PURPOSE: Proportionate minority representation in clinical trials is an important step toward addressing health care inequities. Given the paucity of data on this topic in urologic oncology, we sought to quantify the enrollment of minority patients in clinical trials studying prostate, kidney, and bladder/urothelial cancers. METHODS: The ClincialTrials.gov database was queried for completed phase II and III interventional trials in prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers. The SEER database was used to calculate the US prevalence of these genitourinary cancers. Representation quotients (RQ) were calculated to describe the relative proportion of each racial/ethnic group enrolled in clinical trials over the proportion of persons from each group among national cancer cases by cancer type. RESULTS: Of 341 trials that met initial eligibility criteria, only 169 (49.7%) reported data on race or ethnicity. Aggregate RQs from 2000 to 2017 showed that White patients were continually over-represented in trials for all cancer types. Black and Asian patients were poorly represented across all cancer types. When stratified by 3-year increments, the RQs remained stable for all races, from 2000 to 2017. When stratified by ethnicity, Hispanic patients were under-represented across all cancer types in the study period. When examining representation by funding source, we found that US government-funded clinical trials proportionally enroll the most diverse patient populations over those funded by academic institutions and industry. Interestingly, more than 50% of the trials examined did not report race nor ethnicity, highlighting a crucial flaw in investigator compliance with federal clinical trial mandates. CONCLUSION: Clinical trials targeting prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers continue to under-represent racial/ethnic minority patients. On the basis of the incidence of these cancers within minority populations, efforts should focus on creating racially and ethnically inclusive cancer research.
PURPOSE: Proportionate minority representation in clinical trials is an important step toward addressing health care inequities. Given the paucity of data on this topic in urologic oncology, we sought to quantify the enrollment of minority patients in clinical trials studying prostate, kidney, and bladder/urothelial cancers. METHODS: The ClincialTrials.gov database was queried for completed phase II and III interventional trials in prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers. The SEER database was used to calculate the US prevalence of these genitourinary cancers. Representation quotients (RQ) were calculated to describe the relative proportion of each racial/ethnic group enrolled in clinical trials over the proportion of persons from each group among national cancer cases by cancer type. RESULTS: Of 341 trials that met initial eligibility criteria, only 169 (49.7%) reported data on race or ethnicity. Aggregate RQs from 2000 to 2017 showed that White patients were continually over-represented in trials for all cancer types. Black and Asian patients were poorly represented across all cancer types. When stratified by 3-year increments, the RQs remained stable for all races, from 2000 to 2017. When stratified by ethnicity, Hispanic patients were under-represented across all cancer types in the study period. When examining representation by funding source, we found that US government-funded clinical trials proportionally enroll the most diverse patient populations over those funded by academic institutions and industry. Interestingly, more than 50% of the trials examined did not report race nor ethnicity, highlighting a crucial flaw in investigator compliance with federal clinical trial mandates. CONCLUSION: Clinical trials targeting prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers continue to under-represent racial/ethnic minority patients. On the basis of the incidence of these cancers within minority populations, efforts should focus on creating racially and ethnically inclusive cancer research.
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: Ashwin S Balakrishnan; Nynikka R Palmer; Kirkpatrick B Fergus; Thomas W Gaither; Nima Baradaran; Medina Ndoye; Benjamin N Breyer Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Charles R Rogers; Michael J Rovito; Musse Hussein; Ogechi Jessica Obidike; Rebekah Pratt; Mark Alexander; Jerica M Berge; Marc Dall'Era; Jeffrey W Nix; Christopher Warlick Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Brian L Egleston; Omar Pedraza; Yu-Ning Wong; Roland L Dunbrack; Candace L Griffin; Eric A Ross; J Robert Beck Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Paul F Pinsky; Marvella Ford; Eduard Gamito; Darlene Higgins; Victoria Jenkins; Lois Lamerato; Sally Tenorio; Pamela M Marcus; John K Gohagan Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Cathleen E Willging; David H Sommerfeld; Elise Trott Jaramillo; Erik Lujan; Roxane Spruce Bly; Erin K Debenport; Steven P Verney; Ron Lujan Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Elliott Freudenburg; Iyla Bagheri; Sunay Srinivas; Ariza Martinez; Nagireddy Putluri; Zachary Klaassen; Ashish M Kamat; Badrinath R Konety; William Y Kim; Lars Dyrskjøt; David J McConkey; Stephen J Freedland; Peter C Black; Siamak Daneshmand; James W F Catto; Stephen B Williams Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 2.532
Authors: Russell G Saltzman; Isaac Zucker; Katherine Campbell; Deep A Gandhi; Kikachukwu Otiono; Alexander Weber; Thomas A Masterson; Ranjith Ramasamy Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2022-08-28