Noam A VanderWalde1, Travis Dockter2, Daniel V Wakefield3, Daniel Satele2, Jeff Sloan2, Reshma Jagsi4, Stuart M Lichtman5, Rachel A Freedman6, Jacqueline M Lafky2, Hyman Muss7, Harvey Jay Cohen8, Jennifer Le-Rademacher2, Aminah Jatoi9. 1. West Cancer Center and Research Institute, Memphis, TN, United States of America. Electronic address: nvanderw@westclinic.com. 2. Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America. 3. West Cancer Center and Research Institute, Memphis, TN, United States of America. 4. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States of America. 5. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States of America. 6. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, United States of America. 7. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America. 8. Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States of America. 9. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults are under-represented in cancer clinical trials. However, it remains unclear which types of trials under-enroll aging patients. We aimed to identify associations between trial characteristics and disparate enrollment of older adults onto trials sponsored by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance). METHODS: Actual age ≥ 65 percentage and trial data were extracted from the Alliance closed study list. Each trial, based on its cancer type and years of enrollment, was assigned an expected age ≥ 65 percentage extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) US population-based database. Enrollment disparity difference (EDD), the difference between the expected age ≥ 65 percentage and the actual age ≥ 65 percentage, was calculated for each trial. Linear regression determined trial variables associated with larger EDDs and variables with an overall association p-value <0.20 were included in a multivariable fixed-effects linear model. RESULTS: The median age of 66,708 patients across 237 trials was 60 years (range 18-102). The average actual age ≥ 65 percentage enrolled per trial was lower than each trial's expected age ≥ 65 percentage average (39% vs. 58%; EDD 19, 95% CI 17.1-21.3%, p < 0.0001). In multivariable analyses, non-genitourinary (GU) cancer types (p < 0.001), trimodality+ trials (estimate 8.78, 95%CI 2.21-15.34, p = 0.009), and phase 2 trials (estimate 4.43 95% CI -0.06-8.91; p = 0.05) were all associated with larger EDDs. CONCLUSIONS: Disparate enrollment of older adults is not equal across cancer trials. Future strategies to improve older adult inclusion should focus on trial types associated with the highest disparate enrollment.
BACKGROUND: Older adults are under-represented in cancer clinical trials. However, it remains unclear which types of trials under-enroll aging patients. We aimed to identify associations between trial characteristics and disparate enrollment of older adults onto trials sponsored by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance). METHODS: Actual age ≥ 65 percentage and trial data were extracted from the Alliance closed study list. Each trial, based on its cancer type and years of enrollment, was assigned an expected age ≥ 65 percentage extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) US population-based database. Enrollment disparity difference (EDD), the difference between the expected age ≥ 65 percentage and the actual age ≥ 65 percentage, was calculated for each trial. Linear regression determined trial variables associated with larger EDDs and variables with an overall association p-value <0.20 were included in a multivariable fixed-effects linear model. RESULTS: The median age of 66,708 patients across 237 trials was 60 years (range 18-102). The average actual age ≥ 65 percentage enrolled per trial was lower than each trial's expected age ≥ 65 percentage average (39% vs. 58%; EDD 19, 95% CI 17.1-21.3%, p < 0.0001). In multivariable analyses, non-genitourinary (GU) cancer types (p < 0.001), trimodality+ trials (estimate 8.78, 95%CI 2.21-15.34, p = 0.009), and phase 2 trials (estimate 4.43 95% CI -0.06-8.91; p = 0.05) were all associated with larger EDDs. CONCLUSIONS: Disparate enrollment of older adults is not equal across cancer trials. Future strategies to improve older adult inclusion should focus on trial types associated with the highest disparate enrollment.
Authors: Ethan B Ludmir; Walker Mainwaring; Timothy A Lin; Austin B Miller; Amit Jethanandani; Andres F Espinoza; Jacob J Mandel; Steven H Lin; Benjamin D Smith; Grace L Smith; Noam A VanderWalde; Bruce D Minsky; Albert C Koong; Thomas E Stinchcombe; Reshma Jagsi; Daniel R Gomez; Charles R Thomas; C David Fuller Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Waddah B Al-Refaie; Paul A Decker; Karla V Ballman; Peter W T Pisters; Mitchell C Posner; Kelly K Hunt; Bryan Meyers; Armin D Weinberg; Heidi Nelson; Lisa Newman; Angelina Tan; Jennifer G Le-Rademacher; Arti Hurria; Aminah Jatoi Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Gretchen G Kimmick; Bercedis L Peterson; Alice B Kornblith; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Jeffrey L Johnson; Judith Wheeler; Robin Heinze; Harvey J Cohen; Hyman B Muss Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Arti Hurria; Laura A Levit; William Dale; Supriya G Mohile; Hyman B Muss; Louis Fehrenbacher; Allison Magnuson; Stuart M Lichtman; Suanna S Bruinooge; Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis; William P Tew; Michael A Postow; Harvey J Cohen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alice B Kornblith; Margaret Kemeny; Bercedis L Peterson; Judith Wheeler; Jeffrey Crawford; Nancy Bartlett; Gini Fleming; Stephen Graziano; Hyman Muss; Harvey Jay Cohen Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-09-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Benjamin D Smith; Grace L Smith; Arti Hurria; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Thomas A Buchholz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-04-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stuart M Lichtman; R Donald Harvey; Marie-Anne Damiette Smit; Atiqur Rahman; Michael A Thompson; Nancy Roach; Caroline Schenkel; Suanna S Bruinooge; Patricia Cortazar; Dana Walker; Louis Fehrenbacher Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 44.544
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
Authors: Isabela M Bumanlag; Joseph Abi Jaoude; Michael K Rooney; Cullen M Taniguchi; Ethan B Ludmir Journal: Semin Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 5.934
Authors: Ryan T Morse; Rohit G Ganju; Gregory N Gan; Ying Cao; Prakash Neupane; Kiran Kakarala; Yelizaveta Shnayder; Christopher E Lominska Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 6.575