Fouad, Mona N.

PURPOSE Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the fourth most common cancer in Africa, has a dismal overall survival of only 3 months like in sub-Saharan Africa. This is affected by the low gross domestic product and human development index, absence of coherent guidelines, and other factors. METHODS An open forum for HCC-experienced health care workers from Africa and the rest of the world was held in October 2021. Participants completed a survey to help assess the real-life access to screening, diagnoses, and treatment in the North and Southern Africa (NS), East and West Africa (EW), Central Africa (C), and the rest of the world. RESULTS Of 461 participants from all relevant subspecialties, 372 were from Africa. Most African participants provided hepatitis B vaccination and treatment for hepatitis B and C. More than half of the participants use serum alpha-fetoprotein and ultrasound for surveillance. Only 20% reported using image-guided diagnostic liver biopsy. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer is the most used staging system (52%). Liver transplant is available for only 28% of NS and 3% EW. C reported a significantly lower availability of resection. Availability of local therapy ranged from 94% in NS to 62% in C. Sorafenib is the most commonly used systemic therapy (66%). Only 12.9% reported access to other medications including immune checkpoint inhibitors. Besides 42% access to regorafenib in NS, second-line treatments were not provided. CONCLUSION Similarities and differences in the care for patients with HCC in Africa are reported. This reconfirms the major gaps in access and availability especially in C and marginally less so in EW. This is a call for concerted multidisciplinary efforts to achieve and sustain a reduction in incidence and mortality from HCC in Africa.

201 Background: Cancer-related mortality is disproportionately higher in marginalized populations, necessitating adequate representation in cancer clinical trials. Historically, this goal has been challenging, despite recognition of the importance for clinical practice. Moreover, minority recruitment has decreased in oncology clinical trials published from 2003-2016, indicating an urgent need for effective interventions for this issue. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of interventions focused on increasing minority recruitment/retention in cancer clinical trials between 2012-2023, or on improving attitudes of minority groups towards enrollment. We queried Embase and Scopus databases for articles/abstracts that focused on underrepresented ethnic minority enrollment in cancer clinical trials, in English language, were conducted in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Western Europe, and were investigating effectiveness of interventions to improve minority enrollment in adult populations. Results: 261 unique articles/abstracts met our search criteria, with an additional 55 duplicates. 117 were removed for being irrelevant or too old, 31 for being reviews, 85 due to not containing an intervention, 5 for not reporting minority data, and 6 for not adequately comparing the strength of interventions. 17 met all inclusion criteria. Several interventions were identified, including targeted patient education (n=7), assigning patient navigators (n=6), community organization engagement (n=3), nested family/community approaches (n=2), and financial assistance (n=1). Targeted education involved video, audio, or interactive mediums. Most studies involved Black (n=12) and Hispanic (n=5) populations, with a smaller number focusing on Asian/Asian Pacific Islanders (n=2), Arabs (n=1), and Indian/South Asians (n=1). Geographically, these studies were notably concentrated in the American South (n=7). The Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions contributed equally (n=3 each), and fewer studies were from the Northeast and West (n=2 each). Conclusions: Racial minorities continue to be underrepresented in cancer clinical trials, underscoring the need for concerted efforts to promote healthcare equity and enhance these trials’ generalizability. In our systematic review, targeted education, patient navigators, and active community engagement emerged as efficacious strategies, and were the most frequently utilized to bolster minority enrollment. Future studies should prioritize investigating and implementing these interventions, to ensure diverse, representative, and applicable clinical trial participation.

BACKGROUNDTo 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.METHODSEMPaCT 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.RESULTSCancer 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.CONCLUSIONSCatchment 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. Cancer 2014;120(7 suppl):1113–21. © 2014 American Cancer Society.