BACKGROUND: To ensure that National Institutes of Health-funded research is relevant to the population's needs, specific emphasis on proportional representation of minority/sex groups into National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers' clinical research programs is reported to the NCI. METHODS: EMPaCT investigators at 5 regionally diverse comprehensive cancer centers compared data reported to the NCI for their most recent Cancer Center Support Grant competitive renewal to assess and compare the centers' catchment area designations, data definitions, data elements, collection processes, reporting, and performance regarding proportional representation of race/ethnicity and sex subsets. RESULTS: Cancer centers' catchment area definitions differed widely in terms of their cancer patient versus general population specificity, levels of specificity, and geographic coverage. Racial/ethnic categories were similar, yet were defined differently, across institutions. Patients' socioeconomic status and insurance status were inconsistently captured across the 5 centers. CONCLUSIONS: Catchment area definitions and the collection of patient-level demographic factors varied widely across the 5 comprehensive cancer centers. This challenged the assessment of success by cancer centers in accruing representative populations into the cancer research enterprise. Accrual of minorities was less than desired for at least 1 racial/ethnic subcategory at 4 of the 5 centers. Institutions should clearly and consistently declare their primary catchment area and the rationale and should report how race/ethnicity and sex are defined, determined, collected, and reported. More standardized, frequent, consistent collection, reporting, and review of these data are recommended, as is a commitment to collecting socioeconomic data, given that socioeconomic status is a primary driver of cancer disparities in the United States.
BACKGROUND: To ensure that National Institutes of Health-funded research is relevant to the population's needs, specific emphasis on proportional representation of minority/sex groups into National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers' clinical research programs is reported to the NCI. METHODS: EMPaCT investigators at 5 regionally diverse comprehensive cancer centers compared data reported to the NCI for their most recent Cancer Center Support Grant competitive renewal to assess and compare the centers' catchment area designations, data definitions, data elements, collection processes, reporting, and performance regarding proportional representation of race/ethnicity and sex subsets. RESULTS:Cancer centers' catchment area definitions differed widely in terms of their cancerpatient versus general population specificity, levels of specificity, and geographic coverage. Racial/ethnic categories were similar, yet were defined differently, across institutions. Patients' socioeconomic status and insurance status were inconsistently captured across the 5 centers. CONCLUSIONS: Catchment area definitions and the collection of patient-level demographic factors varied widely across the 5 comprehensive cancer centers. This challenged the assessment of success by cancer centers in accruing representative populations into the cancer research enterprise. Accrual of minorities was less than desired for at least 1 racial/ethnic subcategory at 4 of the 5 centers. Institutions should clearly and consistently declare their primary catchment area and the rationale and should report how race/ethnicity and sex are defined, determined, collected, and reported. More standardized, frequent, consistent collection, reporting, and review of these data are recommended, as is a commitment to collecting socioeconomic data, given that socioeconomic status is a primary driver of cancer disparities in the United States.
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: Ahmedin Jemal; Limin X Clegg; Elizabeth Ward; Lynn A G Ries; Xiaocheng Wu; Patricia M Jamison; Phyllis A Wingo; Holly L Howe; Robert N Anderson; Brenda K Edwards Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-07-01 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Usha Menon; Kimlin Ashing; Mei Wei Chang; Shannon M Christy; Katarina Friberg-Felsted; Virginia Gil Rivas; Clement K Gwede; Qian Lu; Cathy D Meade; Jamila Sly; Monica Wang; Betina Yanez; Karen Yeary; Jean C Yi; Kassandra I Alcaraz Journal: Nurs Res Date: 2019 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 2.381
Authors: Stacey Shiovitz; Aasthaa Bansal; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Andrew Karnopp; Scott V Adams; Victoria Warren-Mears; Scott D Ramsey Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-05-18 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Linda B Cottler; Catherine W Striley; Amy L Elliott; Abigail E Zulich; Evan Kwiatkowski; David R Nelson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Soumya J Niranjan; Jennifer A Wenzel; Michelle Y Martin; Mona N Fouad; Selwyn M Vickers; Badrinath R Konety; Raegan W Durant Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-05