Laviana, Aaron A.

Background Ensuring representative data accrual in clinical trials is important to safeguard the generalizability of results and to minimize disparities in care. This study's goal was to evaluate differences in gender representation in trials leading to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cancer drug approvals. Methods An observational study was conducted from January 2014 to April 2019 using PubMed and the National Institutes of Health trials registry for primary trial reports. The National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program and US Census were consulted for national cancer incidence. The outcome was an enrollment incidence disparity (EID), which was calculated as the difference between male and female trial enrollment and national incidence, with positive values representing male overrepresentation. Results There were 149 clinical trials with 59,988 participants—60.3% and 39.7% were male and female, respectively—leading to 127 oncology drug approvals. The US incidence rates were 55.4% for men versus 44.6% for women. Gender representation varied by specific tumor type. Most notably, women were underrepresented in thyroid cancer (EID, +27.4%), whereas men were underrepresented in soft tissue cancer (EID, –26.1%). Overall, women were underrepresented when compared with expected incidence (EID, +4.9%; 42% of trials). Conclusions For many specific tumor types, women are underrepresented in clinical trials leading to FDA oncology drug approvals. It is critical to better align clinical trial cohort demographics and the populations to which these data will be extrapolated. Lay Summary This study assesses whether gender disparities exist in clinical trials leading to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cancer drug approvals. From January 2014 to April 2019, 149 clinical trials leading to FDA oncology drug approvals showed 60.3% and 39.7% of the enrollees were male and female, respectively. Gender representation varied by specific tumor when compared with the expected incidence rate of cancer in the United States, although women were more often underrepresented. Increased efforts are needed with regard to ensuring equitable representation in oncology clinical trials.

Background: Many researchers have previously explored the correlation between surgical flow disruptions (distractions and interruptions) and error in cardiac surgery, however there is no reliable tool to prospectively categorize surgical flow disruptions and the conditions that predispose a surgical team to error. Methods and Results: Two independent raters of different medical and human factors expertise observed 12 cardiovascular operations and iteratively designed a tool to characterize surgical flow disruptions and the latent factors that contribute to error. Categories to characterize surgical flow disruptions were based on human factors models of human error. Following the design period, both raters observed 10 surgical cases using the tool, to assess validity and inter-rater reliability. Rating agreement (weighted kappa) for each category across the 10 surgeries was moderate to very high, resulting in strong inter-rater reliability for each category on the surgical flow disruption tool (SFDT). Conclusions: This research depicts the development and utility of a tool to analyze surgical flow disruptions in the cardiovascular operating room with satisfactory inter-rater reliability. This tool is an important first step in systematically categorizing and measuring surgical flow disruptions and their impact on patient safety in the operating room.

AbstractBackgroundMany researchers have previously explored the correlation between surgical flow disruptions and adverse events in cardiac surgery; however, there is no reliable tool to prospectively categorize surgical flow disruptions and the conditions that predispose a surgical team to adverse events.MethodsTwo independent raters of different medical and human factors expertise observed 12 cardiovascular operations and iteratively designed a surgical flow disruption tool (SFDT) to characterize surgical flow disruptions and the latent factors that contribute to adverse events. Categories to characterize surgical flow disruptions were created based on human factors models of human error. After the design period, both raters observed ten surgical cases using the tool to assess validity and inter‐rater reliability.ResultsRating agreement (weighted kappa) for each category across the ten surgeries was moderate to very high, resulting in strong inter‐rater reliability for each category on the surgical flow disruption tool. Use of the SFDT was simple and clear for observers of diverse backgrounds, including human factors experts and medical personnel.ConclusionsThis research depicts the development and utility of a tool to analyze surgical flow disruptions in the cardiovascular operating room with satisfactory inter‐rater reliability. This tool is an important first step in systematically categorizing and measuring surgical flow disruptions and their impact on patient safety in the operating room.