Kawachi, Ichiro

Abstract Despite major strides in cancer research and therapy, these advances have not been equitable across race and ethnicity. Historically marginalized groups (HMG) are more likely to have inadequate preventive screening, increased delays in diagnosis, and poor representation in clinical trials. Notably, Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous people represent 30% of the population but only 9% of oncology clinical trial participants. As a result, HMGs lack equitable access to novel therapies, contradicting the principle of distributive justice, as enshrined in the Belmont report, which demands the equitable selection of subjects in research involving human subjects. The lack of clinical trial diversity also leads to low generalizability and potentially harmful medical practices. Specifically, patients with brain cancer face unique barriers to clinical trial enrollment and completion due to disease-specific neurologic and treatment-induced conditions. Collectively, the intersection of these disease-specific conditions with social determinants of health fosters a lack of diversity in clinical trials. To ameliorate this disparity in neuro-oncology clinical trial participation, we present interventions focused on improving engagement of HMGs. Proposals range from inclusive trial design, decreasing barriers to care, expanding trial eligibility, access to tumor profiling for personalized medical trials, setting reasonable metrics and goals for accrual, working with patient community stakeholders, diversifying the neuro-oncology workforce, and development of tools to overcome biases with options to incentivize equity. The diversification of participation amongst neuro-oncology clinical trials is imperative. Equitable access and inclusion of HMG patients with brain tumors will not only enhance research discoveries but will also improve patient care.

Abstract Despite major strides in cancer research, care, and therapy, these advances have not been equitable across race and ethnicity. Groups underrepresented in medicine (URM) are more likely to have inadequate preventive screening, increased delays in diagnosis, and poor representation in clinical trials. Notably, Black and Latino Americans represent 29% of the population but only reflect 8% of oncology clinical trial participants. Recent studies have shown that this disparity is also present in neuro-oncology as women, Black, and Latino Americans remain under-accrued in clinical trials. Brain tumor patients already face unique barriers to clinical trial enrollment and completion due to disease-specific conditions–such as impaired motor function, cognition, language deficits, and caregiver dependency–which pose additional difficulties in clinical trial consent, enrollment, and adherence. As part of this collaborative initiative, we evaluated the impact of how a lack of diversity in cancer research is detrimental to scientific discovery and propose interventions focused on improving URM engagement with clinical research. Recommendations include the creation of inclusive trial design at the onset, decreasing barriers to care, expanding trial eligibility, and equitable access to tumor profiling for personalized medical trials. Additionally, setting reasonable metrics and goals for accrual and engagement with patient and community stakeholders will ultimately help to diversify trial participants. Lastly, diversification and inclusion practices within the neuro-oncology workforce, including all personnel involved in clinical research, will help to minimize bias, promote concordant care, and assist with developing sustainable solutions. The diversification of participation in neuro-oncology clinical trials is imperative. The lack of diversity in clinical trials can contribute to improper generalizability of treatment efficacy, resulting in potentially harmful practices. Equitable access and inclusion of URM brain tumor patients will not only enhance research discoveries but will also result in improved patient care for all cancer patients.

AbstractObjectiveDisparities in tobacco use persist despite successful policies reducing use within the United States. In particular, the prevalence of tobacco use in rural and certain minority communities is significantly higher compared to that of their counterparts. In this work, we examine the impact of rurality, mental health, and racial discrimination on tobacco use.MethodsData come from the 2003 California Health Interview Survey (n = 42,044). Modified Poisson regression models were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, birth origin, education, income, insurance, and marital status.ResultsCompared to urban residents, rural residents had a significantly higher risk for smoking after adjustment (RR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01‐1.19). Those who reported having experienced racial discrimination also had a significantly greater risk for smoking compared to those who did not (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.07‐1.27). Additionally, those who reported higher stress had a significantly greater risk for smoking (RR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.07‐1.67). There was evidence of interaction between rurality and race/ethnicity, and rurality and gender (P < .05).ConclusionResiding in rural areas was associated with an increased risk for smoking, above and beyond sociodemographics. There were no significant differences across rural‐urban environments for the relationship between stress and tobacco use—an indication that the impact of stress and discrimination is not buffered or exacerbated by environmental characteristics potentially found in either location. Mechanisms that explain rural‐urban tobacco use disparities need to be explored, and smoking cessation programs and policies should be tailored to target these factors within rural communities.