Hervey‐Jumper, Shawn L.

Abstract Introduction: Despite the enactment of the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act to improve accrual of women and minorities in clinical trials, these groups remain underrepresented. This study aims to uncover drivers of therapeutic clinical trial enrollment that are unique to women and minority patients with low- and high-grade glioma. Methods: Adult glioma patients who received care from the UCSF Brain Tumor Center between 1997-2017 were identified in a prospective registry. Dividing the cohort into subgroups by gender and NIH-designated minority status, factors associated with therapeutic clinical trial enrollment on univariate logistic regression (p<0.2) were selected for multivariate logistic regression. Results: There were 351 trial participants (41% women, 12% minority) and 627 non-trial participants (44% women, 17% minority). Among women only, seizure at presentation (OR 2.10, p=0.008) was associated with increased odds of trial enrollment. In contrast, among men only, higher median household income (OR 1.09 per $10,000 increase, p=0.006), higher WHO tumor grade (OR 1.89, p=0.045), and occupational status according to the International Standard Classification of Occupations [professionals (e.g., physicians) vs managers (e.g., supervisory positions), OR 2.87, p=0.043] were associated with increased odds of trial enrollment. Among both women and men, lack of insurance (women: OR 0.49, p=0.02; men: OR 0.55, p=0.031) and no treatment with chemotherapy (women: OR 0.18, p=0.001; men: OR 0.34, p=0.002) were associated with decreased odds of clinical trial enrollment, whereas higher KPS (women: 90 vs <80, OR 3.16, p=0.003; men: 90 vs <80, OR 3.15, p=0.002) was associated with increased odds of trial enrollment. Among NIH-designated minority patients, older age (OR 0.66 per 10-year increase, p=0.033) and non-English preferred language (OR: 0.30, p=0.035) were associated with decreased odds of trial enrollment on univariate analysis, but not on multivariate analysis. Among non-minority patients, lack of insurance (OR 0.58, p=0.008) and no chemotherapy treatment (OR 0.25, p<0.001) were associated with decreased odds of trial enrollment, whereas seizure at presentation (OR 1.80, p=0.001), higher neighborhood household income (OR 1.07 per $10,000 increase, p=0.004), higher WHO grade (4 vs 2-3, OR 1.86, p=0.015), higher KPS (90 vs <80, OR 3.21, p<0.0001), and lower extent of tumor resection (80-89% vs 100%, OR 2.16, p=0.047) were associated with increased odds of trial enrollment. Conclusion: Drivers of trial enrollment differed for women and minority patients with glioma. Non-English-speaking minority patients may face additional barriers to trial enrollment requiring targeted interventions. Our findings can revitalize and tailor efforts to recruit women and minority patients to therapeutic clinical trials in neuro-oncology. Citation Format: Mulki Mehari, Gayathri Warrier, Sheantel Reihl, Abraham Dada, Aymen Kabir, Mikias Negussie, Cesar Nava Gonzales, Ugonma Chukwueke, Alyx Porter, Shawn Hervey-Jumper. Revitalizing the accrual of women and minorities: Unique drivers of therapeutic clinical trial enrollment for underrepresented patients with diffuse glioma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 1006.

Abstract Despite major strides in cancer research and therapy, these advances have not been equitable across race and ethnicity. Historically marginalized groups (HMG) are more likely to have inadequate preventive screening, increased delays in diagnosis, and poor representation in clinical trials. Notably, Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous people represent 30% of the population but only 9% of oncology clinical trial participants. As a result, HMGs lack equitable access to novel therapies, contradicting the principle of distributive justice, as enshrined in the Belmont report, which demands the equitable selection of subjects in research involving human subjects. The lack of clinical trial diversity also leads to low generalizability and potentially harmful medical practices. Specifically, patients with brain cancer face unique barriers to clinical trial enrollment and completion due to disease-specific neurologic and treatment-induced conditions. Collectively, the intersection of these disease-specific conditions with social determinants of health fosters a lack of diversity in clinical trials. To ameliorate this disparity in neuro-oncology clinical trial participation, we present interventions focused on improving engagement of HMGs. Proposals range from inclusive trial design, decreasing barriers to care, expanding trial eligibility, access to tumor profiling for personalized medical trials, setting reasonable metrics and goals for accrual, working with patient community stakeholders, diversifying the neuro-oncology workforce, and development of tools to overcome biases with options to incentivize equity. The diversification of participation amongst neuro-oncology clinical trials is imperative. Equitable access and inclusion of HMG patients with brain tumors will not only enhance research discoveries but will also improve patient care.

Abstract Introduction: Participation in a clinical trial offers the promise for high-quality medical care for patients with cancer, particularly glioma; however, disparities exist in the accrual of underserved patient populations, including minority patients. A multi-pronged approach for increasing the accrual of underrepresented patients to meet NIH-defined benchmarks includes optimizing patient trial education and counseling. This study seeks to assess the perceptions of the trial counseling process and barriers to trial enrollment among a diverse population of patients with low-and high-grade glioma. Methods: Adult glioma patients who received care from the UCSF Brain Tumor Center from 2020 to 2022 participated in supervised interviews and completed a validated survey, Service Evaluation of Patient Experience of Clinical Trials and Factors Influencing Clinical Trial Entry (SPECIFIC). Thematic analysis, descriptive statistics, and Chi-square tests were used for analysis. Results: One hundred and thirty-six patients completed the SPECIFC questionnaire. There were 44 trial participants (TPs), and 92 non-trial participants (NTPs). Compared to NTPs, TPs were on average 49.8 years old (NTPs 54.6, p=.11) and white (86.3% v. 70%, p=.009). Four core themes emerged from patient perspectives, either as facilitators or barriers to clinical trial participation: 1) Cancer Awareness/Knowledge of Scientific Research 2) Flexible Lifestyle/Affordability 3) Consistency with Values/Faith/Belief System 4) Existing Family/Community Support. Both TPs and NTPs overwhelmingly agreed that clinical trials help improve treatments for cancer. However, compared to 100% of TPs, only 57% of NTPs believed trials offered the best treatment available (p=.001). TPs were more likely to be referred to our institution specifically to enroll in a trial (p=.003), have done prior research on specific experimental treatments (p=.002), have had more than two appointments with the neurosurgeon/neuro-oncologist, and report receiving the most counseling directly from an MD level provider (p=.01). When evaluating the trial counseling process, 93% of TPs reported willingness to consent the same day, but 5% endorsed feeling pressure to participate. TPs were satisfied with the quality of the patient information sheet, with 88% rating the information sheet as good or excellent and 88% reporting that the information sheet was easy to understand. While 14% of TPs believed the information sheet was too long, 27% and 41% desired more information about the trial therapeutic and participation requirements, respectively. Conclusion: Overwhelmingly, trial participants were confident in the information they received and were willing to begin clinical trial enrollment on the same day of receiving information. Interventions to improve the quality and equitable delivery of patient trial education must be paired with other validated multi-dimensional strategies to reach target accrual benchmarks of underserved patient populations to therapeutic clinical trials. Citation Format: Mulki Mehari, Sheantel Reihl, Ramin Morshed, Jasleen Kaur, Mikias Negussie, Ugomma Chukwueke, Alyx Porter, Valy Fontil, Shawn Hervey-Jumper. Engagement and experience with clinical trial counseling in adult glioma patients: A single institution, mixed-methods study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 16th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2023 Sep 29-Oct 2;Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(12 Suppl):Abstract nr A080.

Abstract Despite major strides in cancer research, care, and therapy, these advances have not been equitable across race and ethnicity. Groups underrepresented in medicine (URM) are more likely to have inadequate preventive screening, increased delays in diagnosis, and poor representation in clinical trials. Notably, Black and Latino Americans represent 29% of the population but only reflect 8% of oncology clinical trial participants. Recent studies have shown that this disparity is also present in neuro-oncology as women, Black, and Latino Americans remain under-accrued in clinical trials. Brain tumor patients already face unique barriers to clinical trial enrollment and completion due to disease-specific conditions–such as impaired motor function, cognition, language deficits, and caregiver dependency–which pose additional difficulties in clinical trial consent, enrollment, and adherence. As part of this collaborative initiative, we evaluated the impact of how a lack of diversity in cancer research is detrimental to scientific discovery and propose interventions focused on improving URM engagement with clinical research. Recommendations include the creation of inclusive trial design at the onset, decreasing barriers to care, expanding trial eligibility, and equitable access to tumor profiling for personalized medical trials. Additionally, setting reasonable metrics and goals for accrual and engagement with patient and community stakeholders will ultimately help to diversify trial participants. Lastly, diversification and inclusion practices within the neuro-oncology workforce, including all personnel involved in clinical research, will help to minimize bias, promote concordant care, and assist with developing sustainable solutions. The diversification of participation in neuro-oncology clinical trials is imperative. The lack of diversity in clinical trials can contribute to improper generalizability of treatment efficacy, resulting in potentially harmful practices. Equitable access and inclusion of URM brain tumor patients will not only enhance research discoveries but will also result in improved patient care for all cancer patients.

Abstract Background The NIH Revitalization Act, implemented 29 years ago, set to improve the representation of women and minorities in clinical trials. In this study, we investigate progress made in all phase therapeutic clinical trials for neuroepithelial CNS tumors stratified by demographic-specific age-adjusted disease incidence and mortality. Additionally, we identify workforce characteristics associated with clinical trials meeting established accrual benchmarks. Methods Registry study of published clinical trials for World Health Organization defined neuroepithelial CNS tumors between January 2000 and December 2019. Study participants were obtained from PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Population-based data originated from the CBTRUS for incidence analyses. SEER-18 Incidence-Based Mortality data was used for mortality analysis. Descriptive statistics, Fisher exact, and χ 2 tests were used for data analysis. Results Among 662 published clinical trials representing 49 907 participants, 62.5% of participants were men and 37.5% women (P < .0001) representing a mortality specific over-accrual for men (P = .001). Whites, Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics represented 91.7%, 1.5%, 2.6%, and 1.7% of trial participants. Compared with mortality, Blacks (47% of expected mortality, P = .008), Hispanics (17% of expected mortality, P < .001) and Asians (33% of expected mortality, P < .001) were underrepresented compared with Whites (114% of expected mortality, P < .001). Clinical trials meeting accrual benchmarks for race included minority authorship. Conclusions Following the Revitalization Act, minorities and women remain underrepresented in therapeutic clinical trials for neuroepithelial tumors, relative to disease incidence and mortality. Study accrual has improved with time. This study provides a framework for clinical trial accrual efforts and offers guidance regarding workforce considerations associated with enrollment of underserved patients.

Abstract BACKGROUND Neuro-oncology has grown tremendously since 2010, marked by increasing society membership, specialized clinical expertise, and new journals. Yet, modest improvement in racial/ethnic diversity amongst clinical trial participants, researchers and clinicians led us to conduct a survey identifying opportunities to enhance diversity and inclusiveness amongst neuro-oncology professionals. METHODS Summer 2020, the Women and Diversity Committee of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) distributed an anonymous online survey to members and affiliates (European Association of Neuro-Oncology, Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology, Society for Neuro-Oncology Latin America and Society for Neuro-Oncology Sub-Saharan Africa). The survey captured personal and professional characteristics, biases, effective mentorship qualities, career success metrics, and suggested field/society changes. Results were analyzed by geography, profession, age, racial/ethnic and sexual identity. Standard descriptive statistics characterized the study population. RESULTS The 386 respondents were predominantly female (58%) with a median age range of 40-49 years (31%), White (65%), and SNO members (97%). Most worked in North America (77%) in a research profession (67%). A majority of White respondents reported never experiencing biases (64%), while the majority of non-White respondents reported unconscious biases/microaggressions, followed by a lack of/limited mentorship. Qualitative assessments showcased that personal/professional success metrics were linked to needed improvements in diversity and inclusion efforts within the neuro-oncology community. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of racial/ethnic biases and poor mentorship rates amongst underrepresented groups in neuro-oncology is high and potentially linked to the limited diverse representation amongst members and affiliates. These findings warrant a swift implementation of equity and inclusion practices within the neuro-oncology field.

Abstract INTRODUCTION The NIH Revitalization Act, implemented 29 years ago, set to improve the representation of women and minorities in clinical trials. In this study, we investigate the progress made in neuro-oncology in all phase therapeutic clinical trials for neuro-epithelial central nervous system tumors in comparison to their demographic-specific age-adjusted disease incidence and mortality. METHODS Registry study of all published clinical trials for World Health Organization (WHO) defined neuro-epithelial CNS tumors between January 2000 and December 2019. Study participants for trials were obtained from PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Population-based data from the CBTRUS for incidence analyses. SEER-18 Incidence-Based Mortality data was used for mortality analysis. Descriptive statistics, Fisher exact, and c2 tests were used to analyze the data. RESULTS Among 662 published clinical trial articles representing 49, 907 accrued participants, 62.5% of study participants were men and 37.5% were women (P< 0.0001) representing a mortality specific over-accrual for men (P= 0.001) and under-accrual for women (P= 0.001). Whites, Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics represented 91.7%, 1.5%, 2.6%, and 1.7% of trial participants. Compared with their US cancer mortality, Blacks (47% of expected mortality, P=.008), Hispanics (17% of expected mortality, P< .001) and Asians (33% of expected mortality, P< .001) were underrepresented compared with Whites (114% of expected mortality, P< .001). CONCLUSIONS Nearly 30 years since the Revitalization Act, minorities and women are consistently underrepresented when compared with their demographic-specific incidence and mortality in therapeutic clinical trials for neuroepithelial tumors. This study provides a framework for investigating cancer clinical trial accrual and offers guidance regarding workforce factors associated with enrollment of vulnerable patients.

Abstract Background Neuro-oncology has grown tremendously since 2010, marked by increasing society membership, specialized clinical expertise, and new journals. Yet, modest improvement in racial/ethnic diversity amongst clinical trial participants, researchers, and clinicians led us to conduct a survey to identify opportunities to enhance diversity and inclusiveness amongst neuro-oncology professionals. Methods In summer 2020, the Women and Diversity Committee of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) distributed an anonymous online survey to members and affiliates including the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO), Society for Neuro-Oncology Latin America (SNOLA) and Society for Neuro-Oncology Sub-Saharan Africa (SNOSSA). The survey captured personal and professional characteristics, biases, effective mentorship qualities, career service metrics, and suggested field/society changes. Results were analyzed by geography, profession, age, racial/ethnic, and sexual identity. Standard descriptive statistics characterized the study population. Results The 386 respondents were predominantly female (58%) with a median age range of 40–49 years (31%), White (65%), and SNO members (97%). Most worked in North America (77%) in a research profession (67%). A majority of White respondents reported never experiencing biases (64%), while the majority of non-White respondents reported unconscious biases/microaggressions, followed by a lack of/limited mentorship. Qualitative assessments showcased that personal/professional success metrics were linked to needed improvements in diversity and inclusion efforts within the neuro-oncology field. Conclusions The prevalence of racial/ethnic biases and poor mentorship rates amongst underrepresented groups in neuro-oncology is high and potentially linked to the limited diverse representation amongst members and affiliates. These findings warrant a swift implementation of equity and inclusion practices within the neuro-oncology field.

It is widely recognized that subspecialized multidisciplinary care improves neuro-oncology outcomes. Optimizing patient outcomes relies on the expertise of the treating physicians, neuroradiology and neuropathology, and supportive services familiar with common neurologic syndromes that occur after brain tumor diagnosis and treatment. Despite an increasing number of providers, patient access to specialized multidisciplinary care and clinical trials remains limited. Barriers to equitable health care exist across the United States, with marginalized communities being impacted disproportionately. Such disparity causes increased morbidity and mortality for patients from backgrounds with various elements of diversity. Limited attention to this inequity has resulted in an incomplete understanding of the spectrum of experiences that patients with neuro-oncologic diseases encounter. Clinical trials represent the highest standard and quality of care in medicine, but inclusion of under-represented and underserved groups consistently lags behind counterpart participants from majority racial and ethnic groups. Through provider education as it pertains to issues from bias and health literacy to increasing clinical trial enrollment and offering opportunities through telemedicine, opportunities for improving access to high-quality neuro-oncologic care are explored.

AbstractBackgroundIt remains unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed neuro-oncology clinical practice, training, and research efforts.MethodsWe performed an international survey of practitioners, scientists, and trainees from 21 neuro-oncology organizations across 6 continents, April 24–May 17, 2020. We assessed clinical practice and research environments, institutional preparedness and support, and perceived impact on patients.ResultsOf 582 respondents, 258 (45%) were US-based and 314 (55%) international. Ninety-four percent of participants reported changes in their clinical practice. Ninety-five percent of respondents converted at least some practice to telemedicine. Ten percent of practitioners felt the need to see patients in person, specifically because of billing concerns and pressure from their institutions. Sixty-seven percent of practitioners suspended enrollment for at least one clinical trial, including 62% suspending phase III trial enrollments. More than 50% believed neuro-oncology patients were at increased risk for COVID-19. Seventy-one percent of clinicians feared for their own personal safety or that of their families, specifically because of their clinical duties; 20% had inadequate personal protective equipment. While 69% reported increased stress, 44% received no psychosocial support from their institutions. Thirty-seven percent had salary reductions and 63% of researchers temporarily closed their laboratories. However, the pandemic created positive changes in perceived patient satisfaction, communication quality, and technology use to deliver care and mediate interactions with other practitioners.ConclusionsThe pandemic has changed treatment schedules and limited investigational treatment options. Institutional lack of support created clinician and researcher anxiety. Communication with patients was satisfactory. We make recommendations to guide clinical and scientific infrastructure moving forward and address the personal challenges of providers and researchers.