Ailawadhi, Meghna

AbstractIntroductionHealth information technology (HIT) has the potential to improve healthcare delivery and engagement. Studying racial‐ethnic disparities in HIT engagement will help understand and overcome challenges to healthcare utilization.MethodsWe undertook a patient‐reported survey among patients with lymphoid malignancies at two campuses of Mayo Clinic, Florida to explore HIT‐related disparities. Variables between Whites and non‐Whites, and non‐Whites from the two campuses were compared.ResultsThe survey was completed by 1004 respondents, with 71% whites, 27% non‐Whites (race‐ethnicity not reported by 2%). Non‐Whites included 30% responders at the main campus and 64% at an inner‐city campus. Whites were significantly older and had higher education, while non‐Whites had lesser access to a computer. Only 51% of non‐Whites were registered to use electronic medical records (EMR) as compared to 72% Whites (p < 0.001) and significantly lesser number of non‐Whites even knew that EMR existed (81% vs. 92%, p < 0.001). Encouragingly, a higher number of non‐Whites wanted to engage in EMR. Non‐Whites from the main campus were older, more educated and had more access to a computer as compared to those from the inner‐city campus. Similar disparate factors were noted among minorities from the two campuses, suggesting impact of socioeconomic backgrounds on EMR usage among non‐Whites. Linguistic barriers were more striking among inner‐city campus non‐Whites.ConclusionsNon‐Whites continue to struggle with suboptimal utilization of the healthcare system and barriers related to integration in HIT, including disparities representing socioeconomic differences. Efforts need to be made at several levels to help racial‐ethnic minorities overcome awareness, access, and linguistic barriers to HIT utilization.

Abstract Background: Concern exists that the clinical trial populations differ from respective cancer populations in terms of their age distribution affecting the generalizability of the results, especially the underrepresented minorities. We hypothesized that the clinical trials that do not report race are likely to suffer from a higher degree of age disparity as well and the issue should be addressed in conjunction with each other. Methods: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals from 7/2007-6/2019 were reviewed to identify oncology approvals, and trials with age details were selected. The primary outcome was the weighted mean difference in age between the clinical trial population and realworld population for various cancers. The secondary outcomes were the prevalence of race reporting and association of age and race reporting with each other. Group comparisons for proportions were performed using the χ2 test while continuous variables were compared using multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) test or students t-test as appropriate. P values &lt; .05 were considered significant. Results: Of the 261 trials, the race was reported in 223 (85.4%) of the trials while 38 trials (14.6%) had no mention of race. Race reporting improved minimally over time – 29 (85.3%) in 2007-2010 vs. 49 (80.3%) in 2011-2014 vs. 145 (85.4%) during 2015-2019 (p-value=0.41). No significant association between type of cancer and race reporting was noted – 147 (86.5%) of solid cancer trials vs. 76 (83.5%) of hematological cancer trials reported race (p-value=0.52). Age discrepancy between the clinical trial population and the real-world population was present for several cancer types. The discrepancy was higher for studies that did not report race, mean difference - 8.8 years 4 (95% CI -12.6 to -5.0 years) vs. studies that did report the race, mean difference -5.1 years, (95% CI -6.4 to -3.7 years), p-value=0.04. Conclusion: The study demonstrates that a significant number of clinical trials leading to cancer drug approvals suffer from racial and age disparity when compared to real-world populations and that the two factors may be interrelated. We recommend continued efforts to recruit diverse populations. In the meantime, reporting these characteristics for these crucial trials should be mandated. Citation Format: Thejus Jayakrishnan, Sonikpreet Aulakh, Mizba Baksh, Kianna Nguyen, Meghna Ailawadhi, Ayesha Samreen, Ricardo Parrondo, Taimur Sher, Vivek Roy, Rami Manochakian, Aneel Paulus, Asher Chanan-Khan, Sikander Ailawadhi. Disparity in race and age reporting in landmark cancer clinical trials: Underrepresentation of the traditionally underserved U.S. population [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: 14th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2021 Oct 6-8. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-104.

Background: Concern exists that the clinical trial populations differ from respective cancer populations in terms of their age distribution affecting the generalizability of the results, especially in underrepresented minorities. We hypothesized that the clinical trials that do not report race are likely to suffer from a higher degree of age disparity. Methods: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals from July 2007 to June 2019 were reviewed to identify oncology approvals, and trials with age details were selected. The outcomes studied were the weighted mean difference in age between the clinical trial population and real-world population for various cancers, the prevalence of race reporting and association of age and race reporting with each other. Results: Of the 261 trials, race was reported in 223 (85.4%) of the trials, while 38 trials (14.6%) had no mention of race. Race reporting improved minimally over time: 29 (85.3%) in 2007–2010 vs. 49 (80.3%) in 2011–2014 vs. 145 (85.4%) during the period 2015–2019 (p-value = 0.41). Age discrepancy between the clinical trial population and the real-world population was higher for studies that did not report race (mean difference −8.8 years (95% CI −12.6 to −5.0 years)) vs. studies that did report it (mean difference −5.1 years, (95% CI −6.4 to −3.7 years), p-value = 0.04). Conclusion: The study demonstrates that a significant number of clinical trials leading to cancer drug approvals suffer from racial and age disparity when compared to real-world populations, and that the two factors may be interrelated. We recommend continued efforts to recruit diverse populations.

Abstract Background: SCT is a standard therapeutic approach for patients with MM and has contributed to improved outcomes. While SCT utilization in MM has increased for all racial-ethnic subgroups over time, population-based studies have repeatedly shown that racial minorities are less likely to receive it. We explored factors that determine SCT utilization among patients within a given race to understand intra-racial disparities and how to address them in order to maximize the use of this imperative treatment among eligible patients. Methods: The 2016 National Cancer Database (NCDB) for MM with patients diagnosed between 2004-2013 was studied. Cases without information on the selected patient or facility characteristics evaluated in this analysis, including SCT use, race, median income, insurance status or facility type of initial MM diagnosis and/or treatment were excluded. The association between utilization of SCT as part of initial therapy of MM and socio-demographic factors was studied stratifying patients into mutually exclusive racial-ethnic subgroups non-Hispanic Whites (NHW), non-Hispanic Blacks (NHB), Hispanics, non-Hispanic Asians (NHA) and others using multivariate GEE logistic regression analysis (clustered on facility ID). Interactions between race and patient/facility characteristics and SCT utilization were tested using similar methods but including all races. Results: Of the 123480 unique MM patients in NCDB diagnosed between 2004-2013, 111799 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 15021 patients (13.4%) received SCT as part of initial MM therapy. Of those who received SCT, 77.5% were NHW (14.4% of all NHW), 15.1% NHB (10.3% of all NHB), 5.2% Hispanics (13.2% of all Hispanics), 2% NHA (15.5% of all NHA) and &lt;1% others. There was no difference by gender but significantly reduced odds of receiving SCT were noted for every 10-year increase in age at diagnosis for all racial subgroups. NHA were the only subgroup not to have a significant year-wise increase over time in odds of receiving SCT between 2004-2013. A significant increase in SCT utilization was seen with increasing median income (quartiles; 2008-2012 data), for NHW and Hispanics but not for NHB and NHA, while increased education (% population with high-school degree; 2008-2012 data) was associated with a significant increase in SCT use for NHW and NHB, but not among Hispanics or NHA. An increase in great circle distance (GCD) from the treating facility as well as a lower Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index (CCI) was associated with significantly increased odds of receiving SCT for all racial groups. Insurancepayer status significantly affected odds of receiving SCT among all races with those having private insurance to be most likely to receive SCT among NHW, NHB and Hispanics while those with "other government" insurance payer type being most likely among NHA. Among treating facility characteristics, patients of all races were more likely to receive SCT if treated at an academic/researchfacility (including NCI-designated centers) or centers with highest quartile of patientvolume seen. For analysis by geographicalregion, NHW and NHA had the highest odds of receiving SCT in mountain region but there was no impact of geography on SCT for NHB or Hispanics. Odds ratio (OR) of receiving SCT as part of initial MM therapy by socio-demographic and facility characteristics for patients of individual racial subgroups are shown in Table 1. A significant interaction between odds of receiving SCT and various racial subgroups was noted for patient age at diagnosis (p&lt;.001, decreased odds among NHW and NHA), GCD from treating facility (p=0.013, increased odds among NHB and NHA), CCI (p=0.043, decreased odds among NHA) and treatment facility volumes (p=0.046, increased odds among NHA and Hispanics). Conclusions: In the largest analysis exploring socio-demographic factors affecting SCT utilization in MM we note a significant disparity within races for who gets SCT as a part of initial MM management and who does not. While some of these factors are non-modifiable, others including access to healthcare, income, insurance and literacy levels, proximity to treatment center, treating facility type as well as volumes are modifiable and appear to be barriers to SCT among in some races, while not in others. These must be addressed to minimize disparities within racial subgroups, especially the minorities and realize maximal benefit of SCT for MM. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sher: LAM Therapeutics, Inc: Research Funding.

Objective Outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM) have significantly improved necessitating focus on survivorship. Methods We undertook a web-based survey in collaboration with International Myeloma Foundation (IMF) to explore patient awareness and psycho-physical impacts of MM. The survey was viewed on the IMF website by 1,324 individuals from 32 countries. Results The survey responses were available from 959 individuals, with 62% who completed the survey. Treating doctors were the most frequent source of MM-related information. Only 56% patients admitted full compliance with treatment. Treatment side effects bothered 86% responders, including >50% admitting to pain, peripheral neuropathy and asthenia. Majority (57%) reported some degree of depression, 82% had discontent with their quality of life and only 35% reported being satisfied with their coping mechanisms. Patients ≥65 years of age reported more peripheral neuropathy (p = 0.007) and difficulty with ability to work (p = 0.015). Conclusions We report the prevalence of psychologic, social and physical domains as well as patient-physician relationship dynamics. This knowledge can help improve MM survivorship.Introduction

Background: Clinical trials are critical to drug development and the formulation of evidence-based guidelines which are essential to providing crucial and often life-saving treatment to cancer patients. Clinical trial participation is very poor in the United States overall, with a dismal representation of racial minorities. While this has been a focus of several efforts focused on education, targeted enrollment etc., there is a lack of understanding of the patient's knowledge and preferences, and how that may be shaping their decision to consider participation in clinical trials. We undertook a patient-reported survey to explore these factors and understand any underlying disparities. Methods: A 15-question paper-based anonymous questionnaire addressing the cancer patient's knowledge about their disease and clinical trials, as well as factors that may shape their understanding of, or may be barriers to their participation in clinical trials was used. This was administered to adult patients with lymphoid malignancies at the Mayo Clinic in Florida. Categorical and continuous variables between white and minority respondents were compared using the Chi-square test and U Mann Whitney with a significance level of 0.05. Results: The survey was completed by 203 cancer patients. Of these, 3 patients did not report race and ethnicity and so responses from 200 patients were included in the final analysis. Of the respondents, 73% (n=146) were white and 27% (n=54) were minorities. Whites were older than minorities, although not statistically significant (median 67 vs. 61.5 yrs, p=0.06). Minority patients had lower education level with 41% having ≤high school education as compared to 16% whites (p&lt;0.001). Majority of white patients (53%) reported their physicians as the highest ranked source of information for cancer vs. 33% minority patients (p=0.01). Other sources of information explored were internet, nurses, family/friends, books/flyers or other patients. A higher number of white patients reported treatment and its side effects to be the topic of most importance to them at the time of cancer diagnosis as compared to minorities (33% vs. 15%, p=0.01). Similarly, prognosis was more important for a higher number of whites than minorities (21% vs. 15%, p=0.03). Understanding of the diagnosis and financial impact were also explored but not found to have any significant difference. Understanding their treatment and long-term treatment plan was the most frequent knowledge gap reported by whites (81%) vs. minorities (54%, p=0.004). Minorities had several knowledge gap areas (understanding the diagnosis, treatment, side effects, long-term treatment plan, financial impact, survival) more evenly distributed. Regarding clinical trials, minorities were more likely to agree that clinical trials were of benefit for patients (42% vs. 28%, p=0.05) and that in a clinical trial the experimental drug always works better than the one it is being compared to (65% vs. 38%, p&lt;0.001). Minority patients were less likely to agree to participating in clinical trials just based on their doctor's recommendation and judgement (83% vs. 93%, p=0.03). A higher number of minority patients felt that pharmaceutical companies have a big influence on the result of a clinical trial (83% vs. 65%, p=0.01). Fear of not benefiting from clinical trials was the reason for not participating among a higher number of whites (36% vs. 19%, p=0.02) while minorities more frequently reported fear of being a guinea pig (22% vs. 14%) and fear of financial burden (17% vs. 8%) although these were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Racial disparities exist at various aspects of cancer-related knowledge resources, gaps and needs. Minorities have more widespread knowledge gaps and depend on more resources for cancer-related knowledge, which may affect their clinical trial participation and preferences. There appears to be mistrust and misinformation guiding minority patient's understanding, leading to more widespread fears of clinical trials. Knowledge gaps and misinformation needs to be addressed in order to achieve higher participation in clinical trials in general, and among minority patients in particular. Disclosures Manochakian: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Guardant health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novocure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ailawadhi:Phosplatin: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria.

Background: HIT has the potential to improve the health of individuals and the performance of providers, yielding improved quality, cost savings, and greater engagement by patients. Minorities face a variety of financial and nonfinancial barriers to obtaining appropriate and timely health care. Studying the behavior of minority patients will help understand the specific challenges to HIT adoption and engagement in patients and their caregivers. We undertook a patient-reported survey to explore these factors and understand any underlying disparities. Methods: A 21-question paper-based anonymous questionnaire addressing the responder's attitudes, understanding and needs of the electronic medical record (EMR) was used. This was administered to adult patients with lymphoid malignancies and their caregivers at two campuses of Mayo Clinic in Florida (San Pablo and inner-city; Riverside). Categorical and continuous variables between white and minority responders as well as minority responders from the two campuses were compared using the Chi-square test and U Mann Whitney with a significance level of 0.05. Results: The survey was completed by 1004 patients and caregivers. Average time taken to complete the survey was approximately 11 minutes. Of the responders, 716 (71%) were whites and 271 (27%) were minorities, with race-ethnicity not reported by 17 (2%). Among minorities, 30% (n=80) were seen at San Pablo and 64% (n=173) at the Riverside campus, with 6% at a multiple myeloma patient-caregiver symposium. Whites were older (median age 66 vs. 62 years, p&lt;0.001) and had higher education (undergraduate or higher 60% vs. 52%, p=0.023) as compared to minorities. Minority survey responders had lesser access to a computer (84% vs. 92%, p&lt;0.001) or a smartphone (85% vs. 89%, p=0.08). (Figure 1a) Exploring HIT awareness showed that only 51% of minorities were registered to use the EMR as compared to 72% whites (p&lt;0.001) and a lesser number of minorities even knew that they could access their medical records electronically (81% vs. 92%, p&lt;0.001). even among those registered to use the EMR, 13% minorities reported never using the EMR as compared to 4% whites (p&lt;0.001). Encouragingly, a higher willingness to learn about and use the EMR was noted among minorities who were more interested in knowing how to access the EMR (43% vs. 36%, p=0.04), would increase the use of EMR if someone explained how to use it (17% vs. 10%, p=0.002), and if someone explained about test results (14% vs. 6%, p&lt;0.001). (Figure 1b) Comparing minorities among the two campuses, those from the San Pablo campus were older (67.5 yrs. vs. 57 yrs., P&lt;0.001), had higher level of education (undergraduate or higher in 66% vs. 47%, p=0.005) and a higher number had access to a computer (94% vs. 78%, P=0.001) as compared to those from the inner-city Riverside. (Figure 2a) Minorities from the Riverside campus were less likely to be aware of the current HIT EMR (75% vs. 93%, p&lt;0.001), were significantly less likely to have registered for the patient EMR portal (38% vs. 76%, p&lt;0.001) and never used the EMR even if registered for it (22% vs. 7%, p=0.01) as against those from the San Pablo campus. Minorities at the Riverside campus had a higher interest in knowing how to access the EMR (47% vs. 33%, p=0.03). Linguistic barriers were more striking in the inner-city Riverside campus where a higher proportion of minority survey responders noted that it would help if the EMR was in their primary language (66% vs. 48%, p=0.006). (Figure 2b) Conclusions: Minorities continue to struggle with suboptimal utilization of healthcare system including that of HIT. There are barriers related to access, awareness, language and understanding of HIT that prevent the integration and participation of racial-ethnic minorities in the healthcare system to a full extent. It is important to qualify the minorities better, since there exist HIT utilization disparities even within the minorities from different areas representing socioeconomic and demographic differences. Efforts need to be made at several levels to help the minorities overcome educational, access and linguistic barriers so that they can benefit from advancements in the healthcare system. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy. Manochakian:Novocure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Guardant Health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chanan-Khan:AbbVie: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Employment; Ascentage: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding.

Background: Survival of patients with MM has improved significantly over recent years due to therapeutic advancements. Population-level data has shown that a substantial proportion of MM patients may die early after their diagnosis and real-world evidence regarding early mortality (≤6 months after MM diagnosis) has been conflicting. We evaluated the trends, causes and predictors of early mortality among newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) patients in the real world. Methods: We used Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database, to identify all adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) who were diagnosed of MM from 1975 to 2015. Data on age, gender, geographical regions, year of diagnosis, survival time, vital status at 6 months after diagnosis and cause of death (COD) were extracted. Ages were categorized as quartiles while period of diagnosis for multivariate analysis were categorized by running a joinpoint analysis separately for the all-cause and myeloma-specific mortality. To look at trends in early mortality, we estimated proportion of deaths for each year and plotted it as a scatterplot against the year of diagnosis and fitted it in the join point regression model by applying the NCI's Join point Regression Program, Version 4.5.0.1. By this method we identified the year(s) when a trend change was produced, calculated the annual percentage change (APC) in rates between trend-change points, and the average annual percentage change (AAPC) in the whole period studied. To correct for known errors with COD attribution, we applied a special COD variable which has been recently developed by the SEER program to indicate if the death was due to the primary cancer diagnosis or other causes. A multivariate analysis was conducted to analyze the predictors of all-cause and myeloma-specific mortality within 6 months by fitting into logistic regression model. Results: Of 90,975 NDMM patients, early mortality due to any cause was noted in 18,810 (20.7%). For the whole cohort, median age was 68 years, majority of the patients were males (53.1%), of non-Hispanic white (NHW) race/ethnicity (65.5%) and were diagnosed in SEER registries in the western region (53.9%). An overall survival (OS) of ≤6 months was seen for approximately 22% of NHW but 18% of non-Hispanic blacks (NHB) and Hispanics. OS of ≤6 months was seen in 10% of patients in the first quartile of age (&lt;60 years) as compared to 36% of patients in the 4th quartile (≥78 years). By geographical regions, 23.3% of MM patients in the Midwest had ≤6-month OS as compared to only 18.4% in the Northeast. The most common early mortality COD was MM in 74.7% of the patients, followed by cardiovascular (11.9%), other (8.8%) and infectious causes (3.1%). The overall pattern of COD at 6 months was similar to COD at any time in the whole cohort. Joinpoint regression analysis of trends data resulted in 1 joinpoint for all-cause 6-month mortality while 2 joinpoints were noticed for myeloma-specific mortality (Figure 1). A steep decline in mortality was noticed in the more recent time periods for both, all-cause (2006-2015) and myeloma-specific (2003-2015) mortality rates with an AAPC of 3.93 (95%CI p&lt;0.001) for all-cause and 3.95 (95%CI p&lt;0.001) for myeloma-specific mortality. Prior to 2006, the decrease in all-cause mortality was only modest whereas decrease in myeloma-specific mortality witnessed a sharp decline from 1975-1987 as well. On MVA, advanced age (p&lt;0.001), NHW race/ethnicity and Midwest geographic region (p&lt;0.001) were associated with higher likelihood of mortality while female gender (p&lt;0.001), more recent period of diagnosis (p&lt;0.001), and "other" races (not NHW, NHB or Hispanics) (p&lt;0.001) were associated with lower risk of mortality. Conclusion: Our results show that early mortality due to MM remains high despite therapeutic improvements and there are significant gender, racial and geographic disparities for this phenomenon. However, significant declines in all-cause and MM-specific early mortality in the more recent times are promising. The risk of early mortality is higher among men, older patients, NHW and Midwest region. A focus on interventions to reduce early mortality, including early diagnosis, use of efficacious anti-MM therapy and aggressive supportive care should be directed at groups with high-risk for early mortality from MM. Disclosures Chanan-Khan: Millennium: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jansen: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic: Employment. Ailawadhi:Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Multiple myeloma (MM) treatment has advanced significantly over the last 2 decades. In most patients, the disease course has been altered from early fatality to chronic morbidity with multiple lines of treatment. The MM treatment paradigm has shifted toward treating patients before end-organ damage occurs. Thus, timeliness of treatment initiation in this era might improve patient outcomes. This is the first report to our knowledge analyzing disparities and trends in treatment timeliness of patients with MM using the National Cancer Database. Multiple factors affected the timing of treatment initiation in MM and disparities were found. We noted that initiation of treatment was delayed in women (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.2) and blacks (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.28; reference, whites) and in patients diagnosed in more recent years (2012-2015; OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.22; reference, 2004-2007). Patients were likely to start treatment earlier if they were age ≥ 80 years (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.9; reference, age < 60 years), were uninsured (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.91; reference, private insurance), had Medicaid (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.95; reference, private insurance), were treated in a comprehensive community cancer program (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.77; reference, community cancer program), lived in a location other than the US Northeast, or had a higher Charlson comorbidity score. Patient education and income levels did not affect time to treatment initiation. Particular aspects of these disparities could be explained by our current health care system and insurance rules, whereas others need to be investigated more deeply.