Novotny, P. J.

8527 Background: Minority patients (MP) suffer deficits in access to care and socioeconomic status. This study uses a patient-level pooled analysis to explore whether these deficits translate into quality of life (QOL) differences between MP and non-MP on clinical trials. Method: Baseline QOL scores were combined from 47 clinical trials (6,513 patients) conducted either at the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center or in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group. QOL scales used were the Uniscale, Linear Analogue Self Assessment (LASA), Symptom Distress Scale (SDS), Profile of Mood States (POMS) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (Fact-G). Fisher’s Exact tests and linear regression adjusted for age, site, and performance score. Survival data was compared using the method of Kaplan-Meier. Results: Eight percent (531) of patients self-reported as MP (0.45% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 0.7% Asian, 5% Black/African American, 1.5% Hispanic, 0.1% Native Hawaiian and 0.3% Other). MP had no meaningful deficits in overall QOL or the SDS and were slightly worse on FACT-G total score, physical, social/family, functional, and SDS nausea severity. MP among lung cancer patients reported greater nausea (58 vs 69) and sleep problems (34 vs 54), with neurological cancers reported worse emotional well-being (53 vs 74), and with GI tumors had lower social/family well-being (60 vs 67). Regression models confirmed these results. Median survival time was shorter for MP (198 vs 310 days, p=0.001) but was not significant after adjusting for disease severity. Conclusions: MP on these clinical trials did not report large QOL deficits at baseline relative to non-MP. MP did indicate small deficits in physical, social, and emotional subscales. MP experienced large tumor-specific deficits for a few QOL domains that might bear further attention. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.