The Problem of Hispanic/Latinx Under-Representation in Cancer Clinical Trials

Disparities in Clinical Trial Participation in Children and Adolescent Patients With a Hematologic Malignancy

BACKGROUND

Low socioeconomic groups and racial/ethnic minorities continue to experience pediatric cancer outcome disparities, and remain underrepresented in clinical trials. It is vital to understand why underrepresentation exists and to address it in order to generalize trial findings to all groups. This study examined institutional disparities in clinical trial offerings and enrollment for children and adolescents with hematologic malignancies.

PROCEDURE

We conducted a single-institution retrospective analysis of clinical trial participation in patients less than 18 years old with newly diagnosed hematologic malignancies between 2011 and 2017. Patient demographics (e.g., parental primary language, race) were abstracted, and patient address at diagnosis was geocoded to characterize neighborhood socioeconomic status. Endpoints were frontline therapeutic clinical trial offering and enrollment. Multivariable logistic regression was constructed to examine predictors of trial enrollment.

RESULTS

Among 464 trial-eligible patients, 90.1% were offered clinical trial participation, of which 85% enrolled. There was no significant difference in enrollment by age, sex, parental primary language, neighborhood socioeconomic status, or rurality. However, non-Hispanic Black patients [OR: 0.4 (95% CI: 0.20-0.8), p = 0.01] and patients with lymphoma [OR: 0.15 (95% CI: 0.04-0.6), p = 0.01] were less likely to enroll on a clinical trial in our adjusted analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a high institutional clinical trial enrollment rate for eligible patients, we found racial and disease-type disparities. Further work is needed to more granularly determine reasons for not offering trial participation or for not enrolling. By better-defining barriers to clinical trial enrollment, targeted institution-level interventions can be created to improve trial enrollment and reduce outcome disparities.

Factors associated with locoregional recurrence after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in a safety-net medical center

BACKGROUND

The management of locally advanced breast cancer poses significant challenges, with contemporary strategies involving an approach that combines systemic and local treatment. The current study was performed to validate the clinical impression that locoregional recurrences have become increasingly uncommon after standardized multimodal treatment protocol.Please check and confirm that the authors and their respective affiliations have been correctly identified and amend if necessary.All authors and affiliations are correct.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using a single-institution database that included clinical, radiographic, and pathologic parameters for all non-metastatic and non-inflammatory breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) from 2015 to 2023. Uni- and multivariable analyses were performed to define associations between clinical factors, recurrence, and RFS.

RESULTS

The median age was 51 years for 274 predominantly Hispanic (78%) patients, with a median follow-up of 38.1 months. The recurrence rates were 4% local, 2% regional, and 18% distant. Median time from surgery to local recurrence was 8.2 months and to regional recurrence was 9.7 months. There were no locoregional clinical recurrences in 92 (34%) patients who had pCR or in 85 (31%) patients who had radiological complete response after NAC. Locoregional recurrences were uncommon > 12 months after surgery. Five of 11 local recurrences occurred in patients who had a poor response to NAC (ypT4b). All 6 patients having regional recurrences had adjuvant radiation therapy, and only 2 occurred in patients who were pathologically node-negative (ypN0) post-NAC.

CONCLUSIONS

Favorable responses to NAC were associated with excellent locoregional control rates. Results achieved for predominantly Hispanic patients at a safety net medical center were similar to those reported in prospective, randomized clinical trials.

Evaluating Equity in Clinical Trial Accessibility: An Analysis of Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Educational Disparities in Irritable Bowel Syndrome Drug Trials

INTRODUCTION

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a disorder of gut-brain interaction, imposes a significant economic burden because of its high prevalence and the chronic nature of its symptoms. IBS currently has 7 United States Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments. Despite efforts to improve diversity in randomized controlled trials' participation, significant disparities remain in various medical fields; yet, these have not been thoroughly examined within the context of IBS. We aimed to investigate the demographic, socioeconomic, educational, and geographic disparities in IBS drug trials.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of phase 3 randomized controlled trials on United States Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs for the treatment of IBS with constipation and IBS with diarrhea in the United States. Data on participant demographics and trial site locations were extracted and analyzed to identify disparities.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 17 studies encompassing 21 trials with 17,428 participants. Approximately 77.3% of participants were female, with a mean age of 45.4 years. Race was reported in 95% of the trials, but only 35% disclosed ethnicity. White participants constituted the majority at 79.3%. Hispanics accounted for only 5.9%. Counties without trial sites had smaller average population sizes compared with trial and trial-adjacent counties. Socioeconomic indicators such as poverty rates, median household income, educational attainment, and broadband internet access were lower in counties without trial sites, with higher average Area Deprivation Index scores indicating greater deprivation.

DISCUSSION

The findings highlight significant disparities in IBS trial participation across race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic backgrounds. This raises potential concerns about generalizability of trial outcomes and underscores the need for strategies to enhance inclusivity in clinical research.

State of Geographic Access to Cancer Treatment Trials in the United States: Are Studies Located Where Patients Live?

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.

Underrepresentation of Hispanic women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine

Despite ongoing efforts to increase the number of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and in medicine, Hispanic women remain severely underrepresented in these fields. This disparity not only hinders scientific innovation and the delivery of culturally competent medical care but also perpetuates a systemic exclusion. Research specifically addressing the challenges faced by Hispanic women, the extent of underrepresentation in these disciplines, and strategies to mitigate these issues is sparce. The authors conducted a systematic analysis of peer-reviewed articles to address this gap. The findings reveal a stark underrepresentation of Hispanic women across all examined fields, particularly compared with White women. In addition, the underrepresentation persists when compared with Hispanic men, although the disparity is less pronounced. The authors identify ongoing disparities in promotion, compensation, and retention rates for Hispanic women; present data for barriers to entry and retention; and highlight existing programs and strategies aimed at addressing this underrepresentation. Finally, a framework is presented for future studies and actionable initiatives, and the broader implications of these findings for the field of oncology are highlighted.

Access to care and the Hispanic paradox among Hispanic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

PURPOSE

Despite the disproportionate impact of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on Hispanic patients, reported outcomes are limited, particularly among subpopulations. Our study aimed to evaluate outcomes in access to care and survival among racial and ethnic Hispanic subpopulations.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was utilized to identify patients diagnosed with HCC between 2004 and 2020. The independent variables of interest were racial/ethnic groups, with the Hispanic population disaggregated by race and Hispanic heritage. The primary outcomes were the presentation of early versus late-stage HCC, undergoing a curative-intent procedure, time to treatment, and overall survival. Logistic regression was performed with adjustments made for demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic variables.

RESULTS

Among 211,988 patients with HCC identified, 12.3 % (n = 26,085) were classified as Hispanic. In comparison with NHW patients, South/Central American patients had the lowest odds of early-stage presentation (OR=0.91; p = 0.1), Cuban patients had the lowest odds of undergoing a curative-intent procedure (OR=0.72; p = 0.04), and Mexican patients had the highest odds of delayed treatment (OR=1.45; p < 0.001). Hispanics had a longer median survival at 19 months than NHW patients (15 months, p < 0.001), with Hispanic Black (HR 0.59, p < 0.001) and Dominican (HR 0.56, p < 0.001) patients having the lowest mortality risk among Hispanic subpopulations.

DISCUSSION

Despite decreased resection rates and increased likelihood of delayed treatment, Hispanics had improved survival across its subpopulations in comparison to NHW patients, further highlighting the Hispanic paradox.

Patient participation in clinical trials conducted by principal investigators who speak one or more language(s) beyond english: Exploring ethnicity as proxy for language

Background

To explore the association between ethnicity, as a proxy for language, and participation in clinical trials (CT) conducted by Principal Investigators (PI) who speak one or more language in addition to English.

Methods

This retrospective, descriptive study utilized CT participant demographic data extracted from the largest Midwestern non-profit healthcare system between January 1, 2019 and 12/31/2021. The CT participant sample (N = 4308) was divided for comparison: CT Participants of Hispanic or Latino Origin (N = 254; 5.90 %) and CT Participants of Non-Hispanic or Latino Origin (N = 4054; 94.10 %). Logistic regressions were performed to generate the crude and adjusted odds of patients of Hispanic or Latino origin participating in CTs conducted by PIs who speak another language in addition to English.

Results

Crude analysis revealed that patients of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity had 2.04 (1.58, 2.64) times greater odds of participating in CTs conducted by PIs who speak another language than English (<0.0001), which increased to 2.67 (1.97, 3.62) times greater odds after adjusting for sex, race, age and insurance (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Overall findings indicate that patients of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, who are more likely to speak Spanish, have greater odds of participating in CTs conducted by PIs who speak another language beyond English. This may imply that cultural sensitivity at the top of a CT study team, as likely to be demonstrated by PIs who speak another language beyond English, may be an important contributor to reducing ethnicity- and language-based barriers to diversity in CTs and a relationship worth exploring further.

Racial and Ethnic Minorities Underrepresented in Pain Management Guidelines for Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Total joint arthroplasty aims to improve quality of life and functional outcomes for all patients, primarily by reducing their pain. This goal requires clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that equitably represent and enroll patients from all racial/ethnic groups. To our knowledge, there has been no formal evaluation of the racial/ethnic composition of the patient population in the studies that informed the leading CPGs on the topic of pain management after arthroplasty surgery.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Using papers included in the 2021 Anesthesia and Analgesia in Total Joint Arthroplasty Clinical Practice Guidelines and comparing them with US National census data, we asked: (1) What is the representation of racial/ethnic groups in randomized controlled trials compared with their representation in the US national population? (2) Is there a relationship between the reporting of racial/ethnic groups and year of data collection/publication, location of study, funding source, or guideline section?

METHODS

Participant demographic data (study year published, study type, guideline section, year of data collection, study site, study funding, study size, gender, age, and race/ethnicity) were collected from articles cited by this guideline. Studies were included if they were full text, were primary research articles conducted primarily within the United States, and if they reported racial and ethnic characteristics of the participants. The exclusion criteria included duplicate articles, articles that included the same participant population (only the latest dated article was included), and the following article types: systematic reviews, nonsystematic reviews, terminology reports, professional guidelines, expert opinions, population-based studies, surgical trials, retrospective cohort observational studies, prospective cohort observational studies, cost-effectiveness studies, and meta-analyses. Eighty-two percent (223 of 271) of articles met inclusion criteria. Our original literature search yielded 27 papers reporting the race/ethnicity of participants, including 24 US-based studies and three studies conducted in other countries; only US-based studies were utilized as the focus of this study. We defined race/ethnicity reporting as the listing of participants' race or ethnicity in the body, tables, figures, or supplemental data of a study. National census information from 2000 to 2019 was then used to generate a representation quotient (RQ), which compared the representation of racial/ethnic groups within study populations to their respective demographic representation in the national population. An RQ value greater than 1 indicates an overrepresented group and an RQ value less than 1 indicates an underrepresented group, relative to the US population. Primary outcome measures of RQ value versus time of publication for each racial/ethnic group were evaluated with linear regression analysis, and race reporting and manuscript parameters were analyzed with chi-square analyses.

RESULTS

Two US-based studies reported race and ethnicity independently. Among the 24 US-based studies reporting race/ethnicity, the overall RQ was 0.70 for Black participants, 0.09 for Hispanic participants, 0.1 for American Indian/Alaska Natives, 0 for Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, 0.08 for Asian participants, and 1.37 for White participants, meaning White participants were overrepresented by 37%, Black participants were underrepresented by 30%, Hispanic participants were underrepresented by 91%, Asian participants were underrepresented by 92%, American Indian/Alaska Natives were 90% underrepresented, and Native Hawaiian Pacific Islanders were virtually not represented compared with the US national population. On chi-square analysis, there were differences between race/ethnicity reporting among studies with academic, industry, and dual-supported funding sources (χ 2 = 7.449; p = 0.02). Differences were also found between race/ethnicity reporting among US-based and non-US-based studies (χ 2 = 36.506; p < 0.001), with 93% (25 of 27) of US-based studies reporting race as opposed to only 7% (2 of 27) of non-US-based studies. Finally, there was no relationship between race/ethnicity reporting and the year of data collection or guideline section referenced.

CONCLUSION

The 2021 Anesthesia and Analgesia in Total Joint Arthroplasty Clinical Practice Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations that reflect the current standards in orthopaedic surgery, but the studies upon which they are based overwhelmingly underenroll and underreport racial/ethnic minorities relative to their proportions in the US population. As these factors impact analgesic administration, their continued neglect may perpetuate inequities in outcomes after TJA.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Our study demonstrates that all non-White racial/ethnic groups were underrepresented relative to their proportion of the US population in the 2021 Anesthesia and Analgesia in Total Joint Arthroplasty Clinical Practice Guidelines, underscoring a weakness in the orthopaedic surgery evidence base and questioning the overall external validity and generalizability of these combined CPGs. An effort should be made to equitably enroll and report outcomes for all racial/ethnic groups in any updated CPGs.

Ethnic differences in the patterns, sources, and reasons for cannabis use among cancer patients at an NCI-Designated Cancer Center

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to describe patterns, sources, and reasons for cannabis use among cancer patients by ethnic group.

METHODS

Data are from a cross-sectional study of 416 surveys collected via RedCap anonymously from adult cancer patients seen at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center within the last 5 years. A harmonized survey was created with 11 other National Cancer Institute centers to assess cannabis use patterns, sources, and reasons for use. Sociodemographics and cancer details were also collected via self-report. Descriptive statistics by ethnic group were compared using χ2 and Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

Among the sample (age mean = 50.4 [15.7] years; 53% male; 8.3% lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer; 46.7% Hispanic and Latinx individuals), 69.6% reported lifetime use of cannabis, 33.7% began cannabis use after cancer diagnosis, 48.1% of those consuming cannabis did not have a prescription for cannabis, and 29.4% of cannabis users consumed daily. The frequency of cannabis use (P = .04) and reasons for cannabis use (P = .02) varied by ethnic group. Sleep and pain were the most prevalent reasons for use among the Hispanics and Latinx populations; pain, mental health management, and neuropathy were the most prevalent reasons for cannabis use among non-Hispanic White individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Patterns and reasons for cannabis use differed among cancer patients by ethnic group in this exploratory cross-sectional study aimed to provide data for more rigorous study. Understanding these distinctions are pivotal in conducting more rigorous studies that address the unique needs of diverse populations utilizing cannabis for managing cancer-related symptoms.

Clinical trial recruitment of people who speak languages other than English: a Children's Oncology Group report

BACKGROUND

Persons who speak languages other than English are underrepresented in clinical trials, likely in part because of inadequate multilevel resources. We conducted a survey of institutions affiliated with the Children's Oncology Group (COG) to characterize current research recruitment practices and resources regarding translation and interpretation services.

METHODS

In October 2022, a 20-item survey was distributed electronically to institutions affiliated with COG to assess consent practices and resources for recruiting participants who speak languages other than English to COG trials. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses; responses were compared by institution size and type as well as respondent role.

RESULTS

The survey was sent to 230 institutions, and the response rate was 60% (n = 139). In total, 60% (n = 83) of those respondents had access to short-form consent forms. Full consent form translation was required at 50% of institutions, and 12% of institutional review boards restricted use of centrally translated consent forms. Forty-six percent (n = 64) of institutions reported insufficient funding to support translation costs; 19% (n = 26) had access to no-cost translation services. Forty-four percent (n = 61) were required to use in-person interpreters for consent discussions; the most frequently cited barrier (56%) to obtaining consent was lack of available in-person interpreters. Forty-seven percent (n = 65) reported that recruiting persons who speak languages other than English to clinical trials was somewhat or very difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

Institutions affiliated with COG face resource-specific challenges that impede recruitment of participants who speak languages other than English for clinical trials. These findings indicate an urgent need to identify strategies aimed at reducing recruitment barriers to ensure equitable access to clinical trials.

Future of Treatment of Adolescents and Young Adults With ALL: A Vision for Collaboration and Equity

Over the past several decades, survival of children with ALL has improved dramatically with treatment regimens refined through cooperative group trials. Despite aggressive treatment and iterative therapy changes for adolescents and young adults (AYAs), improvement has not been as promising. Comparisons between pediatric and adult clinical trials have consistently demonstrated superior outcomes for AYAs treated on pediatric ALL protocols, leading to the implementation of pediatric-inspired ALL protocols by several groups worldwide and/or expansion of the age limit of pediatric trials to include the full spectrum of the AYA population. Despite these efforts, AYAs in both pediatric and adult settings continue to have inferior survival compared with younger children with ALL. Real-world data suggest that uptake of pediatric-style treatment is variable, and even with identical pediatric-style treatment, AYAs still fare worse than younger children. As we enter an era of immunotherapy and precision medicine for newly diagnosed ALL, now is an opportune time to consider how best to approach future therapy for AYA patients. Comparisons of pediatric and adult treatment approaches and subanalyses of AYA patients will help guide harmonization of treatment. The focus of the next stage of ALL therapy for AYA should not only involve novel treatment approaches but also standardization and optimization of supportive care measures, psychosocial support, adherence interventions, oncofertility treatment, and survivorship care. All these efforts should simultaneously work to address health disparities to ensure that a future of improved outcomes is experienced equitably for all AYA patients.

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.

Social Determinants of Health and Informed Consent Comprehension for Pediatric Cancer Clinical Trials

Importance

Ensuring valid informed consent (IC) prior to enrollment in clinical trials is a fundamental ethical right.

Objective

To assess whether social determinants of health (SDOH) and related sociocontextual factors are associated with parental IC comprehension in therapeutic childhood cancer clinical trials.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study prospectively enrolled 223 parents of children with newly diagnosed cancer at Rady Children's Hospital San Diego, a large quaternary academic center in California, from October 1, 2014, to March 31, 2021. Linear mixed effects models were used to assess whether IC comprehension overall and by domain (purpose, procedures, and randomization; risks and benefits; alternatives; and voluntariness) were associated with SDOH and sociocontextual factors. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2022, to July 31, 2023.

Exposures

Informed consent for a therapeutic childhood cancer clinical trial.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome of interest was IC comprehension and its associations with SDOH (marital status, language, educational attainment, employment, insurance type, socioeconomic status, and health literacy) and sociocontextual factors (ethnicity, satisfaction with informed consent, and cancer type).

Results

Of 223 parents, 172 (77.1%) were aged 18 to 44 years, 111 (49.8%) were Hispanic, 152 (68.2%) were women, and 163 (73.1%) were married. In terms of race, 2 (0.9%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 22 (9.9%) were Asian or Pacific Islander, 8 (3.6%) were Black, 149 (66.8%) were White, and 42 (18.8%) were more than 1 race. In multivariable linear mixed-effects analyses, limited vs adequate health literacy was associated with lower comprehension of informed consent overall (mean [SD], 68.28 [11.81] vs 79.24 [11.77]; β estimate, -9.02 [95% CI, -12.0 to -6.07]; P < .001) and with lower comprehension of the purpose, procedures, and randomization (mean [SD], 65.00 [12.64] vs 76.14 [11.53]; β estimate, -7.87 [95% CI, -10.9 to -4.85]; P < .001); risks and benefits (mean [SD], 62.84 [20.24] vs 73.14 [20.86]; β estimate, -10.1 [95% CI, -15.6 to -4.59]; P < .001); alternatives (mean [SD], 54.27 [43.18] vs 82.98 [34.24]; β estimate, -14.3 [95% CI, -26.1 to -2.62]; P  .02); and voluntariness (mean [SD], 76.52 [24.33] vs 95.39 [13.89]; β estimate, -9.14 [95% CI, -14.9 to -3.44]; P = .002) domains. Use of Spanish vs English language for medical communication was associated with lower comprehension overall (mean [SD], 66.45 [12.32] vs 77.25 [12.18]; β estimate, -5.30 [95% CI, -9.27 to -1.34]; P = .01) and with lower comprehension of the purpose, procedures, and randomization (mean [SD], 63.33 [11.98] vs 74.07 [12.52]; β estimate, -4.33 [95% CI, -8.43 to -0.23]; P = .04) and voluntariness (mean [SD], 70.83 [24.02] vs 92.54 [17.27]; β estimate, -9.69 [95% CI, -16.8 to -2.56]; P = .009) domains.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study including parents of children with newly diagnosed cancer who provided IC for their child's participation in a therapeutic clinical trial, limited health literacy and use of Spanish language for medical communication were associated with lower comprehension of IC. These findings suggest that, in this setting, parents with limited health literacy or those who use Spanish language for medical communication may not fully comprehend IC and therefore may not make truly informed decisions. These findings support the investigation of interventions, across pediatric disciplines, tailored to the participant's language and health literacy level to improve IC comprehension, particularly in racial and ethnic minority populations.

Comparison of Capture Rates of the National Cancer Database Across Race and Ethnicity

Importance

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) is an invaluable and widely used resource for cancer research, but the current state of representation of different racial and ethnic groups compared with the United States Cancer Statistics (USCS) database is unknown.

Objective

To examine whether Hispanic and American Indian or Alaska Native individuals have lower representation in the NCDB compared with the USCS database.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study assessed individuals diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2006, and January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019, in the NCDB and USCS databases. Data analysis was performed from September 2022 to October 2023.

Exposure

Time.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the absolute percentage change (APC) in capture rate across the study period.

Results

The cohort included 5 175 007 individuals (0.50% American Indian or Alaska Native, 3.10% Asian or Pacific Islander, 12.01% Black, 6.58% Hispanic, and 77.81% White) who were diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer. Capture rates were the lowest for individuals who were Hispanic (40.83% in 2004-2006 and 54.75% in 2017-2019; P < .001) or American Indian or Alaska Native (20.72% in 2004-2006 and 41.41% in 2017-2019; P < .001). The APCs were positive for both racial categories across all 4 cancers. However, overall APCs for Hispanic individuals (13.92%) remained lower than the overall APCs of White individuals (22.23%; P < .001). The APCs were greater for American Indian or Alaska Native individuals than for White individuals for prostate (14.68% vs 11.57%) and breast (21.61% vs 17.90%) cancer (P < .001), but the APCs for American Indian or Alaska Native individuals were lower than for White individuals for lung cancer (24.54% vs 33.03%; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of individuals diagnosed with cancer in the NCDB, Hispanic and American Indian or Alaska Native individuals diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer were undercaptured in the NCDB, but their representation improved over time. Increased study is needed to determine where these populations predominantly seek cancer care.

George SM, Crane TE. Feasibility and Acceptability of a Text Message Intervention to Promote Adherence to Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines in a Predominantly Hispanic Sample of Cancer Survivors and Their Informal Caregivers: Results from a Pilot Intervention Trial

Hispanic cancer survivors face unique barriers to meeting American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which reduce the risk of cancer recurrence and mortality and improve quality of life. This pilot intervention trial evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of a two-week ACS guideline-based nutrition and physical activity text message intervention in a predominantly Hispanic sample of cancer survivors and their informal caregivers. A mixed methods approach was used to assess feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. Feasibility and acceptability were measured by meeting a-priori cut-offs of >80% for recruitment, retention, and text message response rate. Participants also completed a semi-structured exit interview by telephone that assessed intervention components. Thirteen cancer survivors and six caregivers (n = 19) participated in this pilot study; 78% self-identified as Hispanic. Mean time since treatment completion for survivors was 11.9 years (SD 8.4), and 67% had breast cancer. Cancer survivors had a higher acceptability rate for physical activity (94%) compared to nutrition messages (86%), whereas equal acceptability rates were observed for both types of messages among caregivers (91%). Texting interventions are a feasible, acceptable, and a cost-effective strategy that have the potential to promote lifestyle behavior change among Hispanic cancer survivors and caregivers.

Association between Hispanic or Latino ethnicity and pulmonary embolism severity, management, and in-hospital outcomes

BACKGROUND

Hispanic and Latino patients are under-represented in existing healthcare disparities research in pulmonary embolism (PE). The goal of this study was to determine if differences in PE severity, treatment modality, or in-hospital outcomes exist for Hispanic or Latino patients with PE.

METHODS

All PE cases from 2013 to 2019 at a single institution were reviewed. Clinical characteristics, imaging findings, intervention types, and in-hospital and 30-day outcomes were collected. Two cohorts were created based on patients' self-reported ethnicity. Outcomes were compared using univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1265 patients were identified with confirmed PE; 474 (37%) identified as Hispanic or Latino. Hispanic or Latino patients presented with high-risk PE significantly less often (19% vs 25%, p = 0.03). On univariate analysis, Hispanic or Latino patients had lower rates of PE-specific intervention (15% vs 19%, p = 0.03) and similar rates of inpatient mortality (6.8% vs 7.5%, p = 0.64). On ordinal regression analysis, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity was associated with lower PE severity (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54-0.89, p = 0.003). In subgroup analyses of intermediate and high-risk PEs, ethnicity was not a significant predictor of receipt of PE-specific intervention or in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

At this institution, Hispanic or Latino patients were less likely to present with high-risk PE but had similar rates of inpatient mortality. Future research is needed to identify if disparities in in-hospital care are driving perceived differences in PE severity and what addressable systematic factors are driving higher-than-expected in-hospital mortality for Hispanic or Latino patients.

Partnering With Patients and Caregivers in Cancer Care: Lessons From Experiences With Transgender, Hispanic, and Pediatric Populations

A cancer diagnosis thrusts patients and caregivers into a foreign world of health care with systems, protocols, and norms that can leave little room for individual needs and circumstances. Quality and efficacious oncology care requires clinicians to partner with patients and caregivers to understand and incorporate their needs, values, and priorities into information sharing, decision making, and care provision. This partnership is necessary for effective patient- and family-centered care and access to individualized and equitable information, treatment, and research participation. Partnering with patients and families also requires oncology clinicians to see that our personal values, preconceived ideas, and established systems exclude certain populations and potentially lead to poorer care for all patients. Furthermore, inequitable access to participation in research and clinical trials can contribute to an unequal burden of cancer morbidity and mortality. Leveraging the expertise of the authorship team with transgender, Hispanic, and pediatric populations, this chapter provides insights and suggestions for oncology care that are applicable across patient populations to mitigate stigma and discrimination and improve the quality of care for all patients.

Sex, Racial, and Ethnic Representation in COVID-19 Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been calls for COVID-19 clinical trials to be fully representative of all demographic groups. However, limited evidence is available about the sex, racial, and ethnic representation among COVID-19 prevention and treatment trials.

Objective

To investigate whether female participants and racial and ethnic minority individuals are adequately represented in COVID-19 prevention and treatment trials in the US.

Data Sources

Identified studies were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov or published in the PubMed database from October 2019 to February 2022.

Study Selection

Included studies must have provided the number of enrolled participants by sex, race, or ethnicity. Only interventional studies conducted in the US for the primary purpose of the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of (or supportive care for) COVID-19 conditions were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data on counts of enrollments by demographic variables (sex, race, and ethnicity) and location (country and state) were abstracted. Studies were broadly categorized by primary purpose as prevention (including vaccine and diagnosis studies) vs treatment (including supportive care studies). A random effects model for single proportions was used. Trial estimates were compared with corresponding estimates of representation in the US population with COVID-19.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Sex, racial, and ethnic representation in COVID-19 clinical trials compared with their representation in the US population with COVID-19.

Results

Overall, 122 US-based COVID-19 clinical trials comprising 176 654 participants were analyzed. Studies were predominantly randomized trials (n = 95) for treatment of COVID-19 (n = 103). Sex, race, and ethnicity were reported in 109 (89.3%), 95 (77.9%), and 87 (71.3%) trials, respectively. Estimated representation in prevention and treatment trials vs the US population with COVID-19 was 48.9% and 44.6% vs 52.4% for female participants; 23.0% and 36.6% vs 17.7% for Hispanic or Latino participants; 7.2% and 16.5% vs 14.1% for Black participants; 3.8% and 4.6% vs 3.7% for Asian participants; 0.2% and 0.9% vs 0.2% for Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander participants; and 1.3% and 1.4% vs 1.1% for American Indian or Alaska Native participants. Compared with expected rates in the COVID-19 reference population, female participants were underrepresented in treatment trials (85.1% of expected; P < .001), Black participants (53.7% of expected; P = .003) and Asian participants (64.4% of expected; P = .003) were underrepresented in prevention trials, and Hispanic or Latino participants were overrepresented in treatment trials (206.8% of expected; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, aggregate differences in representation for several demographic groups in COVID-19 prevention and treatment trials in the US were found. Strategies to better ensure diverse representation in COVID-19 studies are needed, especially for prevention trials.

Qualitative study of Oncology Clinicians' Perceptions of Barriers to Offering Clinical Trials to Underserved Populations

INTRODUCTION

Cancer clinical trials represent the "gold standard" for advancing novel cancer therapies. Optimizing trial participation is critical to ensuring the generalizability of findings across patients, yet trial enrollment rates, particularly among minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, remain suboptimal.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with oncologists at a large academic medical center to explore their (1) attitudes and perceived barriers to offering clinical trials to minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, and (2) recommendations for improving the enrollment of minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients in cancer clinical trials.

RESULTS

Of 23 medical oncologists approached, 17 enrolled (74% response rate; mean age = 47; female = 42%; White = 67%). Content analysis revealed several barriers to enrollment: (1) ethical dilemmas; (2) ambivalence about trial risks and benefits; and (3) concern about patient well-being. Concerns about the legitimacy of informed consent, perceived lack of equipoise, and fear of personal bias influenced clinicians' decisions to recommend trials during treatment discussions. Concerns about creating an imbalance between trial risks and benefits among patients with high-level needs, including patients with literacy, psychiatric, and other socioeconomic vulnerabilities, impacted clinicians' enthusiasm to engage in trial discussions. Clinicians identified patient, provider, and system-level solutions to address challenges, including increasing patient and clinician support as well as involving external personnel to support trial enrollment.

CONCLUSION

Findings reveal multi-level barriers to offering cancer clinical trials to underrepresented patients. Targeted solutions, including system level changes to support clinicians, patient financial support, and implementation of clinical trial navigation programs were recommended to help reduce access barriers and increase enrollment of underrepresented patients into cancer clinical trials.