[Humoral modifications induced, in mice, by Trichomonas vaginalis endoparasitism].

J. Gobert,N. Gobert,P. Georges,J. Šavel

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Oncologist-Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Offering Cancer Clinical Trials to Their Patients

Brenda S. Castillo,Leigh Boehmer,Janelle Schrag,Alexandra Howson,Randall Oyer,Lori Pierce,Nadine J. Barrett,Carmen E. Guerra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31060230

2024-05-29

Current Oncology

Abstract:NCCN guidelines indicate that cancer clinical trials (CCTs) are the best management for patients with cancer. However, only 5% of patients enroll in them. We examined oncologists' perceived barriers and facilitators to discussing CCTs. This qualitative study was part of the ASCO-ACCC Initiative to Increase Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Clinical Trials. Barriers and facilitators at the system, trial, provider, and patient levels were examined. To achieve triangulation, patient encounters were reviewed using chart-stimulated recall (CSR) methods, thereby obtaining a valid assessment of physician performance. Ten oncology providers participated in this study. Nine were oncologists, and one was a clinical research coordinator; five were female; four were White; three were Asian; and three were Black. Barriers to offering CCTs were a lack of trial availability; ineligibility; a lack of knowledge; assumptions about patient interest, benefits, or harms; patient's disease factors; and negative attitudes. Facilitators of offering CCTs were a physical space to discuss trials; greater trial availability; a systematic approach to offering trials; patient factors; patients seeking trials; a lack of comorbidities; patients being younger in age; patients being aware of, asking about, or hearing of trials from their surgeon; and higher levels of altruism. Many of the cited barriers are addressable with the cited facilitators. A larger study is needed to generalize and validate these findings.

oncology
Barriers to enrollment in clinical trials in gynecologic oncology.

Erin McMinn,Anna Jo Bodurtha Smith,Dhivya Arasappan,Nathanael Koelper,Fiona Simpkins,Elizabeth A Howell,Emily Meichun Ko

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13511

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13511 Background: While clinical trials improve survival in gynecologic oncology, racial and ethnic minorities remain underrepresented. Our objective was to evaluate factors associated with enrollment among patients considered for trials at a tertiary care center to inform future participant recruitment. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at the University of Pennsylvania Health System from 1/1/2022-12/31/2022. Our primary objective was the referral rate to clinical trials of patients discussed at a weekly multi-disciplinary tumor board. Patients could be discussed more than once and referred for screening for multiple trials. Each contact was classified as ‘referred/not referred’ for trial(s) screening and ‘enrolled/not-enrolled’ on trial(s). We collected socio-demographic, cancer, trial screening, and enrollment data, including reasons for ineligibility or non-enrollment, from electronic health records. We compared patient factors across 3 subgroups: 1) not-referred, 2) referred not-enrolled, 3) referred and enrolled. We performed descriptive analyses to characterize patient cohorts. Results: In a one-year period, 264 patients—194 unique—were discussed at tumor board. Referral rate for trial screening was 57%, representing 135 trial referrals for 111 unique patients. Patients were referred to screening for 2.2 trials on average. The median age of patients discussed was 65 years (IQR 58-73 years). 65.0% self-identified as White, 24.7% Black, and 10.3% other race. 96% identified English as their preferred language. The majority had Medicare insurance (51.0%), followed by private insurance (32.5%), and Medicaid (14.4%). Of 111 patients referred for trial screening, 12 patients enrolled in a trial for a referral-to-enrollment rate of 10.8% (12/111) and an overall enrollment rate of 6.2%. The majority of enrolled patients were white (10/12) and had Medicare (66%) or private insurance (25%). Cancer type varied by referral status, with most referrals for ovarian (n=87, 64%) and uterine cancer (n=37, 27.4%) and 5 for cervical cancer (3.7%). The non-referred cohort had lower rates of ovarian cancer (49.6%) and higher rates of cervical (12.4%) and other cancers (14.0%). Of patients referred to trial, but not enrolled, only 33.7% had a documented reason for non-enrollment. Documentation for incomplete screening or ineligibility cited the patient opting out of screening (26), medical comorbidity (22), and pursuit of other trial (16). Conclusions: While 57% of tumor board patients were referred for screening for at least one clinical trial, only 10.8% of referred patients and 6.2% of patients overall were enrolled in a trial. Disparities by race and insurance type were apparent between patients enrolled and not enrolled on trial. Improving documentation, educating patients about trials early in their disease course, and less restrictive trial criteria may help improve minority enrollment rates in clinical trials.

oncology
Examination of current status of cross-provincial border access for clinical trials for patients with cancer.

Claire Rim,Farwa Zaib,Kayla Touma,Mahmoud Hossami,Rhonda Abdel-Nabi,Dora Cavallo-Medved,Olla Hilal,Zoe Driedger,Devinder Moudgil,Milica Paunic,Renee Nassar,Roaa Hirmiz,Lee McGrath,Caroline M. Hamm

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.e18661

IF: 45.3

2023-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e18661 Background: Clinical trials are the gold standard for establishing new and reliable treatment options. Even though 80% of cancer patients state that they would be interested in entering a clinical trial, only 3% of adults with cancer participate in clinical trials due to several challenges. Through a Clinical Trials Navigator program, we have curated clinical trials for approximately 243 patients and 7% have entered onto clinical trials. However, none of the patients were referred to trials outside of their home province due to a lack of clarity on the cross-border referral process. The goal of this study is to analyze the availability of patients for participating in out-of-province clinical trials in the presence of a lack of policy for provincial border referrals. Methods: This study was conducted by doing clinical trial searches for cancer patients using several clinical trial search engines such as ClinicalTrials.Gov, CanadianCancerTrials.com, ClinicalTrialsOntario, 3CTN, and Q-CROC. We also used a search engine to compare the number of clinical studies available in various cities for the four most common types of cancer in Canada. After this, an analysis was performed on over 243 clinical trial searches. Results: Out of the 18 patients we observed, most of them had potential out-of-province trials, but none of them joined out-of-province trials because of the lack of information regarding the process. Also, province disparity in trial availability was found for the most common cancers in Canada. The numbers of trials available in Ontario and Quebec are much higher than the number of trials available in PEI and Newfoundland which is almost zero or zero. The home treatment center of most of the patients involved in this study was Windsor Regional Hospital, and all of them were from Ontario. Among the patients that were referred, most of them were referred to Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto. Again, none of the patients were referred to cancer centers out of Ontario. Conclusions: In conclusion, our findings reveal the province disparity in the number of clinical trials available. The lack of policies that inform Canadians on how to cross provincial boundaries to enter a clinical trial prevents them from receiving the most needed cutting-edge treatments, compromising potential patient outcomes. Therefore, we need more clarity on policies for the cross-border referral process.

oncology
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
A systematic review of the barriers and facilitators impacting patient enrolment in clinical trials for lung cancer

Benjamin Lond,Christopher Dodd,Zoe Davey,Liz Darlison,John McPhelim,Janette Rawlinson,Iain Williamson,Clair Merriman,Francesca Waddington,Dominic Bagnallainslie,Balaji Rajendran,Jesse Usman,Catherine Henshall

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2024.102564

IF: 2.8

2024-03-21

European Journal of Oncology Nursing

Abstract:Purpose Clinical research trials are needed to enhance the medical care and treatment for lung cancer, which remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. While clinical trials allow for the development of novel therapies to treat cancer, the recruitment of lung cancer patients to trials is low. This review aimed to identify and synthesise the available literature concerning barriers and facilitators affecting lung cancer patients' decisions to enrol in clinical trials to guide future cancer research efforts. Methods Four databases were systematically searched: Academic Search Complete, CINHAL, PubMed, and PsycINFO in August 2023. A supplemental grey literature search was also conducted alongside this. Articles were quality appraised using CASP and JMI checklists, and results were narratively synthesised. Results Eighteen articles of varied design met the inclusion criteria, and results were mapped onto the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour (COM-B) Model to help structure and conceptualise review findings. Evidence suggests that the decision to enrol in a trial is multifaceted and informed by: when and how study information is presented, travel and trial eligibility, and altruistic hopes and fears. Conclusions There is need to address the many different concerns that lung cancer patients have about participating in a clinical trial through the supply of accessible and timely trial information, and via the reduction of travel, expansion of study eligibility criteria, and recognition of a person's altruistic wishes, hopes, fears, and family-oriented concerns. Future research should aim to work alongside lung cancer patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders to increase research accessibility.

nursing,oncology
The Impact of Non-Clinical Factors in Clinical Trial Enrollments of Patients with Hematologic Malignancies

Jamile M. Shammo,Anne Timmermann,Deborah A. Katz,Agne Paner,Seo-Hyun Kim,Irene dehghan-Paz,Melissa L. Larson,Parameswaran Venugopal,Celalettin Ustun,Ankur Varma,Sunita Nathan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2021-148135

IF: 20.3

2021-11-05

Blood

Abstract:Abstract Introduction The improvement of care and advancement of treatment options is heavily reliant on the success and diversity of clinical trials (CTs), yet data suggests that only 3-9% of patients with a cancer diagnosis participate in CTs. We sought to evaluate reasons for declining participation in CTs among patients with hematologic malignancies within our medical center. Our primary objective was to assess the prevalence of non-clinical factors in patients contributing to the lack of participation compared to those who agreed to participate. The secondary objective was to identify the reasons noted by patients for declining trials. Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of adult patients with hematologic malignancies who were offered a clinical trial from 2016-2020. Eligible patients were identified through review of Cancer Center Clinical Trials Office screening logs. We collected data relative to: disease, sex, age, race and ethnicity, English as a first language, marital status, caregiver support, level of education, type of insurance, trial phase, and trial indication. The data was compared between patients who refused participation versus those who agreed to participate. Descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, and multivariate logistic regression were used to interpret the data with IBM SPSS Statistics. Results Of patients diagnosed with hematologic malignancies and offered a CT from 2016 to 2020 at our center, 136 signed consent and 125 declined participation. The sample was predominantly older with a mean patient age of 60.9 in those who signed ICF and 61.9 in those who declined participation (Table 1). Males and non-Hispanic white patients encompassed over half of the sample in each group. Multiple myeloma was the most common diagnosis among either group. Trials offered were predominantly phase 2 or 3 and for varying disease states. We found that patients who were divorced (P = 0.024), did not have caregiver support (P = 0.005), and did not speak English as their first language (P = 0.004) were more likely to decline CT participation (Table 2). The most common reasons that patients cited for declining participation were: preference for another treatment option, distance for travel, and concerns for transportation (Table 3). Conclusion In this retrospective analysis evaluating reasons behind CT refusal in patients with hematologic malignancies at our center, we found that being divorced, not having defined caregiver support, and not speaking English as the first language made patients more likely to decline a CT. Our sample displayed greater diversity in comparison to the national averages for cancer CT participation despite the predominance of male and non-Hispanic white patients within our sample. This may be representative of the population our center serves. The significance of marital status and caregiver support suggests that support systems are integral in the decision-making process for CTs. Furthermore, the role of divorce in declining trials may be indicative of familial motivation or spousal influence. The significance of English as a first language is notable as our center utilizes an oral translation for informed consent with a short form signature. This suggests that a full translation of CT documents may be beneficial to enrollment. Logistical concerns were frequently cited as a reason for declining, which should be considered by sponsors in the design of CTs as alleviating this burden on patients may help overall recruitment. Limitations of this study include its retrospective nature, manual data extraction, and consistency of research team documentation. The results suggest that introducing support groups and interventions to provide transportation services for trial patients may be beneficial to enrollment and retention. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Shammo: Abbvie: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Research Funding; Astra zeneca: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Apellis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CTI pharma: Research Funding; Stemline therapeutics: Research Funding; Kartos Pharma: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Baxter: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Takeda: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Honoraria, Research Funding; NS Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Paner: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Rush University Medical Center: Consultancy, Current Employment; Sanofi: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Ustun: novartis: Honoraria; Blueprint: Honoraria.

hematology
Barriers to Clinical Trial Implementation Among Community Care Centers

Hedyeh Ebrahimi,Sandra Megally,Elana Plotkin,Latha Shivakumar,Nicholas J. Salgia,Zeynep B. Zengin,Luis Meza,Neal Chawla,Daniella V. Castro,Nazli Dizman,Ruma Bhagat,Seila Liv,Xiaochen Li,Adam Rock,Sandy Liu,Abhishek Tripathi,Tanya Dorff,Randall A. Oyer,Leigh Boehmer,Sumanta Pal,Alexander Chehrazi-Raffle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.8739

2024-04-30

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:This survey study investigates critical barriers to trial enrollment to translate findings into actionable practice changes that increase cancer clinical trial enrollment.

medicine, general & internal
Systematic review of rural interventions addressing barriers and facilitators in recruitment and adherence of oncology clinical trials.

Rebecca Mulley,Ruhi Thapar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13675

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13675 Background: Rural patients are significantly underrepresented in cancer clinical trials leading to an inequitable distribution of research funding and excluding rural patients from innovative care. Properly understanding the barriers and facilitators to rural patient participation in cancer clinical trials is essential to lessen this disparity in representation. Methods: EBSCO Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Cochrane and PsycInfo were systematically searched for articles related to the primary research objective. The search strategies focused on a combination of keywords pertaining to “rural populations”, “cancer”, and “clinical trials”. Additional search terms included the presence of “barriers” or “facilitators” within the articles. Articles were removed from the study if they were not written in English, were conducted outside the U.S., focused on pediatric populations, or lacked original data. Results: A systematic review of the literature reveals that barriers and facilitators to cancer clinical trial participation by rural populations are present at the patient, physician, and healthcare system levels. Notable barriers found in this review include the burden of travel, lack of patient knowledge about clinical trial participation, insufficient provider communication and awareness of current trials, and strict eligibility criteria. Promising facilitators include caregiver support, close physician support and contact, and programs to increase patient understanding of clinical trials. Potential future interventions include telemedicine, expanding monetary support for clinical trial transportation, utilizing RUCA codes to document disparities and elucidate further interventions, and cultivating stronger partnerships between industry and rural medical facilities, as well as between the NCI, academic institutions, and rural medical facilities. Conclusions: There is a significant and urgent need to strengthen this body of literature as is underscored by the apparent lack of cancer clinical trials in rural counties, specifically in the state of Texas (CPRIT). It is evident that barriers need to be further elucidated to ascertain why rural patients have less participation in clinical trials, and facilitators need to be further explored in order to sufficiently illustrate and thus effectively harness the power of facilitators in the pursuit of lessening disparities and improving cancer outcomes for rural patients.

oncology
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
Barriers to participation in clinical trials of rural older adult cancer survivors: A qualitative study

Evelyn Arana‐Chicas,Laura M. Hincapie Prisco,Saloni Sharma,Fiona Stauffer,Serge Dauphin,Makiko Ban‐Hoefen,Jaime Navarette,Jason Zittel,Ana Paula Cupertino,Allison Magnuson,Karen M. Mustian,Supriya G. Mohile

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12852

2024-06-09

The Journal of Rural Health

Abstract:Background Currently, 64% of cancer survivors are aged 65+. Older cancer survivors have unique complications after chemotherapy and are often excluded from cancer clinical trials. Although there is research on barriers to clinical trial participation of older adult cancer survivors, to date no research has explored barriers to clinical trial participation unique to rural older adult cancer survivors. Methods This study is a secondary qualitative analysis from a study exploring survivorship challenges of rural older adults. Eligible participants were rural residents over age 65 who have completed curative‐intent chemotherapy in the past 12 months. Participants (n = 27) completed open‐ended semi‐structured interviews that included questions on barriers to clinical trial participation. Transcripts were coded independently by two coders using thematic analysis. We have adhered to the standards for reporting qualitative research. Findings Participants reported a variety of barriers that included limited knowledge and fear about clinical trials, transportation challenges, their physicians not informing them of clinical trials, and thinking they are too old to participate in clinical trials. However, participants also reported facilitators to participating in clinical trials, including acknowledging benefits to their own health and society, and understanding the importance of clinical trials. Conclusion Rural older cancer survivors face numerous interpersonal, intrapersonal, and organizational barriers to clinical trial participation. Aging‐ and location‐sensitive interventions that focus on patients, their caregivers, and health care providers may lead to improved participation of rural older adult survivors into clinical trials.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Abstract 1000: Clinician and clinical trial staff perspectives on factors that impact enrollment of Black women in breast cancer trials

Christen Sandoval,Eliza Brumer Cohn,Leslie R. Carnahan,Vida Henderson,Tigist Mersha,Neha Hippalgaonkar,Joe Horowitz,Sarah Khan,Kauthar Salum,Ana Williams,Lolita Coleman,Beluah Brent,Anne Marie Murphy,Paris Thomas,Paramjeet Khosla,Kent Hoskins,Ryan Nguyen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-1000

IF: 11.2

2024-03-31

Cancer Research

Abstract:Background: Black women (BW) are more likely to present with advanced-stage disease and to die following a breast cancer (BC) diagnosis compared with women from other racial and ethnic groups, yet BW are underrepresented in BC clinical trials (CT). Clinicians and CT staff play a key role in patient participation in CT, however, there is limited data on their perspectives on facilitators and barriers for BW in BC trials. Objective: The goal of the FOR ME (Fostering Opportunities in Research through Messaging and Education) study is to develop, optimize, and test a decision-aid intervention (web-based video) for clinical care teams to use with BW who have been recently diagnosed with BC to promote shared decision-making and CT participation. We provide insight into the facilitators and barriers from clinicians and CT staff to effectively discuss and enroll BW in BC trials. The identified themes will be used to inform video content and dissemination strategies. Methods: Key informant interviews (KIIs) (n=20) were conducted by phone and video conferencing. Each KII was recorded and professionally transcribed. Thematic analysis and inductive coding approaches were used to analyze the data. First, a subset of transcripts was annotated, and then annotations were compiled into a preliminary codebook. Inter-coder reliability was established to improve quality and to establish the final codebook. Dedoose was used to analyze quotations and code co-occurrences, application frequencies, and relationships. Results: In total, 16 clinicians and 4 clinical trial staff across academic and community practices were interviewed. Participants expressed multiple opportunities and barriers to CT participation. Facilitators included formal training on communication around clinical trials among clinical trial staff, previous exposure to discussing and enrolling patients in CT during fellowships and other training, institutional support for CT databases, reviewing CTs during tumor boards, and the presence of dedicated research support staff. Barriers included a lack of formal training in communicating CT to patients among clinicians, lack of institutional investment in CT infrastructure, time constraints of clinical visits, and the clinician's perception of the patient's willingness and ability to complete a CT. Conclusions: Clinicians and clinical trial staff have a unique and important role to play in CT participation for BW who have BC, however, there are barriers, including training, time, awareness of available trials, and institutional support. Clinical trial staff report formal training in communicating clinical trial information to patients, while there is a lack of this type of training for clinicians. Future research in the FOR ME study will integrate patient, clinician, care team, and advocate perspectives into a web-based decision aid. Citation Format: Christen Sandoval, Eliza Brumer Cohn, Leslie R. Carnahan, Vida Henderson, Tigist Mersha, Neha Hippalgaonkar, Joe Horowitz, Sarah Khan, Kauthar Salum, Ana Williams, Lolita Coleman, Beluah Brent, Anne Marie Murphy, Paris Thomas, Paramjeet Khosla, Kent Hoskins, Ryan Nguyen. Clinician and clinical trial staff perspectives on factors that impact enrollment of Black women in breast cancer trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular s); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl) nr 1000.

oncology
Disparities in clinical trial enrollment at a Canadian comprehensive cancer center: A 15‐year retrospective study

Gilla K. Shapiro,Anna T. Santiago,Tyler Pittman,Kai Iwano,Gary Rodin,Heather Cole,Katherine Zeman,Susanna Sellmann,Amit M. Oza,Jennifer Jones,Meredith Rosenthal,Rena M. Conti,Danielle Rodin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.35331

IF: 6.9209

2024-04-27

Cancer

Abstract:Introduction Disparities in clinical trials (CTs) enrollment perpetuate inequities in treatment access and outcomes, but there is a paucity of Canadian data. The objective of this study was to examine disparities in cancer CT enrollment at a large Canadian comprehensive cancer center. Methods Retrospective study of CT enrollment among new patient consultations from 2006 to 2019, with follow‐up to 2021 (N = 154,880), with the primary outcome of enrollment as a binary variable. Factors associated with CT enrollment were evaluated using multivariable Bayesian hierarchical logistic regression with random effects for most responsible physician (MRP) and geography, adjusted for patient characteristics (sex, age, language, geography, and primary care provider [PCP]), area‐level marginalization (residential instability, material deprivation, dependency, and ethnic concentration), disease (cancer site and stage), and MRP (department, sex, language, and training). A sensitivity analysis of the cumulative incidence of enrollment was conducted to account for differences in disease type and follow‐up length. Results CT enrollment was 11.2% overall, with a 15‐year cumulative incidence of 18%. Lower odds of enrollment were observed in patients who were female (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78–0.86), ≥65 years (AOR vs. <40, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56–0.66), non‐English speakers (0.72; 95% CI, 0.67–0.77), living ≥250 km away (AOR vs. <15 km, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.62–0.80), and without a PCP. Disease characteristics accounted for the largest proportion of observed variation (20.8%), with significantly greater odds of enrollment in patients with genitourinary cancers and late‐stage disease. Conclusion Significant sociodemographic disparities were observed, suggesting the need for targeted strategies to increase diversity in access to cancer CTs in Canada.

oncology
Abstract B122: Understanding Barriers to Equity in Early Phase Clinical Trials Participation for the – Underrepresented Populations (uBEEP-UP Project)- A single-center survey-based study

Issa Jimenez Espinoza,Anusha Chidharla,Kamiyah Hicks,Dinesh Pal Mudaranthakam,Sam Pepper,Angelica Allen,Asuka Suzuki,Debra Sullivan,Jill Hamilton-Reeves,Anup Kasi,Rahul Parikh,Saqib Abbasi,Al-Ola Abdallah,Elizabeth Wulff- Burchfield,Anna Arthur,Lori Barbosa,Erin Carroll,Jennifer Heins,Hope Krebiill,Tara Lin,Gary Doolittle,Weijing Sun,Joaquina Baranda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-b122

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Introduction: Despite advancements in cancer therapy, health disparities persist among underrepresented populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, people of low socioeconomic status, and people in geographically isolated areas. Representation in Early-Phase Clinical Trials (EPCT) is important, as limited representation exacerbates said inequities. Underrepresentation in clinical trials (CTs) impacts the true understanding of cancer biology and its role in treatment development. We aim to identify barriers and promoting factors influencing patients' decisions to enroll in EPCTs and identify interventions to increase minority enrollment in clinical trials using a survey-based questionnaire. Methods: Following the extensive literature review, a list of validated questions were collected to populate a questionnaire to evaluate common themes faced by patients in participation in EPCT. This survey was offered to patients with cancer seen at the University of Kansas Cancer Center. This study is IRB-approved (STUDY00150640). Descriptive analysis was performed with Chi-Square and Fisher's Exact Tests to determine significant associations between the qualitative variables to evaluate the most pressing barriers that were perceived in access to EPCT. Results: A total of 108 responses were collected. Over 58% of patients were over 65 years old. 62.4% were white, 17.8% African American, and 19.8% others (Asian or Native American). 40% of pts did not know about EPCTs before the survey. Only 26% of responders expressed participating in EPCTs in the past. Most people believe EPCTs are accessible to the public (75%) and would benefit from disease improvement (42%). Personal reasons for participating in EPCTs include obtaining a sense of hope (62%) and expressing no other treatment options available (49%). Encouragement to join EPCTs centered around wishing to help future cancer patients (67%) and trusting the center conducting the trial (52%). Pts emphasized the greatest benefit of participation in trials was the support of family and friends (69%). The top three perceived factors impacting EPCT accessibility from the pts perspective included understanding the value of the trial (76%), poor understanding of CTs process (40%), and lack of information of CTs (39%). Significant associations were observed with previous participation of EPCTs and increased age (p-value 0.031). An association was found with the responder's self-identified race and perceived accessibility of EPCTs for the public(p-value 0.007). Conclusion: Most responders believed that EPCTs are readily available to others though the most noted barriers included individual perspectives about attributed trial value and purpose. Many pts noted a belief that EPCT involvement would increase hope regarding therapy and a personal desire to help future cancer patients. This will provide a foundational landmark for creating initiatives and interventions that will enhance diversity and access of EPCTs to the community. This project is supported by the University of Kansas Cancer Center P30CA168524. Citation Format: Issa Jimenez Espinoza, Anusha Chidharla, Kamiyah Hicks, Dinesh Pal Mudaranthakam, Sam Pepper, Angelica Allen, Asuka Suzuki, Debra Sullivan, Jill Hamilton-Reeves, Anup Kasi, Rahul Parikh, Saqib Abbasi, Al-Ola Abdallah, Elizabeth Wulff- Burchfield, Anna Arthur, Lori Barbosa, Erin Carroll, Jennifer Heins, Hope Krebiill, Tara Lin, Gary Doolittle, Weijing Sun, Joaquina Baranda. Understanding Barriers to Equity in Early Phase Clinical Trials Participation for the – Underrepresented Populations (uBEEP-UP Project)- A single-center survey-based study [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 B122.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Abstract 919: Veterans Health Administration: Decentralized clinical trials

Ashlyn Press,Jennifer Ordman,Jacqueline Boreland,Zachary Burningham,Shelby Schoenborn,Tiffany Stewart,Bethany Oberg,Perri Pepperman,Holly Morris,Sarah Bloemers,Nawshin Kutub,Shannon Elam,Michael J. Kelley,Daphne Friedman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-919

IF: 11.2

2024-03-22

Cancer Research

Abstract:Abstract Purpose: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) created National TeleOncology (NTO) service in 2019 to provide telehealth cancer care to Veterans and to augment care provided at VA facilities through a hub and spoke model. More recently, VA established a Decentralized Clinical Trials (DCTs) infrastructure to support clinical trials (CTs) that rely on telehealth, where research staff are at different locations, and/or where a single IRB provides oversight even when subjects are at different locations. Brief Description: Research support and infrastructure is variable across VA facilities resulting in uneven access to cancer CTs in the VA system. Veterans often live in rural areas or have transportation challenges, which are barriers to participate in CTs. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in increased telehealth use in clinical care and in CTs, providing the rationale for a focused effort in DCTs. DCTs have the potential to reduce barriers to CT involvement at the facility- and patient-level and may be more representative of real-world clinical scenarios. Summary of Data: Since its inception, NTO has provided hematology and oncology telehealth care to over 10,000 Veterans, of which 47.5% live in rural or highly rural areas, 76.5% are white and 13.2% are black or African American. Because the NTO program provides clinical care via telehealth modalities, patients who receive care through NTO may be more comfortable with participating in CTs that use telehealth, and thus are part of a pool of potentially eligible subjects.Since creation of the DCT program, three cancer DCTs have been conducted in the VA (1) BNT001 Digital Therapeutic Feasibility Pilot Study, (2) Cemiplimab Survivorship Epidemiology (CASE) Study, and (3) Proof-Of-ConcepT DEcentralized CliNical TrIAL (POTENTIAL) study. The BNT study enrolled 24 Veterans, 19 were male, 22 were white, 13 lived in rural areas, and the median age at enrollment was 68 years, including numerous cancer diagnoses. Veterans enrolled in the BNT study received cancer care at seven VA facilities. The CASE study has enrolled 24 male Veterans, 23 were white, 5 lived in rural areas, and the median age at enrollment was 74 years. The POTENTIAL study enrolled 4 male Veterans, 3 were white, 2 lived in rural areas, and the median age at enrollment was 72 years. Upcoming DCTs will focus on the following disease types: metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, multiple myeloma, and relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Conclusions: The VA provides clinical cancer care to Veterans through the NTO program. The DCT program builds upon the existing clinical infrastructure to conduct CTs on a national scale. The NOP DCT team is a component of the VA’s Enhance Equity and Access to Clinical Trials (ENACT) initiative, which is part of Cancer Moonshot. The DCT program intends to expand CT opportunities to Veterans with cancer, minimize barriers to CT activation and enrollment, and improve access to cancer CTs for all Veterans. Citation Format: Ashlyn Press, Jennifer Ordman, Jacqueline Boreland, Zachary Burningham, Shelby Schoenborn, Tiffany Stewart, Bethany Oberg, Perri Pepperman, Holly Morris, Sarah Bloemers, Nawshin Kutub, Shannon Elam, Michael J. Kelley, Daphne Friedman. Veterans Health Administration: Decentralized clinical trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 919.

oncology
Improving Access to Cancer Clinical Trials for Patients From Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds in Australia: A Survey of Clinical and Research Professionals

Abhijit Pal,Ben Smith,Christie Allan,Deme Karikios,Frances Boyle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.23.00291

Abstract:Purpose: Patients with cancer from racial and ethnic minorities, referred to as culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) in Australia, are significantly under-represented in cancer clinical trials. We performed a national survey of the Australian cancer clinical trials workforce to determine barriers and preferred solutions to address this inequity. Methods: A 15-item online survey containing both closed- and open-ended purpose-designed questions was created using REDCap. The survey was emailed to members of the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, Medical Oncology Group of Australia, and Australian cancer cooperative trial groups, and promoted via Twitter. Descriptive analyses summarized quantitative data, and free-text entries underwent thematic analysis with NVivo Version 12. Results: Ninety one respondents completed the survey-with representation across Australia. Eighty-seven percent were directly involved in clinical trial recruitment. Sixty-eight percent were clinicians. Seventy-four percent of respondents did not collect routine data on CALD patient enrollment to cancer clinical trials. Communication (eg, lack of translated materials) and opportunity-related barriers (eg, exclusionary trial protocols) were the most frequently perceived barriers to recruitment. Additionally, qualitative analysis indicated that insufficient consultation time and difficulties accessing interpreters for patients with non-English language preference were significant barriers. Trial navigators and a generic cancer trial pamphlet available in multiple languages were judged the most likely solutions to improve recruitment. Conclusion: This study articulates the Australian clinical trials workforce's perspective on current barriers and potential solutions to the under-representation of patients from CALD backgrounds on cancer clinical trials. The insights and solutions from this survey provide steps toward achieving equity in Australian cancer clinical trials.
Addressing the clinical trial selection process to improve representation by African American patients with breast cancer in cancer clinical trials.

Sarah Kim,Madeleine Uelk,Kathleen Fujiu,Cathy Grace Louthen,Nazzara Chervinko,Arpan Patel,Patricia A. Robinson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.e18620

IF: 45.3

2023-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e18620 Background: Breast cancer (BC) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women. Despite overall improvements in BC outcomes, African American (AA) women are 41% more likely to die from BC. Causation of the disparity gap is multifactorial including less access to quality treatment, such as clinical trials (CTs). AA patients (pts) account for 12% of new BC cases in the United States, but constituted only 3% of the participants in the BC CTs that led to U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals from 2008-2018. Lack of diverse participation on CTs does not allow the broad applicability of the results. As part of the "Bringing Quality Care Training to Komen’s African American Health Equity Initiative" in collaboration with ASCO, the Cardinal Bernardin Cancer Center (CBCC) examined the process for CT selection in order to increase opportunities for AA BC pts to participate in CTs. Methods: The CBCC team, comprised of social worker, breast program coordinator, medical oncology, and director of outreach developed process maps for CT selection, analyzed the BC CT content, and identified gaps relative to the pt population for industry and cooperative group CTs. The team surveyed faculty on reasons for not enrolling pts in CTs and assessed the demographics of the CT participants. Tumor registry identified BC pts by sex, race, ethnicity, phenotype and stage. Results: The CBCC treated 283 new BC cases in 2021. AA patients made up 15% (n = 22), 18% (n = 9), and 23% (n = 5) of stages I, II/III, and IV respectively. Fifteen percent were triple negative BC. Review of Velos demonstrated that CBCC enrolled 13 BC pts onto 2 BC drug CTs in 2021. We projected the need for CT selection based upon stage at diagnoses and tumor biology. We identified the following gaps in the breast oncology CT portfolio: non-competing neo-adjuvant CTs; adjuvant endocrine, HER2-targeted and triple negative CTs; and metastatic endocrine and HER2-targeted CTs. Faculty surveys demonstrated perceptions for not enrolling pts in CTs including low health literacy amongst pts, pt ineligibility, lack of institutional support, pt mistrust, language barriers, lack of time, and pt co-morbidities. Overall, pts were more likely to participate in cancer CTs if they were non-Hispanic white, privately insured, married and 60-69 years old. Conclusions: CTs lead to treatment advancements at faster rates with concurrent mortality reductions in the cancer population. It is necessary to increase representation in CT to address health equity. This requires intentional detail to the CT development and implementation process. Our study identified a number of factors, including structural, clinical, and attitudinal barriers on the part of the physician that impair enrollment. Institutions need to construct CT portfolios to ensure that it reflects the pt population that it serves. Further studies need to include the pt experience in CT participation.

oncology
Clinical trial facilitators: A novel approach to support the execution of clinical research at the study site level

Jennifer McClure,Aliya Asghar,Anastasia Krajec,Marcus R Johnson,Sandhya Subramanian,Krissa Caroff,Conor McBurney,Sarah Perusich,Amanda Garcia,Danielle J Beck,Grant D Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2023.101106

Abstract:In the summer of 2020, multiple efforts were undertaken to establish safe and effective vaccines to combat the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). In the United States (U.S.), Operation Warp Speed (OWS) was the program designated to coordinate such efforts. OWS was a partnership between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the private sector, that aimed to help accelerate control of the COVID-19 pandemic by advancing development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) was identified as a potential collaborator in several large-scale OWS Phase III clinical trial efforts designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of various vaccines that were in development. Given the global importance of these trials, it was recognized that there would be a need for a coordinated, centralized effort within VA to ensure that its medical centers (sites) would be ready and able to efficiently initiate, recruit, and enroll into these trials. The manuscript outlines the partnership and start-up activities led by two key divisions of the VA's Office of Research and Development's clinical research enterprise. These efforts focused on site and enterprise-level requirements for multiple trials, with one trial serving as the most prominently featured of these studies within the VA. As a result, several best practices arose that included designating clinical trial facilitators to study sites to support study initiation activities and successful study enrollment at these locations in an efficient and timely fashion.
Challenges and solutions to recruiting diverse populations to oncology clinical trials: A mixed-methods study of clinical research coordinators.

Ana I. Velazquez Manana,Evelin Trejo,Sorbarikor Piawah,Celia Kaplan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.1619

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:1619 Background: Multiple barriers limit the enrollment of diverse populations in oncology clinical trials (CTs). A review of our institutional CTs recruitment dashboard identified underrepresentation of Black and Latinx adults among thoracic and gastrointestinal (GI) oncology CTs participants compared to demographics of our catchment area and patient population. We conducted a mixed-methods study to identify barriers and potential solutions to the enrollment of diverse populations in oncology CTs in our institution. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study enrolling clinical investigators and clinical research coordinators’ (CRCs) at an NCI-designated CCC in Northern California. Data from CRCs is presented. All CRCs supporting CTs in the thoracic and GI medical oncology were invited to participate in qualitative, one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. Participants completed 60-90 minutes interview and a short survey. Data were analyzed using a thematic inductive approach. Results: Of 14 CRCs, the majority were female (78.6%), with primary focus on thoracic (50.0%) and GI (35.7%) oncology CTs. 64.3% of CRCs reported >80% of their work was dedicated to coordinating and managing therapeutic cancer CTs. In survey responses CRCs identified inability to take time away from work/family (64.3%), inadequate insurance coverage (42.9%), lack of transportation (35.7%), and language barriers (35.7%) as major barriers to enrollment of diverse patients in CTs. In qualitative interviews CRCs expressed the need of culturally and language appropriate materials for CT recruitment, establishing a sense of connection between clinical research staff/PI and patients, accommodating socioeconomic concerns, and resources to respond to potential participants’ mistrust of medical research. Main obstacles faced by CRCs during patient enrollment in CTs included lack of time, low patient awareness, resistance from colleagues, lack of multilingual staff, and inadequate logistical support. CRCs identified in-person interpretation as beneficial and identified a strong rapport between the clinical provider and the potential participant as the most important component to boost recruitment of minorities. Lastly, CRCs highlighted that institutional efforts are needed to increase CT participation among all populations. Conclusions: Lack of representation of diverse populations in CTs remains a complex challenge. Our study of CRCs’ perceptions highlights access to in-person translators, culturally and language concordant materials, education resources, and increased rapport as key areas for intervention to facilitate patient enrollment of diverse populations. Analysis into practice-specific patterns within our cancer centers can help identify areas for interventions to support the recruitment and enrollment of diverse populations in oncology CTs.

oncology
Healthcare disparities are associated with eligibility and enrollment in clinical trials in Louisiana.

Conner D Hartupee,Denise Danos,Eileen T Mederos,Augusto Ochoa,Valentine N Nfonsam,Omeed Moaven

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13728

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13728 Background: Clinical trials offer an opportunity to evaluate novel therapeutic strategies and modalities of care. Overall enrollment is low for clinical trials, but previous literature has highlighted lower rates of enrollment among underrepresented populations. A disproportionately low accrual of minority or other populations will result in reducing the ability of such clinical trials to prove general benefit to the overall population. This study aims to evaluate the population of those able or unable to qualify for and enroll in the Gulf South Clinical Trials network, a minority/underserved NCORP community site. Methods: Patient data was collected through interviews using a screening tool developed by the National Cancer Institute’s Community Oncology and Prevention Trials Research Group and active enrollment of ongoing clinical trials. Patients were interviewed regarding demographic data and tumor staging. Reason for ineligibility or non-enrollment was documented by the clinical staff. Clinical trials were categorized between Cancer-Control and Cancer Care Delivery Research (CC-CCDR) Trials and Cancer Treatment Trials from 2017 and 2023. Rates of eligibility and enrollment were compared via Fisher’s Exact tests. Results: CC-CCDR Trials had 363 participants while Cancer Treatment had 550 participants. CC-CCDR Trials resulted in 19% (n=69) of patients being ineligible with 81% (n=294) being eligible with a higher proportion of Whites (p<.001), non-rural (p = .021), low income (p=.007), private insurance (p=<.001), stage 1 tumors (p<.001), and having a genetic predisposition (p<.001) being ineligible. From the patients that were eligible, 13% (n= 39) of patients were not enrolled with 87% (n=255) of patients enrolled. Cancer Treatment Trials resulted in 23% (n=129) of ineligible patients and 76.5% (n=421) of eligible patients, with a higher proportion of low income (p=.002), private insurance (p=.035), and those not having genetic predispositions (p=.022) being ineligible. From the participants that were eligible, 20% (n=85) of patients were not enrolled with 80% (n=336) of patients enrolled, with a higher proportion of female (p= .002) patients not enrolled. Conclusions: Disparities in socioeconomic factors and female gender are associated with lower rates of eligibility and enrollment in clinical trials in community oncology settings. Future research identifying modifiable underlying factors can assist in developing strategies to improve enrollment in underserved populations.

oncology
Abstract B123: Multilevel influences on Black and Hispanic/Latine patient participation in early phase cancer clinical trials

Jessica Lewis,Amy Smoyer,Erin Singleton,Marcella Nunez-Smith,Imran Saeed,Patricia LoRusso

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-b123

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Black and Hispanic/Latine patients are disproportionately burdened by cancer yet underrepresented in cancer clinical trials. Diverse participation in cancer clinical trials is essential to identify potential group differences in risks and benefits and to ensure equitable access to cutting-edge therapeutics. Prior research has focused on barriers to representation in later phase trials with less focus on early phase cancer clinical trials (EPCCTs). EPCCTs may include unique barriers to representation based on safety focus and intensive monitoring. We investigate multi-level influences on EPCCT participation for Black and Hispanic/Latine patients through in-depth qualitative interviews with (n=30) Black or Hispanic/Latine metastatic cancer patients and (n=30) oncology providers/staff from two community practices. Using the Ecological Model as a guiding framework, we explored facilitators and barriers to diverse EPCCT participation at the patient level, provider level, health system/policy level, and community level. We utilized Rapid Qualitative Inquiry to gain pragmatic, accurate understanding. At the patient level, we identified informational (e.g., understanding of cancer), emotional (e.g., trust), and instrumental (e.g., transportation) influences on Black and Hispanic/Latine participation. The most pervasive barrier to EPCCT inclusion was lack of invitation for Black and Hispanic/Latine patients. At the provider/staff level, key barriers to representation included low EPCCT knowledge among providers, preconceptions about barriers for Black and Hispanic/Latine patients, and perceived loss of control/relationship with patients/caregivers. At the health system/policy level, critical barriers included insufficient time to discuss EPCCTs, concerns about impact of trials on systems (e.g., wait-time for scans), and provider discomfort with referral process (sending patients to Phase I team without specific trial knowledge). At the community level, salient influences on patient decision-making were identified (e.g., peers, youtube). We conducted a systemwide survey of (n=81) oncology providers and their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors regarding EPCCTs; we determined how attitudes and beliefs related to EPCCT referral behaviors. We have planned interventions to mitigate each barrier and leverage each facilitator to increase representation. It is critical to identify and address relevant local barriers to ensure equitable access to novel therapeutics and generalizability of scientific discoveries. Citation Format: Jessica Lewis, Amy Smoyer, Erin Singleton, Marcella Nunez-Smith, Imran Saeed, Patricia LoRusso. Multilevel influences on Black and Hispanic/Latine patient participation in early phase cancer clinical trials [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 B123.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health

[Humoral modifications induced, in mice, by Trichomonas vaginalis endoparasitism].

Oncologist-Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Offering Cancer Clinical Trials to Their Patients

Barriers to enrollment in clinical trials in gynecologic oncology.

Examination of current status of cross-provincial border access for clinical trials for patients with cancer.

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

A systematic review of the barriers and facilitators impacting patient enrolment in clinical trials for lung cancer

The Impact of Non-Clinical Factors in Clinical Trial Enrollments of Patients with Hematologic Malignancies

Barriers to Clinical Trial Implementation Among Community Care Centers

Systematic review of rural interventions addressing barriers and facilitators in recruitment and adherence of oncology clinical trials.

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

Barriers to participation in clinical trials of rural older adult cancer survivors: A qualitative study

Abstract 1000: Clinician and clinical trial staff perspectives on factors that impact enrollment of Black women in breast cancer trials

Disparities in clinical trial enrollment at a Canadian comprehensive cancer center: A 15‐year retrospective study

Abstract B122: Understanding Barriers to Equity in Early Phase Clinical Trials Participation for the – Underrepresented Populations (uBEEP-UP Project)- A single-center survey-based study

Abstract 919: Veterans Health Administration: Decentralized clinical trials

Improving Access to Cancer Clinical Trials for Patients From Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds in Australia: A Survey of Clinical and Research Professionals

Addressing the clinical trial selection process to improve representation by African American patients with breast cancer in cancer clinical trials.

Clinical trial facilitators: A novel approach to support the execution of clinical research at the study site level

Challenges and solutions to recruiting diverse populations to oncology clinical trials: A mixed-methods study of clinical research coordinators.

Healthcare disparities are associated with eligibility and enrollment in clinical trials in Louisiana.

Abstract B123: Multilevel influences on Black and Hispanic/Latine patient participation in early phase cancer clinical trials