BACKGROUND: Clinical trials (CTs) are the mechanism by which research is translated into standards of care. Low recruitment among underserved and minority populations may result in inequity in access to the latest technology and treatments, compromise the generalizability, and lead to failure in identification of important positive or negative treatment effects among under-represented populations. METHODS: Data were collected over a 39-month period on patient eligibility for available therapeutic cancer CTs. Reasons for ineligibility and refusal were collected. The data were captured using an automated software tool for tracking eligibility pre-enrollment. We examined characteristics associated with being evaluated for a trial, and reasons for ineligibility and refusal, overall and by patient race. RESULTS: African-Americans (AAs) were more likely than Whites to be ineligible (odds ratio, (OR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0-1.58) and if eligible, to refuse participation (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.27-2.52), even after adjusting for insurance, age, gender, study phase, and cancer type. White patients were more likely to be ineligible due to study-specific or cancer characteristics. AAs were more likely to be ineligible due to mental status or perceived noncompliance. Whites were more likely to refuse due to extra burden, due to concerns with randomization and toxicity, or because they express a positive treatment preference. AAs were more likely to refuse because they were not interested in CTs, because of family pressures, or they felt overwhelmed (NS)). DISCUSSION: This study is the first to directly compare ineligibility and refusal rates and reasons captured prospectively in AA and White cancer patients. The data are consistent with earlier studies that indicated that AA patients more often are deemed ineligible and, when eligible, more often refuse participation. However, differences in reasons for ineligibility and refusal by race have implications for a cancer center to participate in CTs appropriate for the population of patients served. On a broader scale, consideration should be given to modifying eligibility criteria and other design aspects to permit broader participation of minority and other underserved groups.
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials (CTs) are the mechanism by which research is translated into standards of care. Low recruitment among underserved and minority populations may result in inequity in access to the latest technology and treatments, compromise the generalizability, and lead to failure in identification of important positive or negative treatment effects among under-represented populations. METHODS: Data were collected over a 39-month period on patient eligibility for available therapeutic cancer CTs. Reasons for ineligibility and refusal were collected. The data were captured using an automated software tool for tracking eligibility pre-enrollment. We examined characteristics associated with being evaluated for a trial, and reasons for ineligibility and refusal, overall and by patient race. RESULTS: African-Americans (AAs) were more likely than Whites to be ineligible (odds ratio, (OR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0-1.58) and if eligible, to refuse participation (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.27-2.52), even after adjusting for insurance, age, gender, study phase, and cancer type. White patients were more likely to be ineligible due to study-specific or cancer characteristics. AAs were more likely to be ineligible due to mental status or perceived noncompliance. Whites were more likely to refuse due to extra burden, due to concerns with randomization and toxicity, or because they express a positive treatment preference. AAs were more likely to refuse because they were not interested in CTs, because of family pressures, or they felt overwhelmed (NS)). DISCUSSION: This study is the first to directly compare ineligibility and refusal rates and reasons captured prospectively in AA and White cancerpatients. The data are consistent with earlier studies that indicated that AA patients more often are deemed ineligible and, when eligible, more often refuse participation. However, differences in reasons for ineligibility and refusal by race have implications for a cancer center to participate in CTs appropriate for the population of patients served. On a broader scale, consideration should be given to modifying eligibility criteria and other design aspects to permit broader participation of minority and other underserved groups.
Authors: Jean G Ford; Mollie W Howerton; Gabriel Y Lai; Tiffany L Gary; Shari Bolen; M Chris Gibbons; Jon Tilburt; Charles Baffi; Teerath Peter Tanpitukpongse; Renee F Wilson; Neil R Powe; Eric B Bass Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anjali S Advani; Benjamin Atkeson; Carrie L Brown; Bercedis L Peterson; Laura Fish; Jeffrey L Johnson; Jon P Gockerman; Marc Gautier Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-03-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: John H Stewart; Alain G Bertoni; Jennifer L Staten; Edward A Levine; Cary P Gross Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-08-08 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: V Jenkins; D Farewell; L Batt; T Maughan; L Branston; C Langridge; L Parlour; V Farewell; L Fallowfield Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Dionna O Roberts; Brittany Covert; Mark J Rodeghier; Nagina Parmar; Michael R DeBaun; Alexis A Thompson; Robert I Liem Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2014-04-22 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Marya Gwadz; Charles M Cleland; Mindy Belkin; Amanda Ritchie; Noelle Leonard; Marion Riedel; Angela Banfield; Pablo Colon; Vanessa Elharrar; Jonathan Kagan; Donna Mildvan Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2014-12
Authors: Grace C Hillyer; Melissa Beauchemin; Dawn L Hershman; Moshe Kelsen; Frances L Brogan; Rossy Sandoval; Karen M Schmitt; Andria Reyes; Mary Beth Terry; Andrew B Lassman; Gary K Schwartz Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Jeffrey D Lebensburger; Robert F Sidonio; Michael R Debaun; Monika M Safford; Thomas H Howard; Isabel C Scarinci Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Adebowale Odulana; Mimi M Kim; Melissa Green; Yhenneko Taylor; Daniel L Howard; Paul Godley; Giselle Corbie-Smith Journal: J Relig Health Date: 2014-04
Authors: Valentina I Petkov; Lynne T Penberthy; Bassam A Dahman; Andrew Poklepovic; Chris W Gillam; James H McDermott Journal: Exp Biol Med (Maywood) Date: 2013-10-09
Authors: Arti Hurria; William Dale; Margaret Mooney; Julia H Rowland; Karla V Ballman; Harvey J Cohen; Hyman B Muss; Richard L Schilsky; Betty Ferrell; Martine Extermann; Kenneth E Schmader; Supriya G Mohile Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 44.544