal manuscripts. Enrollment demographics were compared to the US cancer population estimates obtained using National Cancer Institute-Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and 2010 US Census databases.

RESULTS

Seventeen drugs received approval based on 18 clinical trials with a total enrollment of 12,334. For approvals from 2010 to 2015 and from 2016 to 2020, there was no significant difference in race (80% vs. 91.6%, P = .34) or ethnicity reporting (20% vs. 33.3%, P = .5) on ClinicalTrials.Gov, manuscripts, and FDA labels. For trials that reported race and ethnicity, White, Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients represented 73.8%, 16.4%, 3.7%, and 10.4% of trial participants. Relative to their US cancer incidence, Black (31% of expected) patients were underrepresented compared with White (90% of expected), Hispanic (115%), and Asian (327% of expected) patients.

CONCLUSION

We observed no significant difference in race and ethnicity reporting in pivotal clinical trials leading to FDA approval for breast cancer from 2010 to 2020. Black patients were underrepresented in these pivotal trials relative to White, Hispanic, and Asian patients. Ethnicity reporting remained low throughout the study period. Innovative approaches are needed to ensure equitable benefit of novel therapeutics.

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.

Call to action: overcoming enrollment disparities in cancer clinical trials with modernized eligibility criteria

Traditional clinical trial eligibility criteria restrict study populations, perpetuating enrollment disparities. We aimed to assess implementation of modernized eligibility criteria guidelines among pancreatic cancer (PC) clinical trials. Interventional PC trials in the United States since January 1, 2014, were identified via clinicaltrials.gov with December 31, 2017, as the transition for pre- and postguidance eras. Trials were assessed for guideline compliance and compared using Fisher exact test. In total, 198 trials were identified: 86 (43.4%) were pre- and 112 (56.6%) postguidance era. Improvements were seen in allowing patients with history of HIV (8.6% vs 43.8%; P < .0001), prior cancer (57.0% vs 72.3%; P = .034), or concurrent and/or stable cancer (2.1% vs 31.1%; P < .0001) to participate. Most (>95%) trials were compliant with laboratory reference ranges, QT interval corrected for heart rate (QTc) cutoffs, and rationalizing excluding prior therapies both pre- and postguidance eras. However, overall compliance with modernized criteria remains poor. We advocate for stakeholders to update protocols and scrutinize traditionally restrictive eligibility criteria.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of germline BRCA mutations in pancreatic cancer patients identifies global and racial disparities in access to genetic testing

BACKGROUND

Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (gBRCAm) can inform pancreatic cancer (PC) risk and treatment but most of the available information is derived from white patients. The ethnic and geographic variability of gBRCAm prevalence and of germline BRCA (gBRCA) testing uptake in PC globally is largely unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out a systematic review and prevalence meta-analysis of gBRCA testing and gBRCAm prevalence in PC patients stratified by ethnicity. The main outcome was the distribution of gBRCA testing uptake across diverse populations worldwide. Secondary outcomes included: geographic distribution of gBRCA testing uptake, temporal analysis of gBRCA testing uptake in ethnic groups, and pooled proportion of gBRCAm stratified by ethnicity. The study is listed under PROSPERO registration number #CRD42022311769.

RESULTS

A total of 51 studies with 16 621 patients were included. Twelve of the studies (23.5%) enrolled white patients only, 10 Asians only (19.6%), and 29 (56.9%) included mixed populations. The pooled prevalence of white, Asian, African American, and Hispanic patients tested per study was 88.7%, 34.8%, 3.6%, and 5.2%, respectively. The majority of included studies were from high-income countries (HICs) (64; 91.2%). Temporal analysis showed a significant increase only in white and Asians patients tested from 2000 to present (P < 0.001). The pooled prevalence of gBRCAm was: 3.3% in white, 1.7% in Asian, and negligible (<0.3%) in African American and Hispanic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Data on gBRCA testing and gBRCAm in PC derive mostly from white patients and from HICs. This limits the interpretation of gBRCAm for treating PC across diverse populations and implies substantial global and racial disparities in access to BRCA testing in PC.

Improving Diversity in Clinical Trials by Using Real-world Data to Define Eligibility Criteria

This Viewpoint discusses the need for thoughtful, modernized eligibility criteria with equity prioritization in clinical trials.

Survival of cancer survivors with a new pancreatic cancer diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Persons newly diagnosed with pancreas cancer and who have survived a previous cancer are often excluded from clinical trials, despite limited evidence about their prognosis. We examined the association between previous cancer and overall survival.

METHODS

This US population-based cohort study included older adults (aged ≥66 years) diagnosed with pancreas cancer between 2005 and 2015 in the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate stage-specific effects of previous cancer on overall survival, adjusting for sociodemographic, treatment, and tumor characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 32,783 patients, 18.7% were previously diagnosed with another cancer. The most common previous cancers included prostate (29.0%), breast (18.9%), or colorectal (9.7%) cancer. More than half of previous cancers (53.9%) were diagnosed 5 or more years prior to pancreas cancer diagnosis or at an in situ or localized stage (47.8%). The proportions of patients surviving 1, 3, and 5 years after pancreas cancer were nearly identical for those with and without previous cancer. Median survival in months was as follows for those with and without previous cancer respectively: 7 versus 8 (Stage 0/I), 10 versus 10 (Stage II), 7 versus 7 (Stage III), and 3 versus 2 (Stage IV). Cox models indicated that patients with previous cancer had very similar or statistically equivalent survival to those with no previous cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Given nearly equivalent survival compared to those without previous cancer, cancer survivors newly diagnosed with pancreas cancer should be considered for inclusion in pancreas cancer clinical trials.

Clinical Trials in Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery: Assessing Trial Characteristics, Early Discontinuation, Result Reporting, and Publication

BACKGROUND

Hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) diseases carry high morbidity despite efforts aimed at their reduction. An assessment of their trial characteristics is paramount to determine trial design adequacy and highlight areas for improvement. As such, the aim of this study is to assess HPB surgery trial characteristics, summarize logistic, financial, and practical reasons behind early discontinuation, and propose potential interventions to prevent this in the future.

METHODS

All clinical trials investigating HPB surgery registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from October 1st, 2007 (inclusive), to April 20th, 2021 (inclusive), were examined. Trial characteristics were collected including, but not limited to, study phase, duration, patient enrollment size, location, and study design. Peer-reviewed publications associated with the selected trials were also assessed to determine outcome reporting.

RESULTS

A total of 1776 clinical trials conducted in 43 countries were identified, the majority of which were conducted in the USA. Of these trials, 32% were reported as "completed" whereas 12% were "discontinued." The most common cause of trial discontinuation was low accrual, which was reported in 37% of terminated studies. These resulted in 413 published studies. Most trials had multiple assignment, randomized, or open-label designs. Treatment was the most common study objective (73%) with pharmacological therapy being the most commonly studied intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The main reasons for early discontinuation of clinical trials in HPB surgery are poor patient recruitment and inadequate funding. Improved trial design, recruitment strategies and increased funding are needed to prevent trial discontinuation and increase publication rates of HPB surgery clinical trials.