Charlot, Marjory

PURPOSE Lack of race- and age-diversity in clinical trials adversely affects generalizability of trial results and equity of trial access. Research on barriers to representative accrual has focused on patient-level factors. We aimed to define site-level factors affecting the diversity of accrual to a multicenter clinical trial. METHODS Alliance 191901 (GETSET) is a national randomized controlled trial testing interventions to promote breast cancer endocrine therapy adherence, which oversamples Black women and those under age 50 years at 30% thresholds. A secondary study objective is to examine site-level factors associated with accrual of Black and younger participants. At 50% accrual to the parent study, we performed prespecified analyses of association between site characteristics (region, neighborhood racial composition, Alliance membership type, number of recent accruals to cooperative research group trials) and the proportion of Black patients and younger patients accrued. We also examined trajectories of accrual over time for race- and age-specified subgroups. RESULTS The analysis included 124 sites. Among 590 participants, 9.7% were Black, and 22.4% were age <50 years. Neither site type nor historical accrual volume was associated with Black participant recruitment. Southern sites recruited higher proportions of Black participants (19.0% v 7.3% for West, P < .001). Neighborhood racial composition was positively associated with recruitment of Black participants (16.2% at sites from highest Black composition v 1.4% in lowest, P < .01). Recruitment trajectories of Black participants were slower than target rates, whereas those among non-Black participants were faster. CONCLUSION Neighborhood composition and geographic region were predictors of proportions of Black participants accrued to A191901 sites, but site type and historical accrual volume were not. When trials must limit site selection, identifying sites based on neighborhood composition and geography may be an appropriate tool for increasing trial diversity.

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.

6530 Background: Only a small fraction of patients with cancer participate in treatment trials. Patients identifying as members of racial and ethnic minority groups are consistently underrepresented in these trials. A recent systematic review reported that patients, regardless of race and ethnicity, are willing to enroll in trials if asked to participate by their treating clinician. Prospective and longitudinal data and metrics at the site- and clinician-level are necessary to understand whether patients are equitably considered for clinical trials. Methods: ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) developed a self-assessment for trial sites to record and gauge the number of patients across races and ethnicities screened, offered, and enrolled into clinical trials. Research sites, from across the US, were recruited through an open call to apply to participate in the ASCO-ACCC Pilot Project. There were 65 sites assigned to this pilot study, which tested the feasibility and utility of the site assessment. Sites were asked to enter 2019 and 2020 aggregate data for each step along the clinical trial enrollment continuum by select races and ethnicities (Black, Hispanic/Latinx, White) and overall. Results: 62 of 65 sites completed the study and represented a range of settings and practice types (61% academic, 26% hospital/health system, 13% independent). Only 2 sites (3%) were able to provide the data requested at each enrollment step in the assessment (table). Sites that collected the data did not do so routinely (table) and most had to compile data through multiple sources and/or manual extraction (40-100% across enrollment steps). Sites with missing data reported they did not collect data at all (36-64% across enrollment steps), did not collect data in a systematic way (0-29% across enrollment steps), or stated it would be too burdensome to manually review charts to extract data (12-29% across enrollment steps). Conclusions: Data collection and routine evaluation of participation metrics, by race and ethnicity, are necessary to assess and monitor equity and diversity in clinical trials. Most sites in this study did not collect, or routinely collect, data for screening, offering, and consenting patients to clinical trials. Without these data, sites are unable to evaluate and monitor whether their patients have equitable access to clinical trials or establish strategies to address any inequities. ASCO and ACCC will continue to partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting such data in a systematic and automated way, such as through electronic health record systems. [Table: see text]

A concerted commitment across research stakeholders is necessary to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and address barriers to cancer clinical trial recruitment and participation. Racial and ethnic diversity among trial participants is key to understanding intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may affect patient response to cancer treatments. This ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Research Statement presents specific recommendations and strategies for the research community to improve EDI in cancer clinical trials. There are six overarching recommendations: (1) clinical trials are an integral component of high-quality cancer care, and every person with cancer should have the opportunity to participate; (2) trial sponsors and investigators should design and implement trials with a focus on reducing barriers and enhancing EDI, and work with sites to conduct trials in ways that increase participation of under-represented populations; (3) trial sponsors, researchers, and sites should form long-standing partnerships with patients, patient advocacy groups, and community leaders and groups; (4) anyone designing or conducting trials should complete recurring education, training, and evaluation to demonstrate and maintain cross-cultural competencies, mitigation of bias, effective communication, and a commitment to achieving EDI; (5) research stakeholders should invest in programs and policies that increase EDI in trials and in the research workforce; and (6) research stakeholders should collect and publish aggregate data on racial and ethnic diversity of trial participants when reporting results of trials, programs, and interventions to increase EDI. The recommendations are intended to serve as a guide for the research community to improve participation rates among people from racial and ethnic minority populations historically under-represented in cancer clinical trials. ASCO and ACCC will work at all levels to advance the recommendations in this publication.

Abstract Background Racial disparities in patient-reported outcomes (PROs; e.g., symptoms, financial burden) among patients with cancer are well documented. Prior studies have attributed such disparities to patient- and provider-level factors, but less is known about the contribution of practice-level factors. Hospital racial composition of patients has been linked to disparities in care quality and outcomes, but questions remain regarding whether oncology practice racial composition mediates racial disparities. Using 2017-2020 data from the Patient-Reported Outcomes to Enhance Cancer Treatment (PRO-TECT) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03249090), we examined racial disparities in PROs among patients with metastatic cancer, and whether oncology practice racial composition accounted for observed disparities. Methods Our sample included 1099 patients (n=198 Black; n=901 White) from 51 community oncology practices across the US. Predictors of interest were patient race (Black vs. White) and practice-reported racial composition (Black patient population &gt;20% vs. ≤20%). Patient-reported outcome metrics included pain, appetite loss, fatigue, nausea, dyspnea, insomnia, constipation, diarrhea, and financial burden, measured at baseline and at 1- and 3-month follow-up using the EORTC Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Raw EORTC QLQ-C30 scores were standardized to range from 0 (best) to 100 (worst). We estimated multilevel linear mixed models predicting each PRO as a function of patient race, adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors, followed by further adjustment for practice racial composition. Results Twelve out of fifty-one (23.5%) practices reported a Black racial composition of &gt;20%, with 41.6% of Blacks and 14.5% Whites receiving care at these practices. Across all practices, Blacks reported worse pain (β=5.5, p=0.02), nausea (β=2.5, p=0.04) and financial burden (β=7.6, p&lt;0.01), but less fatigue (β=-4.1, p=0.05) when compared with Whites. Regardless of race, patients receiving care at practices with a Black racial composition of &gt;20% reported more pain (β=5.5, p=0.01), appetite loss (β=8.1, p&lt;0.01), fatigue (β=5.1, p=0.01), nausea (β=2.3, p=0.05), dyspnea (β=4.3, p=0.04), and insomnia (β=4.8, p=0.03) than patients receiving care at practices comprised of ⇐20% Blacks. Practice racial composition did not mediate racial disparities in PROs. Conclusion Racial disparities in PROs were observed among patients treated at US community oncology practices. Practice racial composition was associated with multiple PROs, regardless of patient race, but racial disparities in PROs were not explained by practice racial composition. These findings suggest that identifying and addressing the needs of practices serving a disproportionate share of Black patents may be one effective strategy to mitigate practice-level disparities in cancer outcomes. Citation Format: Cleo A. Samuel, Olive Mbah, Wendi Elkins, Marjory Charlot, Amylou Dueck, Brenda F. Ginos, Jennifer Jansen, Deborah Schrag, Patty Spears, Angela Stover, Ethan Basch. Separate and unequal: Examining the role of race and site of care on patient-reported outcomes among patients with metastatic cancer (AFT-39) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-119.

PURPOSE There is increasing interest in implementing digital systems for remote monitoring of patients’ symptoms during routine oncology practice. Information is limited about the clinical utility and user perceptions of these systems. METHODS PRO-TECT is a multicenter trial evaluating implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) among adults with advanced and metastatic cancers receiving treatment at US community oncology practices (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090 ). Questions derived from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) are administered weekly by web or automated telephone system, with alerts to nurses for severe or worsening symptoms. To elicit user feedback, surveys were administered to participating patients and clinicians. RESULTS Among 496 patients across 26 practices, the majority found the system and questions easy to understand (95%), easy to use (93%), and relevant to their care (91%). Most patients reported that PRO information was used by their clinicians for care (70%), improved discussions with clinicians (73%), made them feel more in control of their own care (77%), and would recommend the system to other patients (89%). Scores for most patient feedback questions were significantly positively correlated with weekly PRO completion rates in both univariate and multivariable analyses. Among 57 nurses, most reported that PRO information was helpful for clinical documentation (79%), increased efficiency of patient discussions (84%), and was useful for patient care (75%). Among 39 oncologists, most found PRO information useful (91%), with 65% using PROs to guide patient discussions sometimes or often and 65% using PROs to make treatment decisions sometimes or often. CONCLUSION These findings support the clinical utility and value of implementing digital systems for monitoring PROs, including the PRO-CTCAE, in routine cancer care.