A screening tool to enhance clinical trial participation at a community center involved in a radiation oncology disparities program

Community Engagement Strategies for Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Populations

The representation of racial and ethnic minority populations in clinical trials continues to be a challenge despite mandates, good intentions, and concerted efforts by funding agencies, regulatory bodies, and researchers to close the clinical trials gap. A lack of diversity in research results in both continued disparities and poorer health outcomes. It is thus imperative that investigators understand and effectively address the challenges of clinical trials participation by underrepresented populations. In this paper, we expound on best practices for participatory research by clearly defining the community, highlighting the importance of proper identification and engagement of strong community partners, and exploring patient- and provider-level barriers and facilitators that require consideration. A clearer understanding of the balance of power between researchers and community partners is needed for any approach that addresses clinical trials representation. Unintended biases in study design and methods may continue to prevent racial and ethnic minority participants from taking part, and significant organizational changes are necessary for efficient and transparent relationships. Comprehensive community engagement in research includes dissemination of clinical trial results within and in partnership with community partners. Through careful deliberation and honest reflection, investigators, institutions, and community partners can develop the tailored blueprints of research collaborations essential for true equity in clinical trials.

Increasing Diversity of Patients in Radiation Oncology Clinical Trials

Radiation oncology clinical trials lack full representation of the ethnic and racial diversity present in the general United States and in the cancer patient population. There are low rates of both recruitment and enrollment of individuals from underrepresented ethnic and racial backgrounds, especially Black and Hispanic patients, people with disabilities, and patients from underrepresented sexual and gender groups. Even if approached for enrollment, barriers such as mistrust in medical research stemming from historical abuse and contemporary biased systems, low socioeconomic status, and lack of awareness prohibit historically marginalized populations from participating in clinical trials. In this review, we reflect on these specific barriers and detail approaches to increase diversity of the patient population in radiation oncology clinical trials to better reflect the communities we serve. We hope that implementation of these approaches will increase the diversity of clinical trials patient populations in not only radiation oncology but also other medical specialties.

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Cancer Treatment Trials: Evaluation of an ASCO-Association of Community Cancer Centers Site Self-Assessment

Clinical trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of people with cancer. ASCO and the Association of Community Cancer Centers collaborated on a quality improvement study to enhance racial and ethnic equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in cancer clinical trials. The groups conducted a pilot study to examine the feasibility, utility, and face validity of a two-part clinical trial site self-assessment to enable diverse types of research sites in the United States to (1) review internal data to assess racial and ethnic disparities in screening and enrollment and (2) review their policies, programs, procedures to identify opportunities and strategies to improve EDI. Overall, 81% of 62 participating sites were satisfied with the assessment; 82% identified opportunities for improvement; and 63% identified specific strategies and 74% thought the assessment had potential to help their site increase EDI. The assessment increased awareness about performance (82%) and helped identify specific strategies (63%) to increase EDI in trials. Although most sites (65%) were able to provide some data on the number of patients that consented, only two sites were able to provide all requested trial screening, offering, and enrollment data by race and ethnicity. Documenting and evaluating such data are critical steps toward improving EDI and are key to identifying and addressing disparities more broadly. ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers will partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting screening, offering, and enrollment data in systematic and automated ways.

Disparities in Clinical Trial Participation: Multilevel Opportunities for Improvement

Current data demonstrate ongoing inequities in surgical oncology clinical trials and understanding these disparities is vital to creating a more just and equitable health care system. Analysis of participatory patterns in cooperative group surgical oncology trials demonstrates complex relationships between race, socioeconomic status, and participation in these trials at the patient level. Further analysis reveals that provider-level implicit bias plays a significant role in access to clinical trials by minority populations. Holistic approaches to addressing disparities in clinical trial participation include creating a more robust pipeline of minority surgeon-scientists, engaging in partnerships with community advocates, and promoting public policy.

Characterization of Underrepresented Populations in Modern Era Clinical Trials Involving Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE

The demographic composition of modern radiation therapy (RT) clinical trials is incompletely studied. Understanding and minimizing disparities in clinical trials is critical to ensure health equity and the generalizability of research findings.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Clinicaltrials.gov was searched to identify RT clinical trials that occurred from 1996 to 2019. A total of 1242 trials were reviewed for patient characteristics. The demographic composition of the studies was summarized by the frequency and percentage of patients by race, gender, and ethnicity. The racial composition of the study population was compared with the 2018 US Census using a 1-sample χ² test. Subgroup racial composition was compared using χ² tests of independence. Analyses used a complete case approach.

RESULTS

A total of 122 trials met the inclusion criteria, and 121 of these (99.1%) reported race. Trial subgroups included 63 trials in the United States (51.6%), 9 proton therapy trials (7.4%), 34 RT toxicity mitigation or prevention trials (27.9%), 24 trials for female cancer (19.7%), and 17 trials for male cancer (13.9%). US clinical trials overall, US RT toxicity mitigation or prevention trials, US trials for female cancer, and US trials for male cancer had significantly different racial compositions compared with the 2018 US Census data (P < .001 for all). Compared with all clinical trials, those for proton therapy had the largest magnitude of significantly lower enrollment of participants who identified their race as Black, Asian, or other (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study characterized the racial composition of prospective RT clinical trials in a modern cohort. The racial population represented across multiple categories in the United States differed significantly from US census data and was most pronounced in trials evaluating proton therapy. This is a benchmark study for future efforts to characterize and balance the participation of underrepresented populations in RT clinical trials.

Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Trial Participation: Outcomes of a National Clinical Trial Matching and Navigation Service for Patients With a Blood Cancer

PURPOSE

There are numerous barriers to cancer clinical trial participation in the United States. This paper describes the approach and outcomes of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's Clinical Trial Support Center (CTSC), whose nurse navigators assist patients with a blood cancer and their oncologists by identifying all appropriate trials based on clinical data and patient preference, facilitating informed and shared decision making, and minimizing enrollment barriers.

METHODS

Data on patients served from October 2017 to October 2019 were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate analyses to determine demographic and clinical characteristics associated with enrollment. Reasons for nonenrollment were examined.

RESULTS

The CTSC opened 906 patient cases during this time frame. Among all US patients with a closed case (n = 750), the clinical trial enrollment rate was 16.1%. Among those with a known enrollment outcome after a trial search (n = 537), the enrollment rate was 22.5%. Multivariate analysis controlling for variables significant in bivariate analyses (insurance, treatment status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and urban or rural residence) revealed that patients with Medicaid were less likely to enroll than those with private or commercial insurance (adjusted odds ratio, 0.054; CI, 0.003 to 0.899), and patients in treatment or maintenance were less likely to enroll than those relapsed or refractory to most recent therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.312; CI, 0.139 to 0.702). Primary reasons for nonenrollment were preference for standard of care (66.3%) and patient passed away (16.1%).

CONCLUSION

The CTSC is an effective, replicable model for addressing multilevel barriers to clinical trial participation. The findings highlight the need to increase opportunities for trial participation sooner after diagnosis and among patients with Medicaid.

Empowering Latina breast cancer patients to make informed decisions about clinical trials: a pilot study

Minority representation in clinical trials is vital for researchers to assess differential effects in outcomes of therapies on biological and genetic characteristics among groups. This study assessed the effect of Choices, a bilingual multi-component intervention, on perceived understanding of clinical trials, agreement with stages of decision readiness and consideration of clinical trials as a treatment option, among Latina breast cancer patients. This randomized controlled pilot study compared Choices with a control condition providing general clinical trial information to eligible patients. Seventy-seven Latina breast cancer patients were randomly assigned to either Choices (n = 38) or the control (n = 39). Choices included three components: an educational interactive video, a low-literacy booklet, and care coordination by patient navigation (i.e., educational and psychosocial support, coordinating appointments, translating, interacting with the medical team). Choices was more effective than the control in improving perceived understanding of clinical trials (p = .033) and increasing consideration of clinical trials as a treatment option (p = .008). Additionally, intervention participants showed significant changes between baseline and post-intervention on agreement with stages of decision readiness statements (p < .002) than control participants (p > .05); the percentage of intervention women in agreement with preparation to action statements increased from 52.8% at baseline to 86.1% at post-intervention, and those in agreement with ready to action stages rose from 50.0% to 88.9%. Computer-based videos and care coordination provided by patient navigation-specifically tailored to Latinos-are effective strategies to successfully address awareness, and improved decision-making skills to make informed decisions about clinical trial participation.

Development of a framework to improve the process of recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the SEAR (Screened, Eligible, Approached, Randomised) framework

BACKGROUND

Research has shown that recruitment to trials is a process that stretches from identifying potentially eligible patients, through eligibility assessment, to obtaining informed consent. The length and complexity of this pathway means that many patients do not have the opportunity to consider participation. This article presents the development of a simple framework to document, understand and improve the process of trial recruitment.

METHODS

Eight RCTs integrated a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) into the main trial, feasibility or pilot study. Part of the QRI required mapping the patient recruitment pathway using trial-specific screening and recruitment logs. A content analysis compared the logs to identify aspects of the recruitment pathway and process that were useful in monitoring and improving recruitment. Findings were synthesised to develop an optimised simple framework that can be used in a wide range of RCTs.

RESULTS

The eight trials recorded basic information about patients screened for trial participation and randomisation outcome. Three trials systematically recorded reasons why an individual was not enrolled in the trial, and further details why they were not eligible or approached, or declined randomisation. A framework to facilitate clearer recording of the recruitment process and reasons for non-participation was developed: SEAR - Screening, to identify potentially eligible trial participants; Eligibility, assessed against the trial protocol inclusion/exclusion criteria; Approach, the provision of oral and written information and invitation to participate in the trial, and Randomised or not, with the outcome of randomisation or treatment received.

CONCLUSIONS

The SEAR framework encourages the collection of information to identify recruitment obstacles and facilitate improvements to the recruitment process. SEAR can be adapted to monitor recruitment to most RCTs, but is likely to add most value in trials where recruitment problems are anticipated or evident. Further work to test it more widely is recommended.

Patient Navigation As a Model to Increase Participation of African Americans in Cancer Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

Less than 10% of patients enrolled in clinical trials are minorities. The patient navigation model has been used to improve access to medical care but has not been evaluated as a tool to increase the participation of minorities in clinical trials. The Increasing Minority Participation in Clinical Trials project used patient navigators (PNs) to enhance the recruitment of African Americans for and their retention in therapeutic cancer clinical trials in a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center.

METHODS

Lay individuals were hired and trained to serve as PNs for clinical trials. African American patients potentially eligible for clinical trials were identified through chart review or referrals by clinic nurses, physicians, and social workers. PNs provided two levels of services: education about clinical trials and tailored support for patients who enrolled in clinical trials.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2014, 424 African American patients with cancer were referred to the Increasing Minority Participation in Clinical Trials project. Of those eligible for a clinical trial (N = 378), 304 (80.4%) enrolled in a trial and 272 (72%) consented to receive patient navigation support. Of those receiving patient navigation support, 74.5% completed the trial, compared with 37.5% of those not receiving patient navigation support. The difference in retention rates between the two groups was statistically significant (P < .001). Participation of African Americans in therapeutic cancer clinical trials increased from 9% to 16%.

CONCLUSION

Patient navigation for clinical trials successfully retained African Americans in therapeutic trials compared with non-patient navigation trial participation. The model holds promise as a strategy to reduce disparities in cancer clinical trial participation. Future studies should evaluate it with racial/ethnic minorities across cancer centers.

State-of-the-science of patient navigation as a strategy for enhancing minority clinical trial accrual

BACKGROUND

Patient navigation programs are emerging that aim to address disparities in clinical trial participation among medically underserved populations, including racial/ethnic minorities. However, there is a lack of consensus on the role of patient navigators within the clinical trial process as well as outcome measures to evaluate program effectiveness.

METHODS

A review of the literature was conducted of PubMed, Medline, CINHAL, and other sources to identify qualitative and quantitative studies on patient navigation in clinical trials. The search yielded 212 studies, of which only 12 were eligible for this review.

RESULTS

The eligible studies reported on the development of programs for patient navigation in cancer clinical trials, including training and implementation among African Americans, American Indians, and Native Hawaiians. A low rate of clinical trial refusal (range, 4%-6%) was reported among patients enrolled in patient navigation programs. However, few studies reported on the efficacy of patient navigation in increasing clinical treatment trial enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome measures are proposed to assist in developing and evaluating the efficacy and/or effectiveness of patient navigation programs that aim to increase participation in cancer clinical trials. Future research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of patient navigators in addressing barriers to clinical trial participation and increasing enrollment among medically underserved cancer patients.

Use of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program screening and accrual log to address cancer clinical trial accrual

PURPOSE

Screening logs have the potential to help oncology clinical trial programs at the site level, as well as trial leaders, address enrollment in real time. Such an approach could be especially helpful in improving representation of racial/ethnic minority and other underrepresented populations in clinical trials.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed a screening log. Log data collected from March 2009 through May 2012 were analyzed for number of patients screened versus enrolled, including for demographic subgroups; screening methods; and enrollment barriers, including reasons for ineligibility and provider and patient reasons for declining to offer or participate in a trial. User feedback was obtained to better understand perceptions of log utility.

RESULTS

Of 4,483 patients screened, 18.4% enrolled onto NCCCP log trials. Reasons for nonenrollment were ineligibility (51.6%), patient declined (25.8%), physician declined (15.6%), urgent need for treatment (6.6%), and trial suspension (0.4%). Major reasons for patients declining were no desire to participate in trials (43.2%) and preference for standard of care (39%). Major reasons for physicians declining to offer trials were preference for standard of care (53%) and concerns about tolerability (29.3%). Enrollment rates onto log trials did not differ between white and black (P = .15) or between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients (P = .73). Other races had lower enrollment rates than whites and blacks. Sites valued the ready access to log data on enrollment barriers, with some sites changing practices to address those barriers.

CONCLUSION

Use of screening logs to document enrollment barriers at the local level can facilitate development of strategies to enhance clinical trial accrual.

The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Many challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature.

RESULTS

Few rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.

Removing barriers to participation in clinical trials, a conceptual framework and retrospective chart review study

BACKGROUND

Enrollment in interventional therapeutic clinical trials is a small fraction of all patients who might participate given reasonable access.

METHODS

A hierarchical approach is utilized in measuring staged participation from trial availability to patient enrollment. Our framework suggests that concern for justice comes in the design and eligibility criteria for clinical trials; attention to beneficence is given in the eligibility and physician triage stages. The remaining four stages rely on respect for persons. An example is given where reasons for nonparticipation or barriers to participation in prostate cancer clinical trials are examined within the framework. In addition, medical oncology patients with an initial six month consultation are tracked from one stage to the next by race using the framework to assess participation comparability.

RESULTS

We illustrated seven transitions from being a patient to enrollment in a clinical trial in a small study of prostate cancer cases who consulted SKCCC Medical Oncology Department in early 2010. Pilot data suggest transition probabilities as follows: 65% availability, 84% eligibility, 92% patient triage, 89% trials discussed, 45% patient interested, 63% patient consented, and 92% patient enrolled. The average transition probability was 77.7%. The average transition probability, patient-trial-fit was 50%; opportunity was 51%, and acceptance was 66.7%. Trial availability, patient interest and patient consented were three transitions that were below the average; none were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The framework may serve to streamline comprehensive reporting of clinical trial participation to the benefit of patients and the ethical conduct of clinical trials.