Participation of Patients With Limited English Proficiency in Gynecologic Oncology Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Significant disparities exist in recruitment of minorities to clinical trials, with much of the prior literature focused on race/ethnicity only. Limited English proficiency (LEP) is a known barrier in healthcare that may also drive disparities in trial enrollment. We sought to determine participation rates in gynecologic oncology trials among patients with LEP and to explore barriers to their participation.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study, electronic health record data from >2,700 patients treated over 2 years at one academic gynecologic oncology practice were abstracted and the primary exposure of having LEP was identified. The primary outcome was enrollment in a clinical trial. Demographic, financial, clinical, and healthcare access-related covariates were also abstracted and considered as potential confounders in a multivariable logistic regression model. Age, race, ethnicity, and insurance status were further examined for evidence of effect modification. In addition, a survey was administered to all gynecologic oncology research staff and gynecologic oncology providers (n=25) to assess barriers to research participation among patients with LEP.

RESULTS

Clinical trial enrollment was 7.5% among fluent English speakers and 2.2% among patients with LEP (risk ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.78; P=.007), and remained significantly lower in patients with LEP after adjusting for the identified confounders of Hispanic ethnicity and insurance payer (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12-0.97; P=.043). There was a trend toward race and LEP interaction: Asian patients were equally likely to participate in research regardless of language fluency, whereas White and Black patients with LEP were less likely to participate than non-LEP patients in both groups (P=.07). Providers reported that the most significant barriers to enrollment of patients with LEP in research were unavailability of translated consent forms and increased time needed to enroll patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with LEP were 3.4 times less likely to participate in gynecologic oncology trials than fluent English speakers. De-aggregation of race, ethnicity, and language proficiency yielded important information about enrollment disparities. These findings offer avenues for future interventions to correct disparities.

Five National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers' data collection on racial/ethnic minority participation in therapeutic trials: a current view and opportunities for improvement

BACKGROUND

To ensure that National Institutes of Health-funded research is relevant to the population's needs, specific emphasis on proportional representation of minority/sex groups into National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers' clinical research programs is reported to the NCI.

METHODS

EMPaCT investigators at 5 regionally diverse comprehensive cancer centers compared data reported to the NCI for their most recent Cancer Center Support Grant competitive renewal to assess and compare the centers' catchment area designations, data definitions, data elements, collection processes, reporting, and performance regarding proportional representation of race/ethnicity and sex subsets.

RESULTS

Cancer centers' catchment area definitions differed widely in terms of their cancer patient versus general population specificity, levels of specificity, and geographic coverage. Racial/ethnic categories were similar, yet were defined differently, across institutions. Patients' socioeconomic status and insurance status were inconsistently captured across the 5 centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Catchment area definitions and the collection of patient-level demographic factors varied widely across the 5 comprehensive cancer centers. This challenged the assessment of success by cancer centers in accruing representative populations into the cancer research enterprise. Accrual of minorities was less than desired for at least 1 racial/ethnic subcategory at 4 of the 5 centers. Institutions should clearly and consistently declare their primary catchment area and the rationale and should report how race/ethnicity and sex are defined, determined, collected, and reported. More standardized, frequent, consistent collection, reporting, and review of these data are recommended, as is a commitment to collecting socioeconomic data, given that socioeconomic status is a primary driver of cancer disparities in the United States.