State of Cancer Care in America: Achieving Cancer Health Equity Among Sexual and Gender Minority Communities.

In 2017, ASCO issued the position statement, Strategies for Reducing Cancer Health Disparities Among Sexual and Gender Minority Populations, outlining five areas of recommendations to address the needs of both sexual and gender minority (SGM, eg, LGBTQ+) populations affected by cancer and members of the oncology workforce who identify as SGM: (1) patient education and support; (2) workforce development and diversity; (3) quality improvement strategies; (4) policy solutions; and (5) research strategies. In 2019, ASCO convened the SGM Task Force to help actualize the recommendations of the 2017 position statement. The percentage of the US population who publicly identify as SGM has increased dramatically over the past few years. Although increased national interest in SGM health equity has accompanied a general interest in research, policy change, and education around diversity, equity, and inclusion, resulting from public concern over discrimination in health care against Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, this has been accompanied by a surge in discriminatory legislation directly impacting the SGM community. Although much progress has been made in advancing SGM cancer health equity since 2017, more progress is needed to reduce disparities and advance equity. The five focus areas outlined in the 2017 ASCO position statement remain relevant, as we must continue to promote and advance equity in quality improvement, workforce development, patient care, research, and SGM-affirming policies. This article reports on the progress toward reducing SGM cancer disparities and achieving equity across these five areas and identifies future directions for the work that still remains.

An Assessment of the Feasibility and Utility of an ACCC-ASCO Implicit Bias Training Program to Enhance Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Cancer trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity in the population of people with cancer in the United States. As a result of multiple system-, patient-, and provider-level factors, including implicit bias, cancer clinical trials are not consistently offered to all potentially eligible patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ASCO and ACCC evaluated the utility (pre- and post-test knowledge changes) and feasibility (completion rates, curriculum satisfaction metrics, survey questions, and interviews) of a customized online training program combined with facilitated peer-to-peer discussion designed to help research teams identify their own implicit biases and develop strategies to mitigate them. Discussion focused on (1) specific elements of the training modules; (2) how to apply lessons learned; and (3) key considerations for developing a facilitation guide to support peer-to-peer discussions in cancer clinical research settings. We evaluated discussion via a qualitative assessment. RESULTS: Participant completion rate was high: 49 of 50 participating cancer programs completed training; 126 of 129 participating individuals completed the training (98% response rate); and 119 completed the training and evaluations (92% response rate). Training increased the mean percentage change in knowledge scores by 19%-45% across key concepts (eg, causes of health disparities) and increased the mean percentage change in knowledge scores by 10%-31% about strategies/actions to address implicit bias and diversity concerns in cancer clinical trials. Knowledge increases were sustained at 6 weeks. Qualitative evaluation validated the utility and feasibility of facilitated peer-to-peer discussion. CONCLUSION: The pilot implementation of the training program demonstrated excellent utility and feasibility. Our evaluation affirms that an online training designed to raise awareness about implicit bias and develop strategies to mitigate biases among cancer research teams is feasible and can be readily implemented in cancer research settings.