Barriers to cancer clinical trial participation have been the subject of frequent study, but the rate of trial participation has not changed substantially over time. Studies often emphasize ...patient-related barriers, but other types of barriers may have greater impact on trial participation. Our goal was to examine the magnitude of different domains of trial barriers by synthesizing prior research.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that examined the trial decision-making pathway using a uniform framework to characterize and quantify structural (trial availability), clinical (eligibility), and patient/physician barrier domains. The systematic review utilized the PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Ovid Medline search engines. We used random effects to estimate rates of different domains across studies, adjusting for academic vs community care settings.
We identified 13 studies (nine in academic and four in community settings) with 8883 patients. A trial was unavailable for patients at their institution 55.6% of the time (95% confidence interval CI = 43.7% to 67.3%). Further, 21.5% (95% CI = 10.9% to 34.6%) of patients were ineligible for an available trial, 14.8% (95% CI = 9.0% to 21.7%) did not enroll, and 8.1% (95% CI = 6.3% to 10.0%) enrolled. Rates of trial enrollment in academic (15.9% 95% CI = 13.8% to 18.2%) vs community (7.0% 95% CI = 5.1% to 9.1%) settings differed, but not rates of trial unavailability, ineligibility, or non-enrollment.
These findings emphasize the enormous need to address structural and clinical barriers to trial participation, which combined make trial participation unachievable for more than three of four cancer patients.
Women have more adverse events (AEs) from chemotherapy than men, but few studies have investigated sex differences in immune or targeted therapies. We examined AEs by sex across different treatment ...domains.
We analyzed treatment-related AEs by sex in SWOG phase II and III clinical trials conducted between 1980 and 2019, excluding sex-specific cancers. AE codes and grade were categorized using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Symptomatic AEs were defined as those aligned with the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcome-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; laboratory-based or observable/measurable AEs were designated as objective (hematologic
nonhematologic). Multivariable logistic regression was used, adjusting for age, race, and disease prognosis. Thirteen symptomatic and 14 objective AE categories were examined.
In total, N = 23,296 patients (women, 8,838 37.9%; men, 14,458 62.1%) from 202 trials experiencing 274,688 AEs were analyzed; 17,417 received chemotherapy, 2,319 received immunotherapy, and 3,560 received targeted therapy. Overall, 64.6% (n = 15,051) experienced one or more severe (grade ≥ 3) AEs. Women had a 34% increased risk of severe AEs compared with men (odds ratio OR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.42;
< .001), including a 49% increased risk among those receiving immunotherapy (OR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.78;
< .001). Women experienced an increased risk of severe symptomatic AEs among all treatments, especially immunotherapy (OR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.01;
< .001). Women receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy experienced increased severe hematologic AE. No statistically significant sex differences in risk of nonhematologic AEs were found.
The greater severity of both symptomatic AEs and hematologic AEs in women across multiple treatment modalities indicates that broad-based sex differences exist. This could be due to differences in AE reported, pharmacogenomics of drug metabolism/disposition, total dose received, and/or adherence to therapy. Particularly large sex differences were observed for patients receiving immunotherapy, suggesting that studying AEs from these agents is a priority.
Importance
Patients with cancer are at risk for unplanned hospitalizations during treatment which can increase the cost of care.
Objectives
To determine demographic and clinical factors associated ...with healthcare utilization and costs among clinical trial participants.
Design, setting, and patients
We conducted a retrospective analysis among breast cancer patients over the age of 65 treated on SWOG clinical trials from 1999 to 2011 with trial data linked to Medicare claims.
Main outcomes and measures
The outcomes were healthcare utilization (emergency room visits (ER), hospitalizations) and costs from Medicare Claims. Demographic, clinical, and prognostic factors were captured from clinical trial records. We identified cardiovascular comorbidities/risk factors (CVD-RFs) of diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and coronary artery disease (CAD) from Medicare claims. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were used to assess the association between CVD-RFs and outcomes.
Results
Among the 708 patients included in the analysis, 160 (22.6%) experienced 234 separate hospitalizations, and 193 (27.3%) experienced 311 separate ER visits. Black race was associated with an increase in hospitalizations (OR 95% CI, 2.52 1.10–5.79,
p
= 0.03), but not emergency room visits compared to white race. Diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and CAD were all independently associated with increased risk of both hospitalizations and ER visit. Hypertension had the strongest association, with more than a threefold risk of hospitalization for those with hypertension compared to those without (OR 95% CI, 3.16 1.85–5.40,
p
< 0.001). For those with ≥ 3 RFs, the risk of hospitalization was nearly 3 times greater compared to 0 or 1 CVD-RFs (OR 95% CI, 2.74 1.71–4.38,
p
< 0.001). Similar results were seen for ER visits. In the first 12 months after trial registration, patients with diabetes ($38,324 vs $30,923, 23.9% increase,
p
= 0.05), hypercholesterolemia ($34,168 vs $30,661, 11.4% increase,
p
= 0.02), and CAD ($37,781 vs $31,698, 19.2% increase,
p
= 0.04) had statistically significantly higher total healthcare costs. Additionally, those with ≥ 2 significant CVD-RFs ($35,353 vs. $28,899, 22.3% increase,
p
= 0.005) had statistically significantly higher total healthcare costs.
Conclusions
Among participants treated on clinical trials, black race and presence of multiple cardiovascular comorbidities was associated with a substantial increase in ER visits, hospitalizations and healthcare costs. Efforts to reduce unplanned hospitalizations should focus on this high-risk group.
Abstract
Background
Cancer-related financial hardship is a side effect of cancer diagnosis and treatment, and affects both patients and caregivers. Although many oncology clinics have increased ...financial navigation services, few have resources to proactively provide financial counseling and assistance to families affected by cancer before financial hardship occurs. As part of an ongoing randomized study testing a proactive financial navigation intervention, S1912CD, among sites of the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), we conducted a baseline survey to learn more about existing financial resources available to patients and caregivers.
Methods
The NCORP sites participating in the S1912CD study completed a required 10-question survey about their available financial resources and an optional 5-question survey that focused on financial screening and navigation workflow and challenges prior to starting recruitment. The proportion of NCORP sites offering financial navigation services was calculated and responses to the optional survey were reviewed to determine current screening and navigation practices and identify any challenges.
Results
Most sites (96%) reported offering financial navigation for cancer patients. Sites primarily identified patients needing financial assistance through social work evaluations (78%) or distress screening tools (76%). Sites revealed challenges in addressing financial needs at the outset and through diagnosis, including lack of proactive screening and referral to financial navigation services as well as staffing challenges.
Conclusions
Although most participating NCORP sites offer some form of financial assistance, the survey data enabled identification of gaps and challenges in providing services. Utilizing community partners to deliver comprehensive financial navigation guidance to cancer patients and caregivers may help meet needs while reducing site burden.
Urological cancer clinical trials face accrual challenges, which may stem from structural barriers within cancer programs. We sought to describe the extent to which urology cancer care providers are ...available within community cancer research programs and explore the role of oncology practice group ownership in their access to urology practices to participate in research.
We conducted secondary analysis of organizational survey data collected in 2017 among National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program practice groups. We used logistic regression to assess the association of self-reported access to urologists to participate in research and oncology practice group ownership type: independent, payor-provider, health-system, or public ownership.
Of the 209 community oncology practice groups in the analysis sample, 133 (63.6%) had access to urologists for research participation. Ownership was not statistically significantly associated with access to urology practices after controlling for other covariates (p = 0.4). Instead, having a hospital outpatient clinic (p = 0.008) and identifying as a safety-net hospital (p = 0.035) were both positively significantly associated with access to urologists to participate in research.
Two-thirds of community cancer research groups have access to urology. Oncology ownership status was not associated with access to urologists for research. Research groups may need support to increase their capacity to engage non-oncology cancer care providers in research.
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.
To investigate whether female participants and racial and ethnic minority individuals are adequately represented in COVID-19 prevention and treatment trials in the US.
Identified studies were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov or published in the PubMed database from October 2019 to February 2022.
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 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.
Sex, racial, and ethnic representation in COVID-19 clinical trials compared with their representation in the US population with COVID-19.
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).
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.
Abstract
Background
Patient participation in clinical trials is vital for knowledge advancement and outcomes improvement. Few adult cancer patients participate in trials. Although patient ...decision-making about trial participation has been frequently examined, the participation rate for patients actually offered a trial is unknown.
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis using 3 major search engines was undertaken. We identified studies from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2020, that examined clinical trial participation in the United States. Studies must have specified the numbers of patients offered a trial and the number enrolled. A random effects model of proportions was used. All statistical tests were 2-sided.
Results
We identified 35 studies (30 about treatment trials and 5 about cancer control trials) among which 9759 patients were offered trial participation. Overall, 55.0% (95% confidence interval CI = 49.4% to 60.5%) of patients agreed to enroll. Participation rates did not differ between treatment (55.0%, 95% CI = 48.9% to 60.9%) and cancer control trials (55.3%, 95% CI = 38.9% to 71.1%; P = .98). Black patients participated at similar rates (58.4%, 95% CI = 46.8% to 69.7%) compared with White patients (55.1%, 95% CI = 44.3% to 65.6%; P = .88). The main reasons for nonparticipation were treatment choice or lack of interest.
Conclusions
More than half of all cancer patients offered a clinical trial do participate. These findings upend several conventional beliefs about cancer clinical trial participation, including that Black patients are less likely to agree to participate and that patient decision-making is the primary barrier to participation. Policies and interventions to improve clinical trial participation should focus more on modifiable systemic structural and clinical barriers, such as improving access to available trials and broadening eligibility criteria.
In October 2017, an ASCO, Friends of Cancer Research (FoCR), and US Food and Drug Administration (ASCO/FoCR/FDA) task force recommended that common eligibility criteria be modified to make trials ...more inclusive. We examined whether patterns of exclusions regarding patients with brain metastases changed over time in relation to these recommendations.
Trial eligibility criteria were abstracted from ClinicalTrials.gov for phase I-III US-based interventional clinical trials for patients with advanced breast, colorectal, lung, or melanoma cancers from January 2012 to December 2022. Trials were examined to determine whether patients with brain metastases were not excluded, conditionally excluded (ie, excluded in some circumstances), or wholly excluded. An interrupted time series analysis with multinomial logistic regression was used to determine whether the ASCO/FoCR/FDA recommendations were associated with changes in brain metastases criteria.
We evaluated N = 3,077 trials. Patients with brain metastases were not excluded in 506 trials (16.4%), conditionally excluded in 2,263 trials (73.5%), and wholly excluded in 308 trials (10.0%). In the postrecommendation period, we estimated a 68% increase in the odds of brain metastases not excluded compared with conditionally excluded (odds ratio, 1.68 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.66,
= .03). The proportion of trials in which patients with brain metastases were not excluded increased (from 11.5%
17.3%) and conditionally excluded decreased (from 82.3% to 75.2%,
= .03). We found no difference in the proportion of trials in which patients with brain metastases were wholly excluded (7.5%
6.2%,
= .42).
The ASCO/FoCR/FDA task force recommendations were associated with a shift in patterns of brain metastases exclusion criteria from conditionally excluded to not excluded. These findings demonstrate that the cancer clinical trial community has begun to change the way trials are written to be more inclusive.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Friends of Cancer Research, and the US Food and Drug Administration recently recommended modernizing criteria related to comorbidities routinely used ...to exclude patients from cancer clinical trials. The goal was to design clinical trial eligibility such that trial results better reflect real-world cancer patient populations, to improve clinical trial participation, and to increase patient access to new treatments in trials. Yet despite the assumed influence of comorbidities on trial participation, the relationship between patients' comorbidity profile at diagnosis and trial participation has not been explicitly examined using patient-level data.
To investigate the association between comorbidities, clinical trial decision-making, and clinical trial participation; and to estimate the potential impact of reducing comorbidity exclusion criteria on trial participation, to provide a benchmark for changing criteria.
A national survey was embedded within a web-based cancer treatment-decision tool accessible on multiple cancer-oriented websites. Participants must have received a diagnosis of breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer. In total, 5499 surveyed patients who made a treatment decision within the past 3 months were analyzed using logistic regression analysis and simulations.
Cancer diagnosis and 1 or more of 18 comorbidities.
Patient discussion of a clinical trial with their physician (yes vs no); if a trial was discussed, the offer of trial participation (yes vs no); and, if trial participation was offered, trial participation (yes vs no).
Of the 5499 patients who participated in the survey, 3420 (62.6%) were women and 2079 (37.8%) were men (mean SD age, 56.63 10.05 years). Most patients (65.6%; n = 3610) had 1 or more comorbidities. The most common comorbid condition was hypertension (35.0%; n = 1924). Compared with the absence of comorbidities, the presence of 1 or more comorbidities was associated with a decreased risk of trial discussions (44.1% vs 37.2%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.97; P = .02), trial offers (21.7% vs 15.7%; OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96; P = .02), and trial participation (11.3% vs 7.8%; OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.94; P = .01). The removal of the ASCO-recommended comorbidity restrictions could generate up to 6317 additional patient trial registrations every year.
Independent of sociodemographic variables, the presence of comorbidities is adversely associated with trial discussions, trial offers, and trial participation itself. Updating trial eligibility criteria could provide an opportunity for several thousand more patients with well-managed comorbidities to participate in clinical trials each year.
PDF
