Ramirez, Amelie G

e13808 Background: Cancer is a leading cause of death for Latinos. They experience higher rates than their white peers of preventable, infectious-agent-causing-cancers, such as stomach & liver cancer. Latina women have experienced a 1% rise in cancer cases since 2011 & Latino children & adolescents experience higher rates of leukemia than any other racial/ethnic group. Latinos face disparities in access to healthcare, cancer screening & treatment, medical representation & experience lower rates of survival due to late-stage cancer diagnosis. Methods: To combat these inequities & identify equitable interventions for Latino health, the Institute of Health Promotion Research & the Mays Cancer Center established the Advancing the Science of Cancer in Latinos (ASCL) Conference. The fourth ASCL Conference convened in San Antonio, TX from February 21-23, 2024. The conference objectives were 1) Examine the intersection of health equity & biological underpinnings in cancer control, prevention, and treatment 2) Foster collaborative initiatives among attendees aimed at addressing cancer-related health disparities within the Latino community. The conference hosted 286 participants (speakers, researchers, physicians, healthcare professionals, patient advocates & students). It comprised of 23 sessions (3 keynotes, 6 plenaries, 6 breakouts, 3 general sessions, 1 special session, 1 lunch panel session) featuring insights from 51 speakers, a poster session highlighting 80 research abstracts & a rapid-fire session tailored for early-career investigators. Sessions focused on multiple topics relevant to Latino cancer research, clinical trials, survivorship, patient advocacy, climate change impacts on cancer, precision medicine, health policy & social determinants of health. Results: A post-conference survey from a cohort of 48 respondents underscored high levels of satisfaction, with 90% expressing contentment regarding the conference experience. Nearly all respondents (98%) rated the relevance of conference content to Latino cancer science as excellent, with 93% regarding the conference as an exceptional platform for information exchange. Impressions regarding session quality were positive, with 90% of respondents indicating a high level of satisfaction, & all survey respondents acknowledging the objectivity, balance & absence of commercial bias in the session content. Conclusions: Results showed that the resounding positivity in attendee feedback reflects the conference's success in fostering meaningful engagement among attendees. The ASCL conference facilitated an understanding of cultural nuances and barriers specific to the Latino community, stimulating collaborative efforts aimed at enhancing Latino health outcomes. Overall, this analysis affirms the conference's success in achieving its stipulated objectives and underscores the need of having consistently coordinated research endeavors to reduce Latino health disparities.

Abstract Cancer is the leading cause of mortality within the Latino population. Projections suggest a 142% increase in cancer incidence among Latinos over the next two decades. This trend is concerning given that Latinos, the largest minority group in the United States, are expected to constitute at least 28% of the nation's populace by 2060. To address the need for enhanced comprehension of these trends and to identify equitable interventions targeting Latino health disparities, the Institute of Health Promotion Research and the Mays Cancer Center jointly established the biennial Advancing the Science of Cancer in Latinos (ASCL) Conference. The fourth ASCL Conference convened in San Antonio, TX from February 21-23, 2024. The conference objectives were twofold: 1) Examine the intersection of health equity and biological underpinnings in cancer control, prevention, and treatment; and 2) Foster collaborative initiatives among attendees aimed at addressing cancer-related health disparities within the Latino community. The 2024 conference attracted 286 participants compared to 251 attendees in 2022, encompassing guest speakers, researchers, physicians, healthcare professionals, patient advocates, researchers, and students. It comprised 23 sessions (3 keynotes, 6 plenaries, 6 breakouts, 3 general sessions, 1 special session, 1 lunch panel session) featuring insights from 51 speakers, alongside a poster session highlighting 80 research abstracts and a rapid-fire session tailored for early-career investigators. Sessions encompassed multiple topics relevant to Latino cancer research, spanning health disparities, clinical trials, survivorship, patient advocacy, climate change impacts on cancer, precision medicine, health policy and social determinants of health. A post-conference survey from a cohort of 48 respondents underscored high levels of satisfaction, with 90% expressing pronounced contentment regarding the conference experience, compared to 85% in 2022. Moreover, nearly all respondents (98%) rated the relevance of conference content to Latino cancer science as excellent, with 93% regarding the conference as an exceptional platform for information exchange, compared to 79% in 2022. Impressions regarding session quality were overwhelmingly positive, with 90% of respondents indicating a high level of satisfaction, and all survey respondents acknowledging the objectivity, balance, and absence of commercial bias in the session content. Our results showed that the resounding positivity in attendee feedback reflects the conference's success in fostering meaningful engagement among researchers committed to alleviating Latino cancer health disparities. The ASCL conference facilitated an understanding of cultural nuances and barriers specific to the Latino community, stimulating collaborative efforts aimed at enhancing Latino health outcomes. Overall, this retrospective analysis affirms the conference's success in achieving its stipulated objectives and underscores the need of having consistently coordinated research endeavors to reduce Latino health disparities. Citation Format: Amelie G. Ramirez, Rebecca T. Jones, Matthew P. Banegas, Maria C Camargo, Gerardo Colon-Otero, Cliff Despres, Laura Fejerman, Filipa Lynce, Martin Mendoza, Patricia I. Moreno, Alejandro Recio-Boiles, Barbara Segarra-Vazquez, Sandi Stanford, Mariana Stern, Katherine Y. Tossas, Edward J. Trapido, Nicolette M Orozco. Advancing the science of cancer in Latinos conference [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl):Abstract nr B032.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

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.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

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.

Chronic Helicobacter pylori ( H. pylori) infection is a major gastric adenocarcinoma (GA) risk factor. GA disproportionately affects U.S. Hispanics compared with non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs). Since H. pylori infection studies in Hispanics are few, infection rates in Hispanic and NHW men in Bexar County were compared, and relationships with ethnicity and obesity examined. Age- and zip code-matched participants from a community-dwelling cohort were randomly selected. Sera from 284 men were analyzed by enzyme immunoassay for H. pylori antibodies. Adjusted risk ratio estimation for matched data was conducted to identify differences. Hispanics had a markedly higher prevalence of infection (30.3%) than NHWs (9.2%). Matched risk ratio (mRR) analyses revealed a strong association between H. pylori seropositivity and Hispanic ethnicity (mRR = 3.31; 95% CI [1.91, 5.73], adjusted by BMI, smoking status, and family history of cancer (mRR range = 3.28-3.89). BMI mRRs (range = 1.19-1.22) were significant in all models. In this cohort, Hispanic men had higher H. pylori infection rates than NHWs, and parallel the disproportionately higher rates of GA; obesity contributes to this higher prevalence. Future studies should address country of origin, acculturation, and other factors influencing obesity to further elucidate risk of GA in Hispanic populations.