Fashoyin-Aje, Lola

Abstract Background Eligibility criteria for clinical trials are crucial for maintaining safety and study integrity. However, overly restrictive criteria can result in unrepresentative trial populations, leading to gaps in understanding real‐world treatment efficacy. Addressing potentially modifiable exclusions (PMEs) could enhance trial accessibility and participation without compromising safety. Methods The authors retrospectively analyzed screen‐failed patients with biliary tract cancer or pancreatic cancer between August 2019 and November 2024 at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Screen‐failed patients were those who provided informed consent but did not participate for any reason. Clinical data were obtained from screening logs and electronic health records. PMEs were identified and validated by two independent medical oncologists. Results Of 585 screen‐failed patients from 18 trials, 509 were analyzed (367 with pancreatic cancer and 142 with biliary tract cancer) after excluding 76 because of incomplete data. Leading causes of screen failure were declined participation (19%), comorbidities (12%), suboptimal organ function (11%), absence of a biomarker (10%), and insufficient biospecimens (7%). Reasons for declining included preference for standard care (23%), travel (22%), and competing trials (5%). The authors identified 69 patients (13.6%) who had PMEs (primarily borderline laboratory abnormalities), including liver function (23%), kidney function (20%), platelet count (12%), hemoglobin (7%), and white blood cell count (6%) abnormalities. Other PMEs included previous or concurrent malignancies (9%) and viral hepatitis (4%). PMEs were evenly distributed across trials. Conclusions Rigid eligibility criteria exclude stable patients who might benefit from investigational treatments. Easing criteria related to incidental or asymptomatic laboratory abnormalities could broaden trial accessibility and improve enrollment in populations that are more representative of real‐world use.

e23011 Background: Eligibility criteria for clinical trials are crucial for maintaining safety and study integrity. However, they often exclude patients due to medical conditions that are not relevant, leading to gaps in understanding the real-world effectiveness of treatments. Addressing potentially modifiable exclusions (PMEs) could enhance accessibility and participation in trials without compromising safety, particularly given the low rates of enrollment. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed ‘screen-failed’ patients (those who were excluded after providing consent because they did not meet the eligibility criteria or other protocol requirements) with biliary tract (BTC) or pancreatic cancer (PDAC) between August 2019 and November 2024. Screening logs and electronic health records provided clinical data. PMEs were identified and validated by two independent medical oncologists. Results: Of 585 screen-failed patients from 18 trials, 76 were excluded due to incomplete data. Among the 509 patients analyzed (367-PDAC, 142-BTC), the leading causes of screen failure were declined participation (99, 19%), comorbidities (59, 12%), suboptimal organ function (56, 11%), absence of biomarker (49, 10%), and insufficient biospecimens (36, 7%). Among patients declining participation, reasons included preference for standard care (23%), travel (22%), competing trials (5%), adverse event concerns (4%), financial issues (3%), and unknown reasons (43%). Of the 509 patients deemed ineligible for study entry at screening, we identified 69 patients (13.6%) with PMEs, primarily related to borderline laboratory abnormalities: liver function (16, 23%), kidney function (14, 20%), platelet count (8, 12%), hemoglobin (5, 7%), and white blood cell count (4, 6%). Other PMEs included previous or concurrent malignancies (6, 9%) and viral hepatitis (3, 4%). PMEs were evenly distributed across trials. Notably, all screen-failed patients proceeded to receive standard therapy. Conclusions: This analysis underscores the potential for rigid eligibility criteria to exclude stable patients who might benefit from investigational treatments. Easing specific criteria, particularly those related to laboratory abnormalities, could broaden trial accessibility. Furthermore, examining the reasons for declined participation and addressing PMEs could help develop strategies to enhance trial enrollment.

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.

175 Background: In 2009, ASCO confirmed that addressing cancer care disparities is critical for the Society and committed to approaches to eliminate such disparities. Yet, gaps remain in identifying the best approaches to do so. It remains unknown which cancer care providers serve patients from “underserved populations'' (defined as individuals who have historically received inadequate health care and health care services), what unmet needs they experience in their cancer care delivery, and how best to engage and support these providers. The objectives of this study were to explore challenges faced by providers serving underserved patients to inform development of a broader online survey and identify solutions that ASCO can implement to better support these providers. Methods: A multi-phase mixed-methods approach was utilized. Phase 1 involved key informant semi-structured interviews with 12 oncology providers caring for adult patients in the US from April to May 2021. Phase 2 involved survey development based on themes identified in Phase 1. The survey assessed: provider needs; processes for eliciting, documenting, and addressing social and economic needs of patients; and how ASCO could best support these providers. Phase 3 involved email distribution of the online survey in May 2022 to 5800 individuals identified through ASCO’s customer database. Eligibility criteria included providing care for adults with cancer in the US and prior consent to receive ASCO survey communications. Results: Of 477 respondents, the majority were ASCO members (88%), in an academic practice (57%), medical oncologists (77%), non-Hispanic (89%) and/or Caucasian/White (67%) and had > 15 years’ clinical experience (57%). A majority (60%) provided ≥25% of their clinical time providing cancer care to underserved populations and routinely engaged with administration to secure resources (61%) and local community organizations to obtain services (42%) for patients. Most (43-77%) indicated that a social worker/case manager was primarily responsible for addressing patient social needs. The majority reported that identification and dissemination of best practices (55%) and development of a return-on-investment business model (60%) would best help address patient needs. Some respondents expressed a desire to collaborate with ASCO on policy reform (32%) and for ASCO to help build or strengthen partnerships with local initiatives (29%). Conclusions: This is the first US-based survey assessing barriers and solutions to delivering cancer care among underserved populations. The findings from this work provide insights about how ASCO can help equip practices to address the social needs of their patients. Further work will be conducted to develop and implement suggested solutions.

Patients of African ancestry are not well-represented in cancer clinical trials despite bearing a disproportionate share of mortality both in United States and Africa. We describe key stakeholder perspectives and priorities related to bringing early-stage cancer clinical trials to Africa and outline essential action steps. Increasing Diversity, Market Access, and Capacity in Oncology Registration Trials—Is Africa the Answer? satellite session was organized at 2021 Accelerating Anti-Cancer Agent Development and Validation Workshop. Panelists included representatives of African Organization for Research and Training in Cancer, Uganda Cancer Institute, Uganda Women's Cancer Support Organization, BIO Ventures for Global Health, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the US Food and Drug Administration, Nigeria's National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control, Bayer, and Genentech, with moderators from ASCO and American Cancer Society. Key discussion themes and resulting action steps were agreed upon by all participants. Panelists agreed that increasing diversity in cancer clinical trials by including African patients is key to ensuring novel drugs are safe and effective across populations. They underscored the importance of equity in clinical trial access for patients in Africa. Panelists discussed their values related to access and barriers to opening clinical trials in Africa and described innovative solutions from their work aimed at overcoming these obstacles. Multisectoral collaboration efforts that allow leveraging of limited resources and result in sustainable capacity building and mutually beneficial long-term partnerships were discussed as key to outlined action steps. The panel discussion resulted in valuable insights about key stakeholder values and priorities related to bringing early-stage clinical trials to Africa, as well as specific actions for each stakeholder group.

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.