EPID-11. A POPULATION STUDY OF CLINICAL TRIAL ACCRUAL FOR WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN NEURO-ONCOLOGY FOLLOWING THE NIH REVITALIZATION ACT

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi88-vi88
Author(s):  
Sheantel Reihl ◽  
Nirav Patil ◽  
Ramin Morshed ◽  
Mulki Mehari ◽  
alexander Aabedi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Disease Incidence ◽  
Population Based ◽  
World Health ◽  
Mortality Data ◽  
Incidence And Mortality ◽  
Clinical Trial Accrual ◽  
Expected Mortality ◽  
Study Participants

Abstract INTRODUCTION The NIH Revitalization Act, implemented 29 years ago, set to improve the representation of women and minorities in clinical trials. In this study, we investigate the progress made in neuro-oncology in all phase therapeutic clinical trials for neuro-epithelial central nervous system tumors in comparison to their demographic-specific age-adjusted disease incidence and mortality. METHODS Registry study of all published clinical trials for World Health Organization (WHO) defined neuro-epithelial CNS tumors between January 2000 and December 2019. Study participants for trials were obtained from PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Population-based data from the CBTRUS for incidence analyses. SEER-18 Incidence-Based Mortality data was used for mortality analysis. Descriptive statistics, Fisher exact, and c2 tests were used to analyze the data. RESULTS Among 662 published clinical trial articles representing 49, 907 accrued participants, 62.5% of study participants were men and 37.5% were women (P< 0.0001) representing a mortality specific over-accrual for men (P= 0.001) and under-accrual for women (P= 0.001). Whites, Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics represented 91.7%, 1.5%, 2.6%, and 1.7% of trial participants. Compared with their US cancer mortality, Blacks (47% of expected mortality, P=.008), Hispanics (17% of expected mortality, P< .001) and Asians (33% of expected mortality, P< .001) were underrepresented compared with Whites (114% of expected mortality, P< .001). CONCLUSIONS Nearly 30 years since the Revitalization Act, minorities and women are consistently underrepresented when compared with their demographic-specific incidence and mortality in therapeutic clinical trials for neuroepithelial tumors. This study provides a framework for investigating cancer clinical trial accrual and offers guidance regarding workforce factors associated with enrollment of vulnerable patients.

scholarly journals A Population Study of Clinical Trial Accrual for Women and Minorities in Neuro-Oncology Following the NIH Revitalization Act

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheantel J Reihl ◽  
Nirav Patil ◽  
Ramin A. Morshed ◽  
Mulki Mehari ◽  
Alexander Aabedi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Disease Incidence ◽  
Cns Tumors ◽  
World Health ◽  
Mortality Data ◽  
Incidence And Mortality ◽  
Clinical Trial Accrual ◽  
Expected Mortality ◽  
Study Participants

BACKGROUND The NIH Revitalization Act, implemented 29 years ago, set to improve the representation of women and minorities in clinical trials. In this study, we investigate progress made in all phase therapeutic clinical trials for neuro-epithelial CNS tumors stratified by demographic-specific age-adjusted disease incidence and mortality. Additionally, we identify workforce characteristics associated with clinical trials meeting established accrual benchmarks. METHODS Registry study of published clinical trials for World Health Organization defined neuro-epithelial CNS tumors between January 2000 and December 2019. Study participants were obtained from PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Population-based data originated from the CBTRUS for incidence analyses. SEER-18 Incidence-Based Mortality data was used for mortality analysis. Descriptive statistics, Fisher exact, and Chi2 tests were used for data analysis. RESULTS Among 662 published clinical trials representing 49,907 participants, 62.5% of study participants were men and 37.5% were women (P<0.0001) representing a mortality specific over-accrual for men (P=0.001). Whites, Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics represented 91.7%, 1.5%, 2.6%, and 1.7% of trial participants. Compared with mortality, Blacks (47% of expected mortality, P=0.008), Hispanics (17% of expected mortality, P<0.001) and Asians (33% of expected mortality, P<.001) were underrepresented compared with Whites (114% of expected mortality, P<0.001). Clinical trials meeting accrual benchmarks for race included minority authorship. CONCLUSIONS Following the Revitalization Act, minorities and women remain underrepresented when compared with their demographic-specific incidence and mortality in therapeutic clinical trials for neuroepithelial tumors. This study provides a framework for clinical trial accrual efforts and offers guidance regarding workforce considerations associated with enrollment of vulnerable patients.

scholarly journals Cohort Profile: The China Multi-Ethnic Cohort (CMEC) Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xing Zhao ◽  
Feng Hong ◽  
Jianzhong Yin ◽  
Wenge Tang ◽  
Gang Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
Disease Incidence ◽  
Data Access ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Baseline Survey ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Long Term Storage ◽  
Level Data ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Study Participants

AbstractCohort purposeThe China Multi-Ethnic Cohort (CMEC) is a community population-based prospective observational study aiming to address the urgent need for understanding NCD prevalence, risk factors and associated conditions in resource-constrained settings for ethnic minorities in China.Cohort BasicsA total of 99 556 participants aged 30 to 79 years (Tibetan populations include those aged 18 to 30 years) from the Tibetan, Yi, Miao, Bai, Bouyei, and Dong ethnic groups in Southwest China were recruited between May 2018 and September 2019.Follow-up and attritionAll surviving study participants will be invited for re-interviews every 3-5 years with concise questionnaires to review risk exposures and disease incidence. Furthermore, the vital status of study participants will be followed up through linkage with established electronic disease registries annually.Design and MeasuresThe CMEC baseline survey collected data with an electronic questionnaire and face-to-face interviews, medical examinations and clinical laboratory tests. Furthermore, we collected biological specimens, including blood, saliva and stool, for long-term storage. In addition to the individual level data, we also collected regional level data for each investigation site.Collaboration and data accessCollaborations are welcome. Please send specific ideas to corresponding author at: [email protected].

Disparities in government and nonprofit organization funding may hinder clinical trial development for underfunded cancers.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1573-1573
Author(s):  
Suneel Deepak Kamath
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Nonprofit Organization ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Descriptive Statistics ◽  
Incidence And Mortality ◽  
High Incidence ◽  
Uterine Cancers ◽  
Disease Specific

1573 Background: National Cancer Institute (NCI) and nonprofit organization (NPO) funding is critical for research and advocacy, but may not be equitable across cancers. This could negatively impact clinical trial development for underfunded cancers. Methods: This study evaluated funding from the NCI and NPOs with > $5 million in annual revenue supporting leukemia, lymphoma, melanoma, lung, breast, colorectal, pancreatic, hepatobiliary, prostate, ovarian, cervical and endometrial cancers from 2015-2018 based on publically available reports and tax records. The primary objectives were to assess for disparities in NCI and NPO funding across different cancers compared to their median incidence and mortality from 2015-2018, and to determine if underfunding correlates with fewer clinical trials found in clinicaltrials.gov. Correlations between combined NCI and NPO funding for each cancer and its incidence, mortality and number of clinical trials were evaluated using descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients. Results: Diseases with the largest combined NCI+NPO funding were breast ($3.75 billion), leukemia ($1.99 billion) and lung cancer ($1.56 billion). Those with the least funding were endometrial ($94 million), cervical ($292 million), and hepatobiliary cancers ($348 million). These data are summarized in the Table. Disease-specific NCI+NPO funding correlated well with incidence, but less so with mortality (Pearson correlation coefficients: 0.74 and 0.63, respectively). Disease-specific NPO funding correlated moderately well with incidence, but was poorly correlated with mortality (Pearson correlation coefficients: 0.54 and 0.39, respectively). Breast cancer, leukemia and lymphoma were consistently well-funded compared to their incidence and mortality, while colorectal, lung, hepatobiliary and uterine cancers were consistently underfunded. The amount of NCI funding, NPO funding and combined NCI+NPO funding for a particular cancer each correlated strongly with the number of clinical trials for that disease (Pearson correlation coefficients: 0.88, 0.87 and 0.91, respectively). Conclusions: Many cancers with high incidence and mortality are underfunded. Cancers with higher mortality rates receive less funding, particularly from NPOs. Underfunding strongly correlates with fewer clinical trials, which could impede future advances in underfunded cancers.[Table: see text]

The role of experience and clinical decision support in clinical trial accrual within oncology.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1527-1527
Author(s):  
Waqas Haque ◽  
Ann M. Geiger ◽  
Celette Sugg Skinner ◽  
Rasmi Nair ◽  
Simon Craddock Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Principal Investigator ◽  
Physician Practices ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Future ◽  
Clinical Trial Accrual

1527 Background: Patient accrual for cancer clinical trials is suboptimal. The complexity of applying eligibility criteria and enrolling patients may deter oncologists from recommending patients for a trial. As such, there is a need to understand how experience, training, and clinical decision support impact physician practices and intentions related to trial accrual. Methods: From May to September 2017, we conducted a survey on clinical trial accrual in a national sample of medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists. The 20-minute survey assessed barriers and facilitators to clinical trial accrual, including experience (e.g., “In the past 5 years, have you been a study or site PI of a trial?”), training (e.g., “Did you receive training about trial design and recruitment as part of medical school, residency, or fellowship? After fellowship?”), and clinical decision support (e.g., “What kind of clinical decision support has your practice implemented?). We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with frequency of discussing trials (with ≥25% of patients) and likelihood of recommending a trial to a patient (likely or very likely) in the future. Results: Survey respondents (n = 1,030) were mostly medical oncologists (59%), age 35-54 years (67%), male (74%), and not in academic practice (58%). About 18% of respondents (n = 183) reported discussing trials with ≥25% of their patients, and 80% reported being likely or very likely to recommend a trial to a patient in the future. Prior experience as principal investigator of a trial was associated with both frequency of discussing trials (OR 3.27, 95% CI 2.25, 4.75) and likelihood of recommending a trial in the future (OR 5.22, 95% CI 3.71, 7.34), as was receiving additional training in clinical trials after fellowship (discussion with patients: OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.80, 3.42; recommend in future: OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.37, 2.69). Implementing clinical decision support was not associated with discussing trials with ≥25% of patients (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.76, 1.67), but was associated with being likely to recommend a trial in the future (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.11, 2.71). Conclusions: In a national survey of oncologists, we observed differences in physician practices and intention related to clinical trial accrual. Whereas the vast majority (80%) reported being likely or very likely to recommend trials in the future, far fewer (20%) reported discussing trials with their patients within the past 5 years. Implementation of clinical decision support – electronic tools intended to optimize patient care and identification of patient eligibility – was not associated with frequency of past discussion of clinical trials but was associated with recommending a trial in the future. Given the stronger association between experience as a site Principal Investigator and recommending a trial, future research should explore how improving opportunities to lead a clinical trial impact trial accrual.

A novel, hybrid, single- and multi-site clinical trial design for CLN3 disease, an ultra-rare lysosomal storage disorder

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 555-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather R Adams ◽  
Sara Defendorf ◽  
Amy Vierhile ◽  
Jonathan W Mink ◽  
Frederick J Marshall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Rare Diseases ◽  
Trial Design ◽  
Neurodegenerative Disorder ◽  
Clinical Trial Design ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Local Participation ◽  
Cln3 Disease ◽  
Study Participants

Background Travel burden often substantially limits the ability of individuals to participate in clinical trials. Wide geographic dispersion of individuals with rare diseases poses an additional key challenge in the conduct of clinical trials for rare diseases. Novel technologies and methods can improve access to research by connecting participants in their homes and local communities to a distant research site. For clinical trials, however, understanding of factors important for transition from traditional multi-center trial models to local participation models is limited. We sought to test a novel, hybrid, single- and multi-site clinical trial design in the context of a trial for Juvenile Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis (CLN3 disease), a very rare pediatric neurodegenerative disorder. Methods We created a “hub and spoke” model for implementing a 22-week crossover clinical trial of mycophenolate compared with placebo, with two 8-week study arms. A single central site, the “hub,” conducted screening, consent, drug dispensing, and tolerability and efficacy assessments. Each participant identified a clinician to serve as a collaborating “spoke” site to perform local safety monitoring. Study participants traveled to the hub at the beginning and end of each study arm, and to their individual spoke site in the intervening weeks. Results A total of 18 spoke sites were established for 19 enrolled study participants. One potential participant was unable to identify a collaborating local site and was thus unable to participate. Study start-up required a median 6.7 months (interquartile range = 4.6–9.2 months). Only 33.3% (n = 6 of 18) of spoke site investigators had prior clinical trial experience, thus close collaboration with respect to study startup, training, and oversight was an important requirement. All but one participant completed all study visits; no study visits were missed due to travel requirements. Conclusions This study represents a step toward local trial participation for patients with rare diseases. Even in the context of close oversight, local participation models may be best suited for studies of compounds with well-understood side-effect profiles, for those with straightforward modes of administration, or for studies requiring extended follow-up periods.

scholarly journals Clinical Trial Accrual Targeting Genomic Alterations After Next-Generation Sequencing at a Non-National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Program

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. e396-e404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kalyan C. Mantripragada ◽  
Adam J. Olszewski ◽  
Andrew Schumacher ◽  
Kimberly Perez ◽  
Ariel Birnbaum ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
Genomic Alterations ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Cancer Program ◽  
Clinical Trial Accrual ◽  
Generation Sequencing

Purpose: Successful clinical trial accrual targeting uncommon genomic alterations will require broad national participation from both National Cancer Institute (NCI)–designated comprehensive cancer centers and community cancer programs. This report describes the initial experience with clinical trial accrual after next-generation sequencing (NGS) from three affiliated non–NCI-designated cancer programs. Materials and Methods: Clinical trial participation was reviewed after enrollment of the first 200 patients undergoing comprehensive genomic profiling by NGS as part of an institutional intuitional review board–approved protocol at three affiliated hospitals in Rhode Island and was compared with published experience from NCI-designated cancer centers. Results: Patient characteristics included a median age of 64 years, a median of two lines of prior therapy, and a predominance of GI carcinomas (58%). One hundred sixty-four of 200 patients (82%) had adequate tumor for NGS, 95% had genomic alterations identified, and 100% had variants of unknown significance. Fifteen of 164 patients (9.2%) enrolled in genotype-directed clinical trials, and three patients (1.8%) received commercially available targeted agents off clinical trials. The reasons for nonreceipt of NGS-directed therapy were no locally available matching trial (48.6%), ineligibility (33.6%) because of comorbidities or interim clinical deterioration, physician's choice of a different therapy (6.8%), or stable disease (11%). Conclusion: This experience demonstrates that a program enrolling patients in specific targeted agent clinical trials after NGS can be implemented successfully outside of the NCI-designated cancer program network, with comparable accrual rates. This is important because targetable genes have rare mutation rates and clinical trial accrual after NGS is low.

Barriers to clinical trial accrual: Clinical trialists' perspectives.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18156-e18156
Author(s):  
Edward S. Kim ◽  
Dax Kurbegov ◽  
Patricia A. Hurley ◽  
David Michael Waterhouse
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Clinical Trial Participation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Contract Research Organization ◽  
The Public ◽  
Community Forum ◽  
Clinical Trial Accrual

e18156 Background: Oncology clinical trial participation rates remain at historic lows. There are many barriers that impede participation. Understanding those barriers, from the perspective of cancer clinical trialists, will help develop solutions to increase physician and site engagement, with the goal of improving accrual rates and advancing cancer treatment. Methods: Physician investigators and research staff from community-based and academic-based research sites were surveyed during ASCO’s Research Community Forum (RCF) Annual Meeting (N = 159) and through a pre-meeting survey (N = 124) in 2018. Findings and potential solutions were discussed during the meeting. Results: 84% of respondents (n = 84) reported that it took 6-8 months to open a trial and 86% (n = 81) reported that trials had unnecessary delays 70% of the time. The top 10 barriers to accrual identified were: insufficient staffing resources, restrictive eligibility criteria, physician buy-in, site access to trials, burdensome regulatory requirements, difficulty identifying patients, lack of suitable trials, sponsor and contract research organization requirements, patient barriers, and site cost-benefit. Respondents shared strategies to address these barriers. Conclusions: The current state of conducting clinical trials is not sustainable and hinders clinical trial participation. New strategies are needed to ensure patients and practices have access to trials, standardize and streamline processes, reduce inefficiencies, simplify trial activation, reduce regulatory burden, provide sufficient compensation to sites, engage the community and patients, educate the public, and increase collaborations. The ASCO RCF offers resources, available to the public, that offer practical strategies to overcome barriers to clinical trial accrual and has ongoing efforts to facilitate oncology practice participation in clinical trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document