Federal Transportation Regulations Limit Access to Clinical Trials and Oncology Care

Sam Pancoe,Emily M. Ko,Anna Jo Bodurtha Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.6767

IF: 33.006

2024-02-01

JAMA Oncology

Abstract:This Viewpoint discusses how improving accessibility to oncology services will lead to more equitable care for patients with cancer.

oncology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Addressing transportation barriers in oncology: existing programs and new solutions

Sophia Pringle,Emily M. Ko,Meredith Doherty,Anna Jo Bodurtha Smith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-024-08514-2

IF: 3.1

2024-05-01

Supportive Care in Cancer

Abstract:Transportation is an underrecognized, but modifiable barrier to accessing cancer care, especially for clinical trials. Clinicians, insurers, and health systems can screen patients for transportation needs and link them to transportation. Direct transportation services (i.e., ride-sharing, insurance-provided transportation) have high rates of patient satisfaction and visit completion. Patient financial reimbursements provide necessary funds to counteract the effects of transportation barriers, which can lead to higher trial enrollment, especially for low socioeconomic status and racially and ethnically diverse patients. Expanding transportation interventions to more cancer patients, and addressing knowledge, service, and system gaps, can help more patients access needed cancer care.

oncology,health care sciences & services,rehabilitation
Improving Access to Patient-Focused, Decentralized Clinical Trials Requires Streamlined Regulatory Requirements: An ASCO Research Statement

Ramya Thota,Patricia A Hurley,Therica M Miller,Suanna S Bruinooge,Craig Lipset,R Donald Harvey,Lora J Black,Amanda Dinsdale,Janette K Merrill,Teri Pollastro,Sheila A Prindiville,Mujahid A Rizvi,Shimere Sherwood,Grzegorz S Nowakowski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.24.00961

2024-11-20

Abstract:Strategies to bring clinical trials closer to patients gained momentum during the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling more participants to receive treatment and/or testing in their local communities. Incorporation of decentralized trial elements presents both opportunities and challenges, spanning regulatory, technical, and operational aspects. This ASCO research statement includes timely consensus-driven recommendations and a call for engagement of all research stakeholders. ASCO held multistakeholder meetings with leaders in oncology research and concluded that research-related regulatory and administrative requirements and burdens present critical barriers to decentralizing trials. One example is sponsor and contract research organization (CRO) use of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Statement of Investigator (Form 1572), which was found to exceed FDA's stated intent and used in conservative ways disproportionate to potential risks to participants and scientific integrity. As a result, research sites experience an avalanche of downstream administrative and regulatory activities that consume considerable resources. This statement recommends four key solutions to address such barriers and recalibrate regulatory and administrative expectations for decentralizing trials: (1) FDA should engage the research community in a public-private partnership to modernize standards and enable local access to trials; (2) sponsors and CROs should develop standards and protocols that accommodate flexible approaches, enable local participation, provide clarity around roles and requirements, and promote consistency; (3) research centers, networks, and sites should update policies and procedures to implement decentralized trial elements; and (4) research community should develop a streamlined, uniform mechanism to simplify regulatory data collection and documentation and use it consistently across trials. We can and must prioritize a concerted commitment to simplify and streamline regulatory requirements and practices to broaden access to and participation in cancer clinical trials.
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
A call to action to advance patient‐focused and decentralized clinical trials

R. Donald Harvey,Therica M. Miller,Patricia A. Hurley,Ramya Thota,Lora J. Black,Suanna S. Bruinooge,Leigh M. Boehmer,Mark E. Fleury,Jasmine Kamboj,Mujahid A. Rizvi,Banu E. Symington,William D. Tap,David M. Waterhouse,Laura A. Levit,Janette K. Merrill,Sheila A. Prindiville,Teri Pollastro,Jamie R. Brewer,Leslie P. Byatt,Leila Hamroun,Edward S. Kim,Nicole Holland,Grzegorz S. Nowakowski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.35145

IF: 6.9209

2024-01-11

Cancer

Abstract:This commentary is a call to action for a concerted commitment and effort to transform clinical trials and enable people with cancer to participate in clinical trials closer to home. Three key strategies are identified to address major barriers: confront challenges with the interpretation of US Food and Drug Administration Form 1572 requirements (Statement of Investigator); broaden acceptance of local laboratories and imaging centers; and invest in the creation of effective, sustainable partnerships between research centers and local providers.

oncology
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
Oncologists' reflections on patient rights and access to compassionate use drugs: A qualitative interview study from an academic cancer center

Jeremiah Stout,Cambray Smith,Jan Buckner,Alex A Adjei,Mark Wentworth,Jon C Tilburt,Zubin Master

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261478

IF: 3.7

2021-12-17

PLoS ONE

Abstract:The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows patients with serious illnesses to access investigational drugs for "compassionate use" outside of clinical trials through expanded access (EA) Programs. The federal Right-to-Try Act created an additional pathway for non-trial access to experimental drugs without institutional review board or FDA approval. This removal of oversight amplifies the responsibility of physicians, but little is known about the role of practicing physicians in non-trial access to investigational drugs. We undertook semi-structured interviews to capture the experiences and opinions of 21 oncologists all with previous EA experience at a major cancer center. We found five main themes. Participants with greater EA experience reported less difficulty accessing drugs through the myriad of administrative processes and drug company reluctance to provide investigational products while newcomers reported administrative hurdles. Oncologists outlined several rationales patients offered when seeking investigational drugs, including those with stronger health literacy and a good scientific rationale versus others who remained skeptical of conventional medicine. Participants reported that most patients had realistic expectations while some had unrealistic optimism. Given the diverse reasons patients sought investigational drugs, four factors-scientific rationale, risk-benefit ratio, functional status of the patient, and patient motivation-influenced oncologists' decisions to request compassionate use drugs. Physicians struggled with a "right-to-try" framing of patient access to experimental drugs, noting instead their own responsibility to protect patients' best interest in the uncertain and risky process of off-protocol access. This study highlights the willingness of oncologists at a major cancer center to pursue non-trial access to experimental treatments for patients while also shedding light on the factors they use when considering such treatment. Our data reveal discrepancies between physicians' sense of patients' expectations and their own internal sense of professional obligation to shepherd a safe process for patients at a vulnerable point in their care.
Clinical Trial Access in Diverse Populations

Tareefe Montaque,John Stewart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.28010

2024-11-28

Journal of Surgical Oncology

Abstract:Despite the disproportionate impact of cancer on minority groups, their participation in oncologic clinical trials remains low. Contributing factors include mistrust of the medical establishment, structural barriers, and implicit bias. Strategies to improve access and representation include pragmatic trial designs, patient navigation programs, financial support, and increasing diversity among medical professionals. Addressing these issues is crucial for ensuring equitable healthcare delivery and improving outcomes for underrepresented populations in clinical research.

oncology,surgery
Roundtable discussion. Investigational exclusion, clinical trials, and cancer

C Goodman

Abstract:Clinical trials are critical for developing and testing new treatments for cancer, but a panel of experts agreed that the state of clinical trials in the United States today is a "mess." How did we get into this situation in the first place, and how can we extricate ourselves? Should the federal government assume greater responsibility for funding and overseeing clinical trials and for establishing a standard health benefit package that defines the right to participate in clinical trials? The panel explored whether decisions to exclude patients are based on medical necessity and scientific merit or on the bottom line; whether insurance companies promise more than they can deliver; whether pharmaceutical companies are doing their share; and why lawyers are getting any share. In the end, the participants expressed hope that we, as a society, can get clinical trials back on track to serve their legitimate scientific and medical purposes.
Disparities in the availability and access to Neuro-Oncology Trial-Supporting infrastructure in the United States

Yeonju Kim,Terri S Armstrong,Mark R Gilbert,Orieta Celiku

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae240

2024-09-26

Abstract:We conducted an extensive assessment and quantification of the reach of the oncology clinical trial supporting infrastructure in the United States (US). While our primary focus was on identifying avenues to expand the reach of neuro-oncology clinical trials, we considered infrastructure layers with important implications for broader cancer research and care. Specifically, we examined the geographic, population, and socioeconomic reach of national collaboratives (including over 1,500 institutions), over 600 academic oncology and neurosurgery training programs, and networks of over 25,000 individual neuro-oncology, neurosurgery, and general oncology (including hematology/medical/gynecological oncology, surgical oncology, and radiation oncology) providers. Our study found that over 57% of the US population lacks direct access to trial-supporting infrastructure. More than 71% of the locations with infrastructure are urban, and over 72% are in socioeconomically-advantaged areas. Our findings reveal critical disparities in oncology care access and suggest actionable strategies to optimize and expand the existing infrastructure's reach.\.
Expanded Access and Right To Try Requests: The Community Oncologist's Experience

Marjorie E. Zettler,Yolaine Jeune-Smith,Bruce A. Feinberg,Eli G. Phillips,Ajeet Gajra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/op.20.00569

2021-11-01

JCO Oncology Practice

Abstract:PURPOSE: For patients with cancer who have exhausted approved treatment options and for whom appropriate clinical trials are not available, access to investigational drugs through the US Food and Drug Administration's Expanded Access (EA) program has been an alternative since the program's inception more than 30 years ago. In 2018, federal Right To Try legislation was passed in the United States, creating a second pathway—one that bypasses the US Food and Drug Administration—to obtain unapproved drugs outside of clinical trials. The use of the two programs by community medical oncologists and hematologist-oncologists has not been studied. METHODS: Between October 2019 and February 2020, community oncologists-hematologists from across the United States completed web-based surveys about EA and Right To Try pathways for accessing unapproved drugs for their patients. Physicians were asked about their utilization of, and perceptions of, the two programs. RESULTS: Of the 238 physicians who completed the survey, 46% indicated that they had attempted to gain access to an investigational drug for a patient using the EA program, whereas 14% reported attempting to use Right To Try pathway to obtain an unapproved drug for a patient. Eighty-nine percent of those who tried to use the EA program reported success in obtaining the investigational drug versus 73% of those who attempted to use the Right To Try pathway. CONCLUSION: Our survey found that most community oncologists-hematologists were aware of both the EA and Right To Try pathways, but there is room for improvement in understanding and utilization of the programs.

oncology
Prospective Study of Patient, Nursing, and Oncology Provider Perspectives on Telemedicine Visits for Renal Cell Carcinoma Clinical Trials

Sahil D. Doshi,Andrea Knezevic,Carlene Gonzalez,Patricia Fischer,Robert Goodman,Suzanne Gornell,Sweta Patel,Cindy Puzio,Alisa Ritea,Chung-Han Lee,Lauren Evans,Martin H. Voss,Robert J. Motzer,Ritesh R. Kotecha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102268

IF: 3.121

2024-11-20

Clinical Genitourinary Cancer

Abstract:Purpose Clinical trials enable renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients to receive promising investigational agents, yet access may be limited. Telemedicine (TM) is an increasingly utilized platform that can expand access, but perspectives on its use in clinical trial care are unknown. Patients and Methods A prospective study was conducted between Jan – Oct 2023 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. RCC patients enrolled on therapeutic clinical trials who had prior TM visits were eligible. Surveys in English were distributed to patients, treating clinical trial nurses (CTNs), and oncology providers engaged in clinical trials. Results 39 patients, 7 CTNs, and 15 oncology providers were included in our analysis. Regarding clinical trial care, 26 patients (67%) preferred in-person, 4 (11%) preferred TM, and 9 (22%) had no preference. However, 25 patients (64%) reported TM provided an equal quality of care, and 38 (97%) reported a positive or neutral experience. Conversely, 7 CTNs (100%) and 11 providers (73%) preferred in-person care while 4 (27%) indicated no preference. Most, including 6 CTNs (86%) and 13 providers (87%), reported that TM quality of care was inferior. However, most, including 7 CTNs (100%) and 14 providers (93%), reported a positive experience with TM. Conclusions In this study, one third of RCC participants preferred TM or had no preference, and a majority felt TM delivered equal quality of care. Providers, however, preferred in-person visits and reported inferior quality of care with TM. These findings warrant further evaluation of safety and feasibility to optimize TM integration for clinical trial care delivery. Micro- Access to clinical trials is limited, in part due to transportation and time barriers. Incorporating telemedicine visits may help improve access. We evaluated patient, nursing, and provider perspectives, all of whom were engaged in renal cell carcinoma clinical trials, on the use of telemedicine in clinical trial care. We found that some patients preferred telemedicine for clinical trial care and most thought it provided an equal quality of care. Conversely, almost all nurses and providers preferred in-person visits and felt telemedicine provided an inferior quality of care. Ongoing research will therefore be vital to evaluate ways in which telemedicine can improve access to clinical trials while maintaining care quality and patient safety.

oncology,urology & nephrology
Global adoption of remote technologies to enable patient-centric oncology clinical trials: Analysis by the Bloomberg New Economy International Cancer Coalition.

Robert Michael Daly,Otis W. Brawley,Mary K. Gospodarowicz,Olufunmilayo I. Olopade,Ibilola Fashoyin,Victoria Wolodzko Smart,I-Fen Chang,Craig L. Tendler,Geoff Kim,Charles S. Fuchs,Lianshan Zhang,Jeffrey J. Legos,Cristina Duran,Chitkala Kalidas,Jing Qian,Justin Finnegan,Piotr Pilarski,Amy Silverstein,Yi-Long Wu,Bob T. Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.1584

IF: 45.3

2023-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:1584 Background: Fewer than 5% of patients with cancer enroll in a clinical trial, partly due to the significant financial and logistical burden on patients, especially among underserved populations. The COVID-19 pandemic marked a significant shift in the adoption of remote technologies and decentralized trial operations by major pharmaceutical companies. We sought to determine the current global state of adoption of these technologies, understand factors that are driving or preventing adoption of them, and highlight aspirations and direction for industry to enable more patient-centric trials. Methods: The multi-stakeholder Bloomberg New Economy International Cancer Coalition composed of patient advocacy, industry, government regulators, and academic medical centers developed a survey directed to global biopharmaceutical companies of the Coalition with a focus on registrational clinical trials. The survey was organized into three main sections: 1) Impact of different remote monitoring and data collection technologies on patient-centricity; 2) Adoption of these technologies in oncology and all therapeutic areas; 3) Barriers/facilitators to adoption. Results: Administered from October 1 to December 31, 2022, a total of 8 companies completed the survey (response rate: 100%), representing 33% of oncology market by revenues in 2021. Across nearly all remote monitoring and data collection technologies, adoption in oncology trials lags that of all trials. In the current state, eDiary/eCOA is the most utilized technology with 56% and 51% adoption for all trials and oncology trials, respectively, whereas visits in local physician networks is the least adopted at 12% and 7%, respectively. Looking forward, the difference between the current and aspired adoption rate in 5 years for oncology is large, with respondents expecting a 40% or greater absolute adoption increase in 8 out of the 11 technologies (Table). Furthermore, respondents identified digitally enabled recruitment, local or mobile imaging capabilities, and local physician networks as those technologies that would be most impactful for improving patient centricity in the long term. Conclusions: This survey is the first by a coalition of global stakeholders to determine the current state and future aspirations for the use of remote technologies in oncology clinical trials. These efforts may galvanize momentum towards greater adoption of enabling technologies supporting a new paradigm of trials that are more accessible, less burdensome, and more inclusive.[Table: see text]

oncology
Advancing Global Health Equity in Oncology Clinical Trial Access

Bloomberg New Economy International Cancer Coalition,Tolulope Adewole,Bjorn Albrecht,Shaalan Beg,Otis Brawley,I-Fen Chang,Bobby Daly,Angelo de Claro,Jennifer Dent,Maura Dickler,Abasi Ene-Obong,Lola Fashoyin-Aje,Justin Finnegan,Susan Galbraith,Mary Gospodarowicz,Julie Gralow,Tufia Haddad,Chitkala Kalidas,Artur Katz,Karen Kaucic,Harriet Keane,Mark Lanasa,Jeff Legos,Bob T. Li,Jennifer Mills,Stefan Oelrich,Stefan Olopade,John Palma,Richard Pazdur,Piotr Pilarski,Jing Qian,Kevin Rudd,Sepideh Shokrpour,Craig Tendler,Matt Wilson,Victoria W. Smart,Yi-Long Wu,James Yan,Lianshan Zhang,McKinsey Cancer Center,Diya Li,Johanna Shen,Amy Silverstein,Cure4Cancer,Ghassan Abou-Alfa,Shelly Anderson,Patrick Beyrer,Danielle Carnival,Stephen Clarke,Terri Conneran,Lisa M. DeAngelis,Connie Diakos,Luis Diaz,Carlos Henrique dos Anjos,Jeffrey A. Drebin,Debra Eisenmen,Russell Flannery,David Fredrickson,James M. Isbell,David R. Jones,Adedayo Joseph,Caroline Kennedy,T. Peter Kingham,Adrian Lee,Nancy Y. Lee,Lillian Leigh,Zhi-Zhong Li,An-Wen Liu,Dazhi Liu,Si-Yang Liu,Si-Yang Maggie Liu,Vicky Makker,Meritxell Mallafre-Larrosa,Sean McBride,Isabel Mestres,Sebastian Mondaca,Paulo Nigro,Larry Norton,John V. Oyler,Nick Pavlakis,Simon Powell,Bruce Robinson,Yi Qin,Pedram Razavi,Jorge Reis-Filho,Gaetano Rocco,Charles M. Rudin,Orville Schell,Howard I. Scher,Deborah Schrag,Greg Simon,Dorrance Smith,Morgan Speece,Hai-Yan Tu,Aminu Umar-Sadiq,Bu-Hai Wang,Helen Wheeler,Chong-Rui Xu,Li-Xu Yan,Fan Yang,Byeong Yoon,Catharine Young,Jia-Tao Zhang,Qing Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.cd-24-1288

IF: 28.2

2024-09-26

Cancer Discovery

Abstract:Summary: Despite exponentially increased industry investment in oncology research and development with more than $80 billion spent annually, patient enrollment in clinical trials remains below 5% globally. Our multistakeholder international cancer coalition envisions ecosystem transformation with capacity building through a global "hub-and-spoke" network model to expand access to and accelerate clinical trials, thus ending cancer as a major cause of death in this lifetime.

oncology
A Vision for Democratizing Next-Generation Oncology Clinical Trials

Vivek Subbiah,Denis Horgan,Ishwaria M. Subbiah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.cd-24-0017

IF: 28.2

2024-04-06

Cancer Discovery

Abstract:Summary: Revolutionary advancements in oncology have transformed lives, but the clinical trials ecosystem encounters challenges, including restricted access to innovative therapies and a lack of diversity in participant representation. A vision emerges for democratized, globally accessible oncology trials, necessitating collaboration among researchers, clinicians, patients, and policymakers to shift from converting complex, exclusive trials into a dynamic, inclusive force against cancer.

oncology
Equitable inclusion of diverse populations in oncology clinical trials: deterrents and drivers

L. Vidal,Z. Dlamini,S. Qian,P. Rishi,M. Karmo,N. Joglekar,S. Abedin,R.A. Previs,C. Orbegoso,C. Joshi,H.A. Azim,H. Karkaria,M. Harris,R. Mehrotra,M. Berraondo,G. Werutsky,S. Gupta,N. Niikura,I. Chico,K.S. Saini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103373

IF: 6.883

2024-05-10

ESMO Open

Abstract:Some races, ethnicities, geographies, genders, ages, abilities, and economic classes are underrepresented in cancer trials. There is strong scientific and ethical rationale for inclusiveness, equity, and diversity in cancer trial populations. Stakeholders including regulators, sponsors, CROs, patient groups, and oncology journals are advocating for such diversity. Cancer trials should answer scientific questions of relevance to the diverse participating subgroups. The burden of cancer exerts a disproportionate impact across different regions and population subsets. Disease-specific attributes, coupled with genetic and socioeconomic factors, significantly influence cancer treatment outcomes. Precision oncology promises the development of safe and effective options for specific ethnic phenotypes and clinicodemographic profiles. Currently, clinical trials are concentrated in resource-rich geographies with younger, healthier, white, educated, and empowered populations. Vulnerable and marginalized people are often deprived of opportunities to participate in clinical trials. Despite consistent endeavors by regulators, industry, and other stakeholders, factors including diversity in trial regulations and patient and provider-related cultural, logistic, and operational barriers limit the inclusiveness of clinical trials. Understanding and addressing these constraints by collaborative actions involving regulatory initiatives, industry, patient advocacy groups, community engagement in a culturally sensitive manner, and designing and promoting decentralized clinical trials are vital to establishing a clinical research ecosystem that promotes equity in the representation of population subgroups.

oncology
Accreditation Standards—An Untapped Lever for Cancer Equity

Parsa Erfani,Nishant Uppal,Miranda B. Lam

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.6811

IF: 33.006

2024-02-22

JAMA Oncology

Abstract:This Viewpoint describes how the Commission on Cancer and the National Cancer Institute can incorporate health equity benchmarks into existing standards to improve care and outcomes for all patients with cancer.

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
Data from Advancing Global Health Equity in Oncology Clinical Trial Access

Tolulope Adewole,Bjorn Albrecht,Shaalan Beg,Otis Brawley,I-Fen Chang,Bobby Daly,Angelo de Claro,Jennifer Dent,Maura Dickler,Abasi Ene-Obong,Lola Fashoyin-Aje,Justin Finnegan,Susan Galbraith,Mary Gospodarowicz,Julie Gralow,Tufia Haddad,Chitkala Kalidas,Artur Katz,Karen Kaucic,Harriet Keane,Mark Lanasa,Jeff Legos,Bob T. Li,Jennifer Mills,Stefan Oelrich,Stefan Olopade,John Palma,Richard Pazdur,Piotr Pilarski,Jing Qian,Kevin Rudd,Sepideh Shokrpour,Craig Tendler,Matt Wilson,Victoria W. Smart,Yi-Long Wu,James Yan,Lianshan Zhang,Diya Li,Johanna Shen,Amy Silverstein,Ghassan Abou-Alfa,Shelly Anderson,Patrick Beyrer,Danielle Carnival,Stephen Clarke,Terri Conneran,Lisa M. DeAngelis,Connie Diakos,Luis Diaz,Carlos Henrique dos Anjos,Jeffrey A. Drebin,Debra Eisenmen,Russell Flannery,David Fredrickson,James M. Isbell,David R. Jones,Adedayo Joseph,Caroline Kennedy,T. Peter Kingham,Adrian Lee,Nancy Y. Lee,Lillian Leigh,Zhi-Zhong Li,An-Wen Liu,Dazhi Liu,Si-Yang Liu,Si-Yang Maggie Liu,Vicky Makker,Meritxell Mallafre-Larrosa,Sean McBride,Isabel Mestres,Sebastian Mondaca,Paulo Nigro,Larry Norton,John V. Oyler,Nick Pavlakis,Simon Powell,Bruce Robinson,Yi Qin,Pedram Razavi,Jorge Reis-Filho,Gaetano Rocco,Charles M. Rudin,Orville Schell,Howard I. Scher,Deborah Schrag,Greg Simon,Dorrance Smith,Morgan Speece,Hai-Yan Tu,Aminu Umar-Sadiq,Bu-Hai Wang,Helen Wheeler,Chong-Rui Xu,Li-Xu Yan,Fan Yang,Byeong Yoon,Catharine Young,Jia-Tao Zhang,Qing Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.c.7565616

2024-01-01

Abstract:Summary: Despite exponentially increased industry investment in oncology research and development with more than $80 billion spent annually, patient enrollment in clinical trials remains below 5% globally. Our multistakeholder international cancer coalition envisions ecosystem transformation with capacity building through a global “hub-and-spoke” network model to expand access to and accelerate clinical trials, thus ending cancer as a major cause of death in this lifetime.
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
How far is too far? Cancer prevention and clinical trial enrollment in geographically underserved patient populations

Kari L Ring,Linda R Duska,Kari L. Ring,Linda R. Duska

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.01.008

IF: 5.304

2024-05-01

Gynecologic Oncology

Abstract:Despite dedicated efforts to improve equitable access to cancer care in the United States, disparities in cancer outcomes persist, and geographically underserved patients remain at an increased risk of cancer with lower rates of survival. The critical evaluation of cancer prevention inequities and clinical trial access presents the opportunity to outline novel strategies to incrementally improve bookended access to gynecologic cancer care for geographically underserved patients. Cancer prevention strategies that can be addressed in the rural patient population mirror priorities in the Healthy People 2030 objectives and include increased identification of high risk individuals who may benefit from increased cancer screening and risk reduction, increasing the proportion of people who discuss interventions to prevent cancer, such as HPV vaccination, with their provider, and increasing the proportion of adults who complete evidence based cancer screening. Barriers to accrual to clinical trials for rural patients overlap significantly with the same barriers to obtaining health care in general. These barriers include: lack of facilities and specialized providers; lack of robust health infrastructure; inability to travel; and financial barriers. In this review, we will discuss current knowledge and opportunities to improve cancer prevention initiatives and clinical trial enrollment in geographically underserved populations with a focus on rurality.

oncology,obstetrics & gynecology

Federal Transportation Regulations Limit Access to Clinical Trials and Oncology Care

Addressing transportation barriers in oncology: existing programs and new solutions

Improving Access to Patient-Focused, Decentralized Clinical Trials Requires Streamlined Regulatory Requirements: An ASCO Research Statement

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

A call to action to advance patient‐focused and decentralized clinical trials

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

Oncologists' reflections on patient rights and access to compassionate use drugs: A qualitative interview study from an academic cancer center

Clinical Trial Access in Diverse Populations

Roundtable discussion. Investigational exclusion, clinical trials, and cancer

Disparities in the availability and access to Neuro-Oncology Trial-Supporting infrastructure in the United States

Expanded Access and Right To Try Requests: The Community Oncologist's Experience

Prospective Study of Patient, Nursing, and Oncology Provider Perspectives on Telemedicine Visits for Renal Cell Carcinoma Clinical Trials

Global adoption of remote technologies to enable patient-centric oncology clinical trials: Analysis by the Bloomberg New Economy International Cancer Coalition.

Advancing Global Health Equity in Oncology Clinical Trial Access

A Vision for Democratizing Next-Generation Oncology Clinical Trials

Equitable inclusion of diverse populations in oncology clinical trials: deterrents and drivers

Accreditation Standards—An Untapped Lever for Cancer Equity

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

Data from Advancing Global Health Equity in Oncology Clinical Trial Access

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

How far is too far? Cancer prevention and clinical trial enrollment in geographically underserved patient populations