Cardozo, Fabiola Coromoto

Abstract Background: Racial disparities in outcomes of cancer patients have been reported. Access to comprehensive cancer centers is associated with improved overall survival (OS) but racial/ethnic minorities may have a disparate access to such care. While the impact of treatment facility volume on outcomes has been evaluated, outcomes of centers with minority-predominant patient population have not been studied. We compared demographic profiles, facility level data and OS of patients treated at minority-predominant facilities to facilities that treated predominantly non-Hispanic Whites (NHW) with non-DLBCL. Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify all non-DLBCL patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2015. "Minority-treating facilities" were defined as facilities in the top decile by proportion for initial treatment of non-Hispanic African-Americans (NHAA), Hispanics and other races. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to compare sociodemographic and clinical factors influencing outcomes between minority treating and non-minority treating facilities. A subgroup analysis stratified by race/ethnicity was also conducted to study the effect of treating facilities on the outcome of NHWs and minorities separately. Results: Of 1339 total facilities, 123 (9.1%) qualified as minority treating. Of 207,239 eligible patients in NCDB, 18,719 (9.03%) received treatment at the minority-treating facilities and of these, 11,190 (~60%) belonged to the minority races. Overall, 4.5% (6,988/156,664) NHWs and 30% (11,190/37,639) minorities received treatment at the minority-treating facilities. Several demographic and facility level characteristics were significantly different among the patients treated at minority-treating facilities as compared to non-minority treating facilities. Overall, significantly higher number of patients in minority-treating hospitals had lower income and education, had Medicaid coverage or lack of insurance. The OS of patients in minority treating facilities was significantly worse as compared to non-minority facilities (Figures). On multivariate analysis, patients who received treatment at minority-treating facilities were at 10% (HR=1.10, 95% CI: 1.06-1.14 p<0.001) higher risk of mortality as compared to those treated at the non-minority treating facilities. On multivariate analysis, NHAA (30% increased risk) and 'other races' (9% increased risk) were at significantly higher risk of mortality as compared to the NHW (Table 2). To study the effect of treatment at minority-treating facilities on OS among the patients of same race/ethnicity group, a multivariate analysis was also run separately for NHW and racial minorities. The NHWs who received treatment at minority-treating facilities were at 13% higher risk of death (HR=1.13, 95% CI: 1.08-1.19 p<0.001) as compared to NHWs who were treated at non-minority treating facilities. Similarly, the racial minorities who received treatment at minority treating facilities were at 8% higher risk of death (HR=1.08, 95% CI: 1.03-1.19 p=0.003) as compared to those who received treatment at the nonminority treating facilities. Conclusions:Outcomes of patients who received treatment at minority treating facilities was significantly worse than those at non-minority treating facilities. This was true for NHWs and racial minorities separately as well. Several demographic and facility level characteristics were significantly different in the two groups however OS remained worse after adjusting for them. Causes of poor outcomes at minority-treating facilities must be analyzed to mitigate them and improve outcomes for all. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Clinical trials are fundamental to advance therapeutics systematically and improve patient outcomes. Despite this, enrollment on clinical trials remains dismal in the United States (US) and is a constant focus of healthcare policy. We studied distribution of clinical trials for B-cell malignancies over time across the US and unique clinical trial opportunities i.e. individual clinical trials for the given diagnosis at a site that patients may have access to participate. Methods: We abstracted data from clinicaltrials.gov for all trials that had non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) or multiple myeloma (MM) as an inclusion indication between 1999-2018. Clinical trial characteristics and distribution over US geographical divisions (West, Midwest, Northeast, and South) were studied, and differences were assessed by Chi-square test. Results: A total of 1930 trials were identified (NHL: 982, MM: 948), of which 483 were recruiting at the time of data abstraction (NHL: 250, MM: 233). Over the past 2 decades, 182691 patients were enrolled on the various trials (NHL: 81592, MM: 101099). Trials by phase of study included phase 1: 629, phase 1/2: 316, phase 2: 813, phase 2/3: 11 and phase 3: 161. Number of trials by phase separated by NHL and MM are shown in Figure 1. Of these, 197 trials were randomized (NHL: 67, MM: 130). Geographical distribution of trials by diagnosis type is shown in Figure 2. A total of 31806 unique trial opportunities were noted for MM and NHL, of which 9,513 were international and 22,293 were in the US, with a geographical distribution of 5080 in West, 8198 in Midwest, 3944 in Northeast, and 5071 in South. 4,883 of the unique trial opportunities were available at NCI/NCCN accredited sites and 17,410 were at non-NCI/NCCN sites in the US. Treatment characteristics of the trials included monoclonal antibodies in 1218, other targeted agents in 2641, stem cell transplant in 526, and other agents in 517 trials with several trials utilizing more than one of these therapeutic options. There was no statistically significant difference in the distribution of clinical trials by phase of study across various US geographical regions for MM (p=0.71), NHL (p=0.98) or combined MM+NHL (p=0.16). On the other hand, unique trial opportunities were significantly different by study phase and geographical distribution for MM, NHL or MM+NHL (all p<0.001) (Figure 3). Conclusions: Widespread access to clinical trials within a cancer diagnosis is imperative for generalizability of trial results. In a comprehensive, national analysis we noted that while it may appear that clinical trials are available across the US, sites where they are open are distributed unevenly, giving rise to a disparity in access to evidence-based therapeutic advancements for patients. Disclosures Ailawadhi: Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Sher:Affimed: Research Funding.