Claudia R Baquet1, Gary L Ellison, Shiraz I Mishra. 1. University of Maryland School of Medicine, 685 West Baltimore St, Suite 618, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. cbaquet@som.umaryland.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: We examined the relationship of sociodemographic factors, urban/rural residence, and county-level socioeconomic factors on accrual of Maryland patients with cancer to National Cancer Institute (NCI) -sponsored cancer treatment clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were analyzed for the period 1999 to 2002 for 2,240 Maryland patients with cancer accrued onto NCI-sponsored treatment trials. The extent to which Maryland patients with cancer and patients residing in lower socioeconomic and/or rural areas were accrued to cancer trials and were representative of all patients with cancer in Maryland was determined. Data were obtained from several sources, including NCI's Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program for Maryland patients with cancer in Cooperative Group therapeutic trials, Maryland Cancer Registry data on cancer incidence, and United States Census and the Department of Agriculture. RESULTS: For Maryland patients with cancer accrued onto NCI-sponsored treatment trials between 1999 and 2002, subgroups accrued at a higher rate included pediatric and adolescent age groups, white patients, female patients (for sex-specific tumors), patients with private health insurance, and patients residing in the Maryland National Capitol region. Moreover, between 1999 and 2002, there was an estimated annual decline (8.9% per year; P < .05) in the percentage of black patients accrued onto cancer treatment trials. Logistic regression models uncovered different patterns of accrual for female patients and male patients on county-level socioeconomic factors. CONCLUSION: Results highlight disparities in the accrual of Maryland patients with cancer onto NCI-sponsored treatment trials based on patient age, race/ethnicity, geography of residence, and county-level socioeconomic factors. Findings provide the basis for development of innovative tailored and targeted educational efforts to improve trial accrual, particularly for the underserved.
PURPOSE: We examined the relationship of sociodemographic factors, urban/rural residence, and county-level socioeconomic factors on accrual of Maryland patients with cancer to National Cancer Institute (NCI) -sponsored cancer treatment clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were analyzed for the period 1999 to 2002 for 2,240 Maryland patients with cancer accrued onto NCI-sponsored treatment trials. The extent to which Maryland patients with cancer and patients residing in lower socioeconomic and/or rural areas were accrued to cancer trials and were representative of all patients with cancer in Maryland was determined. Data were obtained from several sources, including NCI's Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program for Maryland patients with cancer in Cooperative Group therapeutic trials, Maryland Cancer Registry data on cancer incidence, and United States Census and the Department of Agriculture. RESULTS: For Maryland patients with cancer accrued onto NCI-sponsored treatment trials between 1999 and 2002, subgroups accrued at a higher rate included pediatric and adolescent age groups, white patients, female patients (for sex-specific tumors), patients with private health insurance, and patients residing in the Maryland National Capitol region. Moreover, between 1999 and 2002, there was an estimated annual decline (8.9% per year; P < .05) in the percentage of black patients accrued onto cancer treatment trials. Logistic regression models uncovered different patterns of accrual for female patients and male patients on county-level socioeconomic factors. CONCLUSION: Results highlight disparities in the accrual of Maryland patients with cancer onto NCI-sponsored treatment trials based on patient age, race/ethnicity, geography of residence, and county-level socioeconomic factors. Findings provide the basis for development of innovative tailored and targeted educational efforts to improve trial accrual, particularly for the underserved.
Authors: A R Giuliano; N Mokuau; C Hughes; G Tortolero-Luna; B Risendal; T E Prewitt; W J McCaskill-Stevens Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Joy H Lewis; Meredith L Kilgore; Dana P Goldman; Edward L Trimble; Richard Kaplan; Michael J Montello; Michael G Housman; José J Escarce Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Warren B Sateren; Edward L Trimble; Jeffrey Abrams; Otis Brawley; Nancy Breen; Leslie Ford; Mary McCabe; Richard Kaplan; Malcolm Smith; Richard Ungerleider; Michaele C Christian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-04-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sandra E Brooks; Randy L Carter; Steven C Plaxe; Karen M Basen-Engquist; Michael Rodriguez; James Kauderer; Joan L Walker; Tashanna K N Myers; Janet G Drake; Laura J Havrilesky; Linda Van Le; Lisa M Landrum; Carol L Brown Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jennifer K Logan; Chad Tang; Zhongxing Liao; J Jack Lee; John V Heymach; Stephen G Swisher; James W Welsh; Jianjun Zhang; Steven H Lin; Daniel R Gomez Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-11-27 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Linda Fleisher; Dominique G Ruggieri; Suzanne M Miller; Sharon Manne; Terrance Albrecht; Joanne Buzaglo; Michael A Collins; Michael Katz; Tyler G Kinzy; Tasnuva Liu; Cheri Manning; Ellen Specker Charap; Jennifer Millard; Dawn M Miller; David Poole; Stephanie Raivitch; Nancy Roach; Eric A Ross; Neal J Meropol Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2014-04-21
Authors: Ryan D Nipp; Hang Lee; Elizabeth Powell; Nicole E Birrer; Emily Poles; Daniel Finkelstein; Karen Winkfield; Sanja Percac-Lima; Bruce Chabner; Beverly Moy Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-03-14
Authors: Mona N Fouad; Jeannette Y Lee; Paul J Catalano; Thomas M Vogt; Syed Yousuf Zafar; Dee W West; Christian Simon; Carrie N Klabunde; Katherine L Kahn; Jane C Weeks; Catarina I Kiefe Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 3.840