IEMs in adults

J. Walter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10545-007-9983-5

IF: 4.7501

2007-09-21

Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The association between social vulnerability and clinical trials awareness and participation: A HINTS-SEER analysis.

Rishi Sekar,Lindsey A. Herrel,Kristian Stensland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.4_suppl.546

IF: 45.3

2024-01-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:546 Background: Clinical trials are integral to science and can ensure access to standard of care treatments, providing benefits to individual participants and society. Unfortunately, fewer than 5% of eligible cancer patients participate in clinical trials, and large facets of the population remain starkly underrepresented, excluding them from these benefits and potentially compromising the generalizability of biomedical knowledge. Adverse social determinants of health (SDOH), or social vulnerability, may affect awareness and the decision to participate in a clinical trial, especially in underrepresented or historically excluded populations. In this study, we evaluate the association between population-level SDOH and clinical trials awareness and participation. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the 2021 Health Information National Trends – Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (HINTS-SEER), a nationally representative survey of 1,234 cancer survivors. The primary outcomes of interest included awareness of clinical trials “as a possible treatment option for your cancer” and “participation in a clinical trial for treatment of your cancer”. The primary exposure was the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (CDC SVI), which was linked to each survey respondent by ZIP code of residence. Survey weighted multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between SVI quintile and clinical trial awareness and participation, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education level. Results: This survey weighted analysis represents a population of over 400,000 patients. Only 15.1% of patients were aware of clinical trials, with the most socially vulnerable patients having lower rates of awareness compared to the least socially vulnerable patients (8.5% vs. 17.9%). Similarly, only 7.7% of patients participated in a clinical trial, with the most socially vulnerable patients having lower rates of participation compared to the least socially vulnerable patients (3.0% vs. 10.1%). On multivariable analysis, the most socially vulnerable patients had significantly lower odds of clinical trials awareness (OR 0.43, CI 0.20 – 0.94) and clinical trials participation (OR 0.15, CI 0.03 – 0.73) compared to the least socially vulnerable patients, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education level. Conclusions: In this analysis of HINTS-SEER, a contemporary and novel survey of cancer survivors, rates of clinical trial awareness and participation remain concerningly low. Notably, adverse SDOH has a strong influence, with the most vulnerable patients being far less likely to be aware of or participate in a clinical trial. With the goal of achieving equitable cancer care, identifying and alleviating barriers to clinical trial participation, especially those rooted in SDOH, is critical.

oncology
Disparities in prostate cancer mortality and clinical trial availability across vulnerable populations.

Rishi Sekar,Todd Matthew Morgan,Lauren P. Wallner,Kristian Stensland,Lindsey A. Herrel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.4_suppl.24

IF: 45.3

2024-02-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:24 Background: Clinical trials provide high-level evidence and test novel therapies that have significantly improved cancer outcomes. However, disparities in clinical trial participation and cancer mortality persist across race/ethnicity and vulnerable populations, notably in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Adverse social determinants of health (SDOH) and systemic barriers may underlie these disparities. Identifying and overcoming these barriers may improve access to and representation in clinical trials, thereby promoting equitable advancement and applicability of science. For these reasons, we evaluate the association between clinical trial availability, cancer mortality, and population-level SDOH in PCa. Methods: Using custom data linkage from ClinicalTrials.gov, Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Registry, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), we performed a cross-sectional analysis of county-level PCa clinical trial data, cancer incidence and mortality rates, and population-level SDOH. We included Phase 2 and Phase 3 interventional PCa clinical trials with start dates from 2007 to 2022. The total number of clinical trials over the study period was calculated per county and population-adjusted for 100,000 residents. Counties were stratified into quintiles based on SVI (i.e., least vulnerable to most vulnerable). Population-adjusted clinical trial availability, cancer incidence, and cancer mortality were compared across SVI quintiles. Multivariable logistic and linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between SVI and clinical trial availability and cancer mortality, respectively. Results: The mean number of PCa trials per 100,000 residents was 25.6, with the most vulnerable counties having fewer clinical trials compared to the least vulnerable counties (mean 18.1 vs. 50.0, p<0.05). Further, the most vulnerable counties had a lower PCa incidence rate per 100,000 residents (mean 393.8 vs. 411.7, p<0.05), but a higher PCa mortality rate per 100,000 residents (mean 85.7 vs. 72.0, p<0.05). On multivariable regression analysis, the most vulnerable counties were associated with significantly decreased odds of having any PCa clinical trial (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2 – 0.4) and significantly increased PCa mortality (10.8, 95% CI 7.4 – 14.3), while the presence of any PCa clinical trial was associated with significantly decreased PCa mortality (-6.9, 95% CI -9.1 – -4.7). Conclusions: The most vulnerable counties were far less likely to have any PCa clinical trials despite having a significantly higher PCa mortality rate. The presence of a PCa clinical trial was associated with a reduction in PCa mortality. These vulnerable counties represent scientifically underserved populations that may benefit from equity-driven clinical trial enrollment and cancer care infrastructure expansion.

oncology
Mediators of racial and ethnic inequities in clinical trial participation among patients with cancer, 2011-2023

Jenny S Guadamuz,Xiaoliang Wang,Ivy Altomare,Wendy Camelo Castillo,Somnath Sarkar,Ronac Mamtani,Gregory S Calip

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkae085

2024-09-02

Abstract:Background: Although racially and ethnically minoritized populations are less likely to participate in cancer trials, it is unknown whether social determinants of health (SDOH) explain these inequities. Here we identify SDOH factors that contribute to racial and ethnic inequities in clinical trial participation among patients with 22 common cancers. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used electronic health record data (2011-2023) linked to neighborhood (US Census tract) data from multiple sources. Patients were followed from diagnosis to clinical study drug receipt (proxy for trial participation), death, or last recorded activity. Associations were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for clinical factors (year of diagnosis, age, sex, performance status, disease stage, cancer type). To elucidate which area-level SDOH underlie racial and ethnic inequities, mediation analysis was performed using nonlinear multiple additive regression tree models. Results: This study included 250 105 patients (64.7% non-Latinx White, 8.9% non-Latinx Black, 5.2% Latinx). Black and Latinx patients were more likely to live in economically or socially marginalized areas (eg, disproportionately minoritized [measure of segregation], limited English proficiency, low vehicle ownership) than White patients. Black (3.7%; hazard ratio = 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.52 to 0.60) and Latinx patients (4.4%; hazard ratio = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.58 to 0.69) were less likely to participate in trials than White patients (6.3%). Fewer patients in economically or socially marginalized neighborhoods participated in trials. Mediators explained 62.2% (95% CI = 49.5% to 74.8%) of participation inequities between Black and White patients; area-level SDOH-including segregation (29.9%, 95% CI = 21.2% to 38.6%) and vehicle ownership (11.6%, 95% CI = 7.0% to 16.1%)-were the most important mediators. Similarly, Latinx-White participation inequities were mediated (65.1%, 95% CI = 49.8% to 80.3%) by area-level SDOH, such as segregation (39.8%, 95% CI = 28.3% to 51.3%), limited English proficiency (11.6%, 95% CI = 2.8% to 20.4%), and vehicle ownership (9.6%, 95% CI = 5.8% to 13.5%). Conclusions: To improve racial and ethnic diversity in cancer trials, efforts to address barriers related to adverse neighborhood SDOH factors are necessary.
Association of US county-level social vulnerability index with breast, colorectal, and lung cancer screening, incidence, and mortality rates across US counties

Akhil Mehta,Won Jin Jeon,Gayathri Nagaraj

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1422475

2024-08-07

Abstract:Background: Despite being the second leading cause of death in the United States, cancer disproportionately affects underserved communities due to multiple social factors like economic instability and limited healthcare access, leading to worse survival outcomes. This cross-sectional database study involves real-world data to explore the relationship between the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), a measure of community resilience to disasters, and disparities in screening, incidence, and mortality rates of breast, colorectal, and lung cancer. The SVI encompasses four themes: socioeconomic status, household composition & disability, minority status & language, and housing type & transportation. Materials and methods: Using county-level data, this study compared cancer metrics in U.S. counties and the impact of high and low SVI. Two-sided statistical analysis was performed to compare SVI tertiles and cancer screening, incidence, and mortality rates. The outcomes were analyzed with logistic regression to determine the odds ratio of SVI counties having cancer metrics at or above the median. Results: Our study encompassed 3,132 United States counties. From publicly available SVI data, we demonstrated that high SVI scores correlate with low breast and colorectal cancer screening rates, along with high incidence and mortality rates for all three types of cancers. County level SVI has impact on incidence rates of cancers; breast cancer rates were lowest in high SVI counties, while colorectal and lung cancer rates were highest in the same counties. Age-adjusted mortality rates for all three cancers increased across SVI tertiles. After risk adjustment, a 10-point SVI increase correlated with lower screening and higher mortality rates. Conclusion: In conclusion, our study establishes a significant correlation between SVI and cancer metrics, highlighting the potential to identify marginalized communities with health disparities for targeted healthcare initiatives. It underscores the need for further longitudinal studies on bridging the gap in overall cancer care in the United States.
Defining the Role of Social Vulnerability in Treatment and Survival in Localized Colon Cancer

Jennie Meier,Gilbert Murimwa,Mithin Nehrubabu,Adam Yopp,Lisa DiMartino,Amit G Singal,Herbert J Zeh,Patricio Polanco,Amit G. Singal,Herbert J. Zeh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000006282

IF: 13.787

2024-03-28

Annals of Surgery

Abstract:Objective: To determine whether variations in Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) are associated with disparities in colon cancer surgery and mortality. Summary Background Data: Colon cancer mortality is influenced by health care access, which is affected by individual and community-level factors. Prior studies have not used the SVI to compare surgical access and survival in localized colon cancer patients. Further, it is unclear if those above 65 years are more vulnerable to variations in SVI. Methods: We queried the Texas and California Cancer Registries from 2004-2017 to identify patients with localized colonic adenocarcinoma and categorized patients into <65 and ≥65 years. Our outcomes were survival and access to surgical intervention. The independent variable was census tract social vulnerability index, with higher scores indicating more social vulnerability. We used multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards for analysis. Results: We included 73,923 patients with a mean age of 68.6 years (SD 13.0), mean SVI of 47.2 (SD 27.6), and 51.1% male. After adjustment, increasing SVI was associated with reduced odds of undergoing surgery (OR 0.996; 95% CI 0.995-0.997; P < 0.0001 and increased mortality (HR 1.002; 95% CI 1.001-1.002; P < 0.0001). Patients < 65 years were more sensitive to variation in SVI. Conclusions: Increased social vulnerability was associated with reduced odds of receiving surgery for early-stage colon cancer as well as increased mortality. These findings amplify the need for policy changes at the local, state, and federal level to address community-level vulnerability to improve access to surgical care and reduce mortality.

surgery
Disparities in gynecologic oncology clinical trial availability in the United States: A state-level analysis.

Emily Meichun Ko,Elizabeth Tubridy,Sebastian Spataro Solorzano,Fiona Simpkins,Anna Jo Bodurtha Smith,Mary Boland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e23128

IF: 45.3

2024-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e23128 Background: Disparities in minority participation in gynecologic cancer clinical trials is well documented. FDA guidance stipulates geographic informed analyses to reduce barriers to trial participation. We performed a geographical analyses of gynecologic cancer clinical trials in the United States relative to racial distribution and social vulnerability indices to identify areas of increased need. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of NIH ClinicalTrials.gov by retrieving all trials first posted 1/1/2013 through to 1/10/2024. We searched for ovarian, uterine, cervical, endometrial, vaginal/vulvar and gynecological cancer. We reviewed enrollment criteria to exclude non-gynecological cancers (1643 trials) or non-invasive gynecological conditions (224 trials). We aggregated census data, state-level total population size, percent Non-Hispanic White (NHW), and the FEMA Expected Annual Loss per state as a measure of social vulnerability. Using R statistical software (v 4.3.1), we measured the association between these variables and the number of gynecological trials per 100,000 persons using Pearson’s correlation. Results: We identified 3,428 trials, filtered down to 1,561 invasive cancer trials. The most common trials were ovarian (911, 58.3%) and cervical (438, 28.0%), followed by endometrial (385, 24.6%), uterine (158, 10.1%), vulva-vaginal (78, 4.99%), and 7.62% genetic-based. Texas had the highest number of trials (501) followed by California (454) and New York (427). The state with the highest population-adjusted number of trials was South Dakota (8.57 trials per 100,000 persons), followed by Rhode Island at 8.38 per 100,000 persons. California, Mississippi, and Puerto Rico had the lowest number of trials per 100,000 persons with 1.148, 0.979, 0.466 respectively. States/territories with greater than 4 trials per 100,000 were comprised of populations that were > 50% NHW. The correlation between the state-level percentage of NHW in 2020 and the number of trials per 100,000 persons was p = 0.057 indicating that there was a correlation between Whiteness at the state-level and trial availability. We found that states with higher FEMA expected annual loss had lower numbers of gynecological trials per 100,000 persons (p < 0.001). Conclusions: We found a disparity in the geographical distribution of trials available for gynecological cancers that was correlated with racial disparities and social vulnerability. Efforts to increase decentralization of trials and improve access and availability of gynecologic cancer clinical trials are necessary to increase equity for minority representation in clinical trials at the national level.

oncology
Social determinants of health and treatment outcomes among a retrospective cohort of patients receiving immunotherapy for cancer.

Catherine A. Elko,Nathalie C. Dragnev,Joni Evans,John Hunting,Andrew Thomas Faucheux,Eric Olson,Jimmy Ruiz,Thomas William Lycan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13744

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13744 Background: Disparities due to socioeconomic status persist in the treatment of cancer. Newer therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), offer easier administration, lower risk of toxicity, and may improve accessibility compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Prior studies on ICI outcomes have shown mixed results at the county level, and there is a need to investigate social determinants of health at a more granular level. Our study aims to compare long-term ICI outcomes between socioeconomic groups at the census tract level among patients with cancer. Methods: The investigators compiled data from 2/1/2011 to 4/7/2022 on patients who received at least one dose of an ICI at a comprehensive cancer center and its outreach clinics to create a retrospective patient registry. Investigators used a secure, cloud-based REDCap registry, validated it with data quality rules, and resolved discrepancies. Clinical research specialists at Vasta Global captured most of the data. Investigators correlated patients’ ZIP codes with 2010 US Department of Agriculture Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) classifications and census tracts with 2020 Center for Disease Control Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) data. The univariate analyses used the ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests, chi-square tests, and Kaplan-Meier methods. The multivariate analyses used Cox and logistic regressions, adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, type of cancer, smoking status, age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index, and other comorbidities. Results: Our cohort consisted of 1,807 patients who were an average of 66 years old, predominantly male (60.8%), white (84%), non-Hispanic (98%), and had lung cancer (45.1%) as the most common tumor type. Univariate analyses found no associations between either RUCA or SVI and overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), immune-related adverse events (irAE), or time to irAE. For RUCA, multivariate analysis found that rural location of residence was associated with shorter PFS (all covariates, p 0.0386). For SVI, multivariate analysis showed no significant association with OS, PFS, number of irAEs, or time until irAE (including high-grade irAEs). Conclusions: Rural residence by ZIP code was associated with shorter PFS, indicating that there may be decreased access to ICI for these patients. However, the overall findings suggest similar ICI treatment outcomes across patients with widely variable social determinants of health by census tract. Further research is needed to understand how newer therapies can be best positioned to overcome disparities in cancer care.

oncology
Social Vulnerability Index and Survivorship after Colorectal Cancer Resection

Sabran J Masoud,Jein E Seo,Eden Singh,Regina L Woody,Makala Muhammed,Wendy Webster,Christopher R Mantyh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/xcs.0000000000000961

2024-03-15

Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Race and socioeconomic status incompletely identify patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) at the highest risk for screening, treatment, and mortality disparities. Social vulnerability index (SVI) was designed to delineate neighborhoods requiring greater support after external health stressors, summarizing socioeconomic, household, and transportation barriers by census tract. SVI is implicated in lower cancer center use and increased complications after colectomy, but its influence on long-term prognosis is unknown. Herein, we characterized relationships between SVI and CRC survival. STUDY DESIGN: Patients undergoing resection of stage I to IV CRC from January 2010 to May 2023 within an academic health system were identified. Clinicopathologic characteristics were abstracted using institutional National Cancer Database and NSQIP. Addresses from electronic health records were geocoded to SVI. Overall survival and cancer-specific survival were compared using Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods. RESULTS: A total of 872 patients were identified, comprising 573 (66%) patients with colon tumor and 299 (34%) with rectal tumor. Patients in the top SVI quartile (32%) were more likely to be Black (41% vs 13%, p < 0.001), carry less private insurance (39% vs 48%, p = 0.02), and experience greater comorbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status III: 86% vs 71%, p < 0.001), without significant differences by acuity, stage, or CRC therapy. In multivariable analysis, high SVI remained associated with higher all-cause (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.96, p < 0.01) and cancer-specific survival mortality (hazard ratio 1.71, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.67, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: High SVI was independently associated with poorer prognosis after CRC resection beyond the perioperative period. Acknowledging needs for multi-institutional evaluation and elaborating causal mechanisms, neighborhood-level vulnerability may inform targeted outreach in CRC care.

surgery
Disparities in clinical trial participation: Survey of patients with cancer at an academic medical center.

Katie Moreland,Melinda Butsch Kovacic,Shesh Rai,Davendra Sohal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13720

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13720 Background: This study aims to understand cancer patients' attitudes toward clinical trials and identify barriers to participation, because low participation, especially among minorities, perpetuates poor outcomes and disparities. Methods: A survey was conducted at the University of Cincinnati Cancer Center (UCCC) to assess patients' experiences and attitudes toward clinical trials, previous trial participation, and future trial interest. The pen-and-paper survey, administered by a coordinator (KM), took 5-10 minutes. Frequency tables and Chi-square tests in SAS summarized the findings. Results: From April to August 2023, a survey was offered to solid tumor patients at UCCC during their clinic visits. Participation was voluntary; 300 patients completed the survey. The cohort had 56% females and 77% Whites, with equal educational levels up to (51%) and beyond high school (49%), but with notable racial differences (Table). Index cancer diagnoses were lung (15%), head/neck (11%), breast (10%), colorectal (8%), pancreatic (8%), ovarian (6%), prostate (6%), gastroesophageal (6%), endometrial (5%), and various others (25%). Of 300 participants, only 32% had ever been asked to participate in a clinical trial; more Whites vs non-Whites; 84% chose to participate, with notable differences by race (Table). These differences were not attributable to education or sex. Of the 81 patients who chose to participate, 96% participated to gain access to new treatments, and 75% participated to contribute to research; only 11% did it for financial incentives. There were also differences by race among the 15 who declined participation (Table). Of the 203 who had never been asked to participate in a trial, 71% indicated that they would be willing to participate in the future, but with a strong sex:race interaction (Table). Nearly all (99%) indicated that they would participate to have access to new treatments; many (57%) wanted to contribute to research. Conclusions: This survey shows that many solid tumor patients are not offered clinical trials, and reveals racial disparities in patient willingness, especially among non-White men. Promisingly, there's a notable readiness among patients to join trials for treatment access and research. Efforts should focus on improving clinical trial portfolios, enhanced outreach, and target population education and trust-building. [Table: see text]

oncology
Abstract A128: A novel approach to understanding disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment

Weichuan Dong,Jamie Shoag,Tamila Kindwall-Keller,Ali Kara,John Shanahan,Debora Bruno,Johnie Rose,Siran Koroukian,Richard Hoehn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp23-a128

2023-12-01

Abstract:Abstract Background: Cancer patients who participate in clinical trials have access to novel therapies, increased monitoring, and potentially improved survival. However, this access is not universal. Striking disparities in clinical trial enrollment have been linked to race, sex, and geography. However, studies on this topic are limited due to a lack of patient-specific socioeconomic data. Methods: This analysis used a novel linkage of administrative patient data from University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center (Cleveland, Ohio) linked to the LexisNexis Socioeconomic Health Attributes, a robust dataset containing 442 patient-specific attributes gathered from public records regarding income, education, housing stability, property ownership and value, social support, and many others. We included cancer patients aged 18-75 years at the time of the latest cancer diagnosis (before trial enrollment if patient was enrolled) during 2007-2022. Because of the substantial differences in the demographic and clinical characteristics between the trial and non-trial patients, we applied the propensity score matching technique to one-to-one match all trial patients to non-trial patients by age, sex, race/ethnicity, cancer type, and year of the latest cancer diagnosis. Next, we applied the classification and regression tree (CART) machine learning algorithm to identify “phenotypes”, or combinations of patient socioeconomic characteristics that predict their trial enrollment status. We additionally performed the random forest algorithm to determine whether our CART model captured the most important variables in predicting trial enrollment. Results: We identified 28,671 cancer patients with a mean and median age of 60 and 62 years. Of those, 2,479 patients were enrolled in trials, and a corresponding 2,479 non-trial patients were matched. We identified 9 phenotypes of trial enrollment from the results of CART. The percentage of patients enrolled in trials ranges from 30% to 80%. Patients belonging to the highest-enrollment phenotype were identified by their estimated annual income exceeding $50,000, higher fraud-risk level, and age under 61 years. Patients falling into the lowest-enrollment phenotype were characterized by an estimated annual income below $30,000, an estimated home value below $243,000, and no college attendance. Variables identified by CART were also among the top-ranked variables in the random forest regarding their variable. Other important variables identified by random forest include, whether the patient ever registered to vote, risk of not being motivated to manage one's own health, and business records. Conclusion: Compared to community-level data, the use of patient-specific socioeconomic data provides a more granular understanding of clinical trial disparities. The use of machine learning methods of CART and random forest offers a promising avenue for future disparities research. This novel approach will deepen our understanding of cancer disparities and improve our ability to intervene and improve care for our most vulnerable patients. Citation Format: Weichuan Dong, Jamie Shoag, Tamila Kindwall-Keller, Ali Kara, John Shanahan, Debora Bruno, Johnie Rose, Siran Koroukian, Richard Hoehn. A novel approach to understanding disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 16th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2023 Sep 29-Oct 2;Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(12 Suppl):Abstract nr A128.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Social Determinants of Health and the Availability of Cancer Clinical Trials in the United States

Rishi Robert Sekar,Lindsey Allison Herrel,Kristian Donald Stensland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.10162

2024-05-08

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:This cohort study investigates whether county-level social determinants of health are associated with cancer clinical trial availability in the United States.

medicine, general & internal
Assessing social vulnerabilities of salivary gland cancer care, prognosis, and treatment in the United States

Govind S. Bindra,David J. Fei‐Zhang,Atharva Desai,John Maddalozzo,Stephanie S. Smith,Urjeet A. Patel,Daniel C. Chelius,Jill N. D'Souza,Jeffrey C. Rastatter,M. Boyd Gillespie,Anthony M. Sheyn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.27783

2024-04-24

Head & Neck

Abstract:Background Salivary gland cancers (SGC)‐social determinants of health (SDoH) investigations are limited by narrow scopes of SGC‐types and SDoH. This Social Vulnerability Index (SVI)‐study hypothesized that socioeconomic status (SES) most contributed to SDoH‐associated SGC‐disparities. Methods Retrospective cohort of 24 775 SGCs assessed SES, minority‐language status (ML), household composition (HH), housing‐transportation (HT), and composite‐SDoH measured by the SVI via regressions with surveillance and survival length, late‐staging presentation, and treatment (surgery, radio‐, chemotherapy) receipt. Results Increasing social vulnerability showed decreases in surveillance/survival; increased odds of advanced‐presenting‐stage (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.17), chemotherapy receipt (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.23); decreased odds of primary surgery (0.89, 0.84, 0.94), radiotherapy (0.91, 0.85, 0.97, p = 0.003) for SGCs. Trends were differentially correlated with SES, ML, HH, and HT‐vulnerabilities. Conclusions Through quantifying SDoH‐derived SGC‐disparities, the SVI can guide targeted initiatives against SDoH that elicit the most detrimental associations for specific sociodemographics.

surgery,otorhinolaryngology
A Cross-Sectional Survey of Cancer Patients at a Midwest Academic Medical Center

Katie Moreland,Melinda Butsch Kovacic,Shesh Rai,Davendra Sohal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31090396

2024-09-11

Current Oncology

Abstract:Research conducted on homogenous populations can lead to biased and misleading findings, impeding the development of effective interventions and treatments for diverse populations. Low participation among minority groups further leads to disparities in access to innovative cancer care and treatment outcomes associated with trial participation. To better understand cancer patients' attitudes and willingness to participate in clinical trials, solid tumor patients attending their clinic visits were invited to complete a survey. The survey included questions on demographics, previous trial participation, and future trial interest. Responses were analyzed with frequency tables and chi-square tests. Of 300 participants, only 96 (32%) were asked to participate in a clinical trial. Of these, 81 (84%) chose to participate and 15 (16%) did not. There were notable differences by race but not gender or education level. Of the 204 who had never been asked to participate, 70% indicated that they would be willing to participate in future, and there was a strong sex–race interaction. Non-White males were the most hesitant group. Of 204, 99% indicated that they would participate to access new treatments, and 57% would participate to contribute to research overall. This study shows that many solid tumor patients undergoing treatment are not offered clinical trials. Racial differences in attitudes toward trial participation are evident. Nonetheless, many patients are willing to participate in trials to access innovative treatments and to support research. Culturally relevant outreach to build trust with minority groups is needed to increase overall participation in clinical trials.

oncology
The influence of socioeconomic status on individual attitudes and experience with clinical trials

Jennifer Y Kim,Maria Florez,Emily Botto,Xoli Belgrave,Clare Grace,Ken Getz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43856-024-00586-9

2024-09-05

Abstract:Background: Characterizing perceptions of clinical trials among the socioeconomically disadvantaged is necessary for understanding how social determinants of health such as socioeconomic disparities in education and income can affect people's awareness of and exposure to clinical trials METHODS: A survey was distributed in spring 2023 among a survey taking sample stratified by demographic variables to reflect the U.S. Population: The survey assessed the socioeconomic status of the respondent and related covariates, as well as outcome measures including interest in joining a clinical trial, concerns relating to participation, and whether the respondent had previously been asked to participate. Multiple and logistic regression were used to assess the relationship between predictor and outcome variables RESULTS: Here we show the results of outcome measures regressed on main predictors related to socioeconomic status and related demographic predictors. Education, employment status, insurance coverage, and English proficiency were significant predictors of interest in clinical trial participation. Education and the presence of a healthcare professional or former clinical trial participant in the respondent's personal network were significant predictors of whether the respondent had previously been asked to participate in a clinical trial CONCLUSIONS: The results of the analysis reveal how socioeconomically vulnerable groups, including those from low income and low education groups, are being excluded in clinical research. Analyses also uncovered the impact of clinical trial social influence-the presence of having a family or friend in one's social network who participated in a clinical trial-on willingness to participate and exposure to clinical trials.
Disparities in breast cancer prevention initiatives at a comprehensive cancer center: Who are we serving?

Savannah Phipps,Manjari Lokender,Kali Konstantinopoulos,Bailey Johnson,Jane Ambro,Sandra K. Althouse,Tarah Jean Ballinger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.1615

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:1615 Background: Despite advances in personalized breast cancer risk assessment and screening, populations at highest risk for cancer-related mortality are often excluded. At the IU Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, a high-risk screening program (HRSP) identifies and serves women at increased risk of breast cancer. Risk assessment using Tyrer Cuzick v.8 and Gail models is performed in mammography; women at increased risk are navigated to a clinic appointment to discuss individualized screening and prevention services including MRI, chemoprevention, and/or genetic testing. We hypothesize gaps in the demographic and socioeconomic (SES) characteristics of women seen for a HRSP appointment, compared to women receiving a cancer diagnosis at the same mammography sites. Methods: Retrospective review was performed of women who met criteria for the HRSP (age ≤65 and Gail 5 yr risk ≥3% or TC v.8 10-yr risk ≥8%, or recommended by the radiologist) and subsequently accepted, scheduled, and attended an appointment from 6/2020 to 6/2022 (n=233). This population was compared to women who were diagnosed with breast cancer at the same clinical sites over the same dates, without history of being evaluated in the HRSP. Age was restricted to ≤65 to match the HRSP population (n=685). Zip codes were used to calculate area-based SES by median household income and percent poverty. CDC social vulnerability index (SVI) was evaluated using the U.S. Census Bureau and American Community Survey (0=least vulnerable, 1=most vulnerable). Comparisons across groups by age, race, insurance status, area SES and SVI were made using the Wilcoxon or Chi-square test. Results: Cancer cases were significantly older than those attending the HRSP (median age 54 vs 49 p < 0.001). Black patients represented 19.4% of participants diagnosed with cancer, versus 10.8% of participants attending the HRSP (p=0.0032). There was also a disparity in insurance coverage, with 83.8% of women seen in the HRSP being privately insured, versus 75.6% of women diagnosed with cancer (p=0.011). There was no statistical difference in SVI (0.64 vs 0.66 p=0.11) or area poverty rate (11.2 vs 12.0 p=0.26) between the groups; cancer cases came from areas with lower household income (69,611 vs 73,165 p=0.04). Conclusions: Women seen in the HRSP were more likely to be younger, White, privately insured, and from an area with higher household income, compared to women diagnosed with cancer in the same health system at the same mammography sites. This highlights disparities in access to individualized breast cancer interception such as chemoprevention, high-risk screening, and genetic testing, which may further existing disparities in breast cancer-related mortality based on race and SES. Further studies will investigate barriers and motivators to personalized breast cancer prevention in high-risk groups, and utilize community partnerships to develop equitable interventions.

oncology
Evaluating social vulnerability impact on care and prognosis of head & neck-nervous system cancers in the US.

Salim Lutfallah,David Fei-Zhang,Daniel Chelius,Jill D'Souza,Jonas Paludo,Michael W. Ruff,Jeffrey Rastatter,Anthony Sheyn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.6526

IF: 45.3

2023-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:6526 Background: In the current literature, the association between social determinants of health (SDH) and head & neck-nervous system cancer (HNNsC) is limited by the narrow scope of SDH assessed and the broad classifications of HNNsC. Our study utilizes the CDC-Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) to assess both the individual and collective impact of four social determinant themes on various HNNsC in US adults. Methods: This study utilized the SEER database to evaluate 116,373 adult patients from 1975-2017 who presented with HNNsC. Patients were assigned SVI scores based on county-of-residence at the time of diagnosis, encompassing total-SVI score and 4 sub-scores of socioeconomic status, minority-language status, household composition, and housing-transportation. Using these scores, univariate linear regressions were used to assess patient care (months of follow-up) and prognosis (months of survival). Results: As total-SVI score increased, decreases in months of follow-up (MOF) and months of survival (MOS) were observed for many HNNsC tumors (p less than 0.001) when comparing the lowest to highest vulnerability cohorts. There was a decrease ranging from 3.55-36.6% in the MOF, with the largest decreases occurring in embryonal, anaplastic oligodendroglioma, and anaplastic ependymoma tumor types, with the largest sub-score contribution coming from socioeconomic status for these three disease classes. Similarly, there was a decrease ranging from 6.90-45.81% in the MOS, with the largest decreases occurring in anaplastic ependymoma, anaplastic astrocytoma, and pilocytic astrocytoma tumor types with the largest sub-score contribution coming from socioeconomic status for these three disease classes. Increases in vulnerability within SDH themes contributed significantly to these total-SVI trends in MOF and MOS, with each social determinant impacting different disease classes to varying extents. Socioeconomic status was the most impactful sub-score for MOF in nine of fourteen disease classes, followed by housing-transportation and household composition, each leading the impact of two of fourteen disease classes, and minority-language status leading the impact of one of fourteen disease classes. Similarly, socioeconomic status was the most impactful sub-score for MOS in eight of fourteen disease classes, followed by housing-transportation leading the impact of three of fourteen disease classes, household composition leading the impact of two of fourteen disease classes, and minority-language status leading the impact of one of fourteen disease classes. Conclusions: The results of this study show that with increasing social vulnerability, there is a significant decrease in both the care (follow-up) and the prognosis (survival) of US adults with HNNsC and highlight which SDH contributes more to disparities.

oncology
Disparities in cancer clinical trials information-seeking: Findings from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service

Robin C Vanderpool,Diane Ng,Grace Huang,Laura A Dwyer,George Kueppers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2024.108358

Abstract:Objective: To better understand cancer clinical trials (CCT) information-seeking, a necessary precursor to patient and provider engagement with CCT. Methods: Data from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service (CIS) were used to examine CCT information-seeking patterns over a 5-year period. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine characteristics of CIS inquiries and their associations with having a CCT discussion. Results: Between September 2018 - August 2023, 117,016 CIS inquiries originated from cancer survivors, caregivers, health professionals, and the general public; 27.5 % of these inquiries included a CCT discussion (n = 32,160). Among CCT discussions, 35.5 % originated from survivors, 53.5 % from caregivers, 6.1 % from the public, and 4.9 % from health professionals. Inquiries in Spanish had lower odds of a CCT discussion (OR=.26, [.25-.28]), whereas inquiries emanating from the CIS instant messaging (OR=2.29, [2.22-2.37]) and email (OR=1.24, [1.18-1.30]) platforms were associated with higher odds of discussing CCT compared to the telephone. Individuals who were male, younger, insured, and had higher income and education had significantly higher odds of a CCT discussion while those who were non-Hispanic Black and living in rural locales had significantly lower odds. Conclusions: Disparities in CCT information-seeking may contribute to downstream CCT participation. Practice implications: Quality, language-concordant health information is needed to enable equitable awareness of - and ultimately engagement in - CCT.
Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Disparities in Clinical Trial Participation for Ovarian Cancer: A Retrospective Observational Study in London

Karim H. El-Shakankery,Joanna Kefas,Kieran Palmer,Andrew Houston,Uma Mukherjee,Kangbo Gao,Weiteen Tan,Shanthini M. Crusz,Michael J. Flynn,Jonathan A. Ledermann,Michelle Lockley,Mary McCormack,Nicola MacDonald,Shibani Nicum,Michael John Devlin,Rowan E. Miller

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16213590

2024-10-25

Cancers

Abstract:Background: Ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cancer outcomes are exacerbated by clinical trial underrepresentation. This study aims to identify inequalities in ethnicity and socioeconomic features among ovarian cancer clinical trial participants in two London cancer centres. Methods: All ovarian cancer patients treated between 2017 and 2022 were included. Patients participating in clinical trials were classified as the trial population (TP); the remainder were considered the non-trial population (NTP). Data on disease characteristics and sociodemographic features, including ethnicity and Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) deciles, were accessed from electronic patient records. Results: Of the 892 patients, 212 (24%) were enrolled in trials: 87 in Phase II, 103 in Phase III, and 21 in prospective, non-investigational medicinal product trials. The TP were more likely to be of White ethnicity (72.6% vs. 57.5%; p < 0.001), younger (mean age 58 vs. 60; p = 0.003), living in less deprived areas (most deprived tercile: 21.2% vs. 34.0%; p = 0.004), and English-speaking (95.8% vs. 90.9%; p = 0.041). In the multivariate analysis, White ethnicity (p < 0.0001), age (p = 0.003), IMD decile (p = 0.007), and interpreter requirement (p = 0.037) were independent predictors of trial participation. Conclusions: Ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities affect trial participation, potentially worsening health disparities in ovarian cancer patients. Strategies to overcome trial recruitment barriers for underserved groups are needed to improve the equity of care.

oncology
Characterization of social determinants of health in patients considered for participation in treatment clinical trials at a community cancer center serving the Great Plains.

Logan Stacey,Bing Xu,Rachel Elsey,Tobias Meissner,Crystal Hattum,McKenna Deaton,Robin Lockhorst,Michaela Bertram,David Starks,Casey B. Williams

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13704

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13704 Background: Avera Cancer Institute, a community-based cancer network comprised of six rural cancer centers in SD and MN, provides care to a five-state region in the upper mid-west covering 72,000 square miles and offers several clinical trials to patients to offer access to advanced treatment for malignancies. Malignances are known to disproportionally affect patients that are older, rural, minorities, and have lower socioeconomic status, which are all less likely to enroll into clinical trials. Methods: Patients evaluated for participation in clinical trials from 2018-2022 were identified in an institutional database. Trial type was designated as either a treatment or nontreatment trial. Status of trial involvement was designated between enrolled or screened. Their demographic information was obtained from the electronic health record (EHR). Demographic information obtained from the EHR includes race, ethnicity, language spoken, gender, employment status, insurance type, and if they live in an urban or rural area as defined by the US Census Bureau. Clinical trial portfolio during this time includes trials for breast, gynecological, gastrointestinal, lung, and hematologic malignancies. Results: 4,397 patients were considered for participation in a clinical trial at our institution in the studied timeframe. Of these patients, 1887 were screened for treatment trials and of that group, 773 were enrolled. 35% of participants considered for clinical trials were from urban areas while 65% considered were rural. 48% of the urban population ultimately were enrolled on a clinical trial while 44% of rural population participated. Participants who lived in an urban area 25-50 miles from our study site had an enrollment rate of 49% compared to rural enrollment of 33%, from 50-100 miles rates of 53% and 37%, from 100-250 miles rates of 29% and 41%, and from greater than 250 miles rates of 44% and 33%, respectively. 99.5% of the population was non-Hispanic, 97% were White, and 99% were English speaking. 74% of the total population were female and 26% were male. Females had an enrollment rate of 51% while males had an enrollment of 29%. Patients with no insurance enrolled in trial 62% compared to 36% of those with commercial insurance The average national Area Deprivation Index percentile for screened patients was 57 vs 59 for enrolled patients. Conclusions: This retrospective study demonstrates a greater likelihood for females, urban patients, and white, English-speaking patients to enroll into clinical trials. Our data also demonstrate a preference for uninsured patients to enroll into clinical trials, possibly due to the financial benefits they may provide. Further directions include comparing our patients considered for clinical trials to all patients treated at our institution to identify potential disparities in care.

oncology
Abstract B086: Increasing clinical research participation and input from underserved communities: Results from community engagement studios inform clinical study design

Monique Gary,Laura Crandon,Tiffani L. Howard,Paul Bollinger,Natalie Bonilla,Jackilen Shannon,Shifra Krinshpun,Sarah Sawyer,Sara L. Bristow,Meenakshi Malhotra,Adham Jurdi,Alexey Aleshin,Breeana L. Mitchell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-b086

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Underrepresentation of marginalized racial and ethnic groups has been a consistent challenge in clinical trials. With an intent to increase trial accessibility for underserved communities, we conducted community engagement studios (CES) to understand the various cultures, values, worldviews, and lived experiences from different communities that might affect clinical trial participation. We report on the CES discussions and how they modified the design of an early cancer detection clinical study. CES were developed in partnership with an academic community engagement expert, OHSU and via the patient advocacy group, Touch4Life, which focuses on decreasing cancer disparities in the BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) population. Four CES were conducted: 1 with members of Asian (n=11), 2 with members of African American (AA) (n=16), and 1 with members of rural (n=7) communities. One AA CES was conducted with members of the Touch4Life network, with whom we piloted a subsequent oral debrief session to review CES thematic results and relay the impact it had on clinical study implementation, the results of which led to a corollary CES to be initiated in this network (n=7) to evaluate recruitment messages in the BIPOC population. Common themes for clinical trial recruitment strategies included the importance of messaging from trusted sources. While clinicians were a shared trusted source, Asian CES members preferred a personal connection, rural CES members preferred non-profit foundations, and AA CES members highlighted community networks (church and patient advocacy groups with shared experiences). Asian CES participants were hesitant to engage with pharmacists for clinical study recruitment due to a lack of personal relationships, but rural and AA communities would be open to hearing about clinical studies at their pharmacy, combined with consultation with their doctor. All communities expressed shared barriers for trial participation (time commitment, transportation, cost) and unique barriers were also expressed: childcare and distrust in biopharma in the AA CES; language in the Asian CES. All CES expressed interest in receiving updates on clinical trial progress and outcomes. Themes from the CES have been used to inform changes to both our recruitment and education strategies and outreach efforts for this clinical study for the early detection of cancer. One such modification included adding recruitment channels focused on engaging participants through patient advocacy groups and specific clinical study sites. Following guidance from both CES participants and our CES partners, and by sharing the CES results with the Touch4Life community, we developed a bidirectional flow of information and fostered a joint mission to deepen our working relationship with the community. Our research demonstrated that early collaboration between industry-sponsored researchers, community experts, and patient advocacy groups is an ideal model for gaining insights into specific communities and fostering relationships that can improve access to clinical studies. Citation Format: Monique Gary, Laura Crandon, Tiffani L. Howard, Paul Bollinger, Natalie Bonilla, Jackilen Shannon, Shifra Krinshpun, Sarah Sawyer, Sara L. Bristow, Meenakshi Malhotra, Adham Jurdi, Alexey Aleshin, Breeana L. Mitchell. Increasing clinical research participation and input from underserved communities: Results from community engagement studios inform clinical study design [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) nr B086.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health

IEMs in adults

The association between social vulnerability and clinical trials awareness and participation: A HINTS-SEER analysis.

Disparities in prostate cancer mortality and clinical trial availability across vulnerable populations.

Mediators of racial and ethnic inequities in clinical trial participation among patients with cancer, 2011-2023

Association of US county-level social vulnerability index with breast, colorectal, and lung cancer screening, incidence, and mortality rates across US counties

Defining the Role of Social Vulnerability in Treatment and Survival in Localized Colon Cancer

Disparities in gynecologic oncology clinical trial availability in the United States: A state-level analysis.

Social determinants of health and treatment outcomes among a retrospective cohort of patients receiving immunotherapy for cancer.

Social Vulnerability Index and Survivorship after Colorectal Cancer Resection

Disparities in clinical trial participation: Survey of patients with cancer at an academic medical center.

Abstract A128: A novel approach to understanding disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment

Social Determinants of Health and the Availability of Cancer Clinical Trials in the United States

Assessing social vulnerabilities of salivary gland cancer care, prognosis, and treatment in the United States

A Cross-Sectional Survey of Cancer Patients at a Midwest Academic Medical Center

The influence of socioeconomic status on individual attitudes and experience with clinical trials

Disparities in breast cancer prevention initiatives at a comprehensive cancer center: Who are we serving?

Evaluating social vulnerability impact on care and prognosis of head & neck-nervous system cancers in the US.

Disparities in cancer clinical trials information-seeking: Findings from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service

Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Disparities in Clinical Trial Participation for Ovarian Cancer: A Retrospective Observational Study in London

Characterization of social determinants of health in patients considered for participation in treatment clinical trials at a community cancer center serving the Great Plains.

Abstract B086: Increasing clinical research participation and input from underserved communities: Results from community engagement studios inform clinical study design