Evolution of community outreach and engagement at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers, an evolving journey.

Cancer mortality rates have declined during the last 28 years, but that process is not equitably shared. Disparities in cancer outcomes by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation and gender identity, and geographic location persist across the cancer care continuum. Consequently, community outreach and engagement (COE) efforts within National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center (NCI-DCC) catchment areas have intensified during the last 10 years as has the emphasis on COE and catchment areas in NCI's Cancer Center Support Grant applications. This review article attempts to provide a historic perspective of COE within NCI-DCCs. Improving COE has long been an important initiative for the NCI, but it was not until 2012 and 2016 that NCI-DCCs were required to define their catchment areas rigorously and to provide specific descriptions of COE interventions, respectively. NCI-DCCs had previously lacked adequate focus on the inclusion of historically marginalized patients in cancer innovation efforts. Integrating COE efforts throughout the research and operational aspects of the cancer centers, at both the patient and community levels, will expand the footprint of COE efforts within NCI-DCCs. Achieving this change requires sustained commitment by the centers to adjust their activities and improve access and outcomes for historically marginalized communities.

Temporal Trends of Health Disparity in the Utilization of Curative-Intent Treatments for Hepatocellular Carcinoma- Are we making progress?

BACKGROUND: Liver-directed treatments: ablative therapy (AT), surgical resection (SR), liver transplantation (LT), as well Trans-Arterial Chemoembolization (TACE) improve OS for early-stage HCC. While racial and socioeconomic disparities impact access to liver-directed therapies, their temporal trends for the curative-intent treatment of HCC remain to be elucidated. METHODS: We performed chi-square, logistic regression, and temporal trends analyses on data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2011-2019. The outcome of interest was the rate of AT, SR, LT (curative-intent treatments), and TACE utilization, and the primary predictors were racial/ethnic group, and SES (insurance status). RESULTS: African-American and Hispanic patients had lower odds of receiving AT - (African-American: OR=0.78, p<0.001), (Hispanic: OR=0.84, p=0.005); and SR - (African-American: OR=0.71, p<0.001), (Hispanics: OR=0.64, p<0.001) compared with white patients. The odds of LT was lower for African-American (OR=0.76, p<0.001) but higher for Hispanic patients (OR=1.25, p=0.001) compared to white patients. Low SES had worse odds of AT (OR=0.79, p=0.001), SR (OR=0.66, p<0.001), and LT (OR=0.84, p=0.028) compared to high SES. While curative-intent treatments showed significant upward temporal trends among White (10.6% to 13.9%, p<0.001), and API/Other patients (14.4% to 15.7%, p=0.007), there were non-significant trends among African-American (10.9% to 10.1%, p=0.825) or Hispanic patients (12.2% to 13.7%, p=0.056). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates concerning disparities in the utilization of curative-intent treatment for HCC based on race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Moreover, racial/ethnic disparities have widened rather than improved over time.

Race/ethnic associations with comprehensive cancer center access and clinical trial enrollment for acute leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial participation at Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) is inequitable for minoritized race/ethnic groups with acute leukemia. CCCs care for a high proportion of adults with acute leukemia. It is unclear if participation inequities are due to CCC access, post-access enrollment, or both. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with acute leukemia (2010-2019) residing within Massachusetts, the designated catchment area of the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center (DF/HCC). Individuals were categorized as non-Hispanic Asian (NHA), Black (NHB), White (NHW), Hispanic White (HW), or Other. Decomposition analyses assessed covariate contributions to disparities in (1) access to DF/HCC care and (2) post-access enrollment. RESULTS: Of 3698 individuals with acute leukemia, 85.9% were NHW, 4.5% HW, 4.3% NHB, 3.7% NHA, and 1.3% Other. Access was lower for HW (age- and sex-adjusted OR 0.64 95%CI 0.45,0.90) and reduced post-access enrollment for HW (aOR 0.54 95%CI 0.34,0.86) and NHB (aOR 0.60 95%CI 0.39,0.92) compared to NHW. Payor and socioeconomic status (SES) accounted for 25.2% and 21.2% of the +1.1% absolute difference in HW access. Marital status and SES accounted for 8.0% and 7.0% of the -8.8% absolute disparity in HW enrollment; 76.4% of the disparity was unexplained. SES and marital status accounted for 8.2% and 7.1% of the -9.1% absolute disparity in NHB enrollment; 73.0% of the disparity was unexplained. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of race/ethnic inequities in acute leukemia trial enrollment at CCCs are from post-access enrollment, the majority of which was not explained by sociodemographic factors.

Women's Information Needs and Educational Preferences Regarding Lung Cancer Screening.

Background: Physicians are less likely to discuss lung cancer screening (LCS) with women, and women have lower awareness of LCS availability. The objective of this qualitative study was to determine information needs, patient-provider communication barriers, and preferences for LCS education among women. Materials and Methods: Eight semistructured qualitative focus groups were conducted with 28 self-identified women meeting LCS eligibility criteria. Participants were recruited through a large health system, from a community-based LCS program, and through a national online database between October 2020 and March 2021. Focus groups were led by a trained moderator via Zoom. Audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis by investigators. Results: LCS decision-making influences included: (1) Health care provider recommendation; (2) Self-advocacy; (3) Insurance coverage and cost; (4) Family; and (5) Interest in early detection. Participants preferred video and print materials, available at physician's office or shared by physician, without scare tactics or shaming about smoking, use clear language, with diverse participants and images. Preferred content focused on: (1) Benefits of early detection; (2) Lung cancer definition, statistics, and risk factors; (3) Benefits of quitting smoking; (4) Demonstration or explanation of how LCS is done; and (5) Availability of other tests and potential harms of screening. Conclusion: Women in our study had limited awareness of LCS and their eligibility and wanted recommendation and support for LCS from their health care providers. We identified addressable information needs about lung cancer and the screening process that can be used to improve LCS uptake in women and shared decision-making processes.

Use, variability, and justification of eligibility criteria for phase II and III clinical trials in acute leukemia.

Clinical trial eligibility criteria can unfairly exclude patients or unnecessarily expose them to known risks if criteria are not concordant with drug safety. There are few data evaluating the extent to which acute leukemia eligibility criteria are justified. We analyzed criteria and drug safety data for front-line phase II and/or III acute leukemia trials with start dates 1/1/2010-12/31/2019 registered on clinicaltrials.gov. Multivariable analyses assessed concordance between criteria use and safety data (presence of criteria with a safety signal, or absence of criteria without a signal), and differences between criteria and safety-based limits. Of 250 eligible trials, concordant use of ejection fraction criteria was seen in 34.8%, corrected QT level (QTc) in 22.4%, bilirubin in 68.4%, aspartate transaminase/alanine aminotransferase (AST/ALT) in 58.8%, renal function in 68.4%, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in 54.8%, and hepatitis B and C in 42.0% and 41.2%. HIV and hepatitis B and C criteria use was concordant with safety data (adjusted Odds Ratios 2.04 [95%CI: 1.13, 3.66], 2.64 [95%CI: 1.38, 5.04], 2.27 [95%CI: 1.20, 4.32]) but organ function criteria were not (all P>0.05); phase III trials were not more concordant. Bilirubin criteria limits were the same as safety-based limits in 16.0% of trials, AST/ALT in 18.1%, and renal function in 13.9%; in 75.7%, 51.4%, and 56.5% of trials, criteria were more restrictive, respectively, by median differences of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.5 times the upper limits of normal. We found limited drug safety justifications for acute leukemia eligibility criteria. These data define criteria use and limits that can be rationally modified to increase patient inclusion and welfare.

Sociodemographic associations with uptake of novel therapies for acute myeloid leukemia.

Inequitable uptake of novel therapies (NT) in non-cancer settings are known for patients with lower socioeconomic status (SES), People of Color (POC), and older adults. NT uptake equity in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is not well known. We performed a retrospective cohort study (1/2014-8/2022) of the United States nationwide Flatiron HealthTM electronic health record-derived, de-identified database. We estimated sociodemographic associations with AML NT receipt using incidence rate ratios (IRR). Odds ratios (OR) assessed differences in venetoclax (the most common NT) receipt at community sites and between site characteristics and NT adoption. Of 8081 patients (139 sites), 3102 (38%) received a NT. NT use increased annually (IRR 1.14, 95% confidence interval [1.07, 1.22]). NT receipt was similar between Non-Hispanic-Whites and POC (IRR 1.03, [0.91, 1.17]) and as age increased (IRR 1.02 [0.97, 1.07]). At community sites, Non-Hispanic-Whites were less likely to receive venetoclax (OR 0.77 [0.66, 0.91]); older age (OR 1.05 [1.04, 1.05]) and higher area-level SES were associated with venetoclax receipt (OR 1.23 [1.05, 1.43]). Early NT adopting sites had more prescribing physicians (OR 1.25 [1.13, 1.43]) and higher SES strata patients (OR 2.81 [1.08, 7.66]). Inequities in AML NT uptake were seen by SES; for venetoclax, differential uptake reflects its label indication for older adults and those with comorbidities.

Pretest Video Education Versus Genetic Counseling for Patients With Prostate Cancer: ProGen, A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for men with prostate cancer (PC), but testing through traditional models is limited. The ProGen study examined a novel model aimed at providing access to GT while promoting education and informed consent. METHODS: Men with potentially lethal PC (metastatic, localized with a Gleason score of ≥8, persistent prostate-specific antigen after local therapy), diagnosis age ≤55 years, previous malignancy, and family history suggestive of a pathogenic variant (PV) and/or at oncologist's discretion were randomly assigned 3:1 to video education (VE) or in-person genetic counseling (GC). Participants had 67 genes analyzed (Ambry), with results disclosed via telephone by a genetic counselor. Outcomes included GT consent, GT completion, PV prevalence, and survey measures of satisfaction, psychological impact, genetics knowledge, and family communication. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for between-arm comparisons. RESULTS: Over a 2-year period, 662 participants at three sites were randomly assigned and pretest VE (n = 498) or GC (n = 164) was completed by 604 participants (VE, 93.1%; GC, 88.8%), of whom 596 participants (VE, 98.9%; GC, 97.9%) consented to GT and 591 participants completed GT (VE, 99.3%; GC, 98.6%). These differences were not statistically significant although subtle differences in satisfaction and psychological impact were. Notably, 84 PVs were identified in 78 participants (13.2%), with BRCA1/2 PV comprising 32% of participants with a positive result (BRCA2 n = 21, BRCA1 n = 4). CONCLUSION: Both VE and traditional GC yielded high GT uptake without significant differences in outcome measures of completion, GT uptake, genetics knowledge, and family communication. The increased demand for GT with limited genetics resources supports consideration of pretest VE for patients with PC.

Restructuring lung cancer care to accelerate diagnosis and treatment in patients vulnerable to healthcare disparities using an innovative care model.

The diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer is challenged by complex diagnostic pathways and fragmented care that can lead to disparities for vulnerable patients. Our model involved a multi-institutional, multidisciplinary conference to address the complexity of lung cancer care in vulnerable patient populations. The conference was conducted using a process adapted from the problem-solving method entitled FastTrack, pioneered by General Electric. Conference attendees established critical social determinants of health specific to lung cancer and designed a practical care model to accelerate diagnosis and treatment in this population. The resulting care delivery model, the Lung Cancer Strategist Program (LCSP), was led by a lung cancer trained advanced practice provider (APP) to expedite diagnosis, surgical and oncologic consultation, and treatment of a suspicious lung nodule. We compared the timeliness of care, care efficiency, and oncologic outcomes in 100 LCSP patients and 100 routine referral patients at the same thoracic surgery clinic. Patient triage through our integrated care model transitioned initial referral evaluation to a lung cancer trained APP to coordinate multidisciplinary patient-centered care that was highly individualized and significantly reduced the time to diagnosis and treatment among vulnerable patients at high-risk for treatment delay due to healthcare disparities.•To develop the Lung Cancer Strategist Program care model, we used a three-step (Design, Meeting, and Culmination), team-based, problem-solving process entitled FastTrack.•An advantage of FastTrack is its ability to overcome barriers embedded within hierarchal and institutional social systems, empowering those closest to the relevant issue to propose and enact meaningful change.•Under this framework, we engaged a diverse field of experts to assess systemic barriers in lung cancer care and design an innovative care pathway to improve the timeliness and efficiency of lung cancer care in patients at risk for healthcare disparities.

The Colocation Model in Community Cancer Care: A Description of Patient Clinical and Demographic Attributes and Referral Pathways.

PURPOSE: Cancer disparities are well documented among Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, yet little is known about the characteristics of programs that serve these populations. Integrating specialized cancer care services within community settings is important for addressing the needs of historically marginalized populations. Our National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center initiated a clinical outreach program incorporating cancer diagnostic services and patient navigation within a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) to expedite evaluation and resolution of potential cancer diagnoses with the goal of collaboration between oncology specialists and primary care providers in a historically marginalized community in Boston, MA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were analyzed from patients who were referred to the program for cancer-related care between January 2012 and July 2018. RESULTS: The majority of patients self-identified as Black (non-Hispanic) followed by Hispanic (Black and White). Twenty-two percent of patients had a cancer diagnosis. Treatment and surveillance plans were established for those with and without cancer at a median time to diagnostic resolution of 12 and 28 days, respectively. The majority of patients presented with comorbid health conditions. There was a high prevalence of self-reported financial distress among patients seeking care through this program. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the wide spectrum of cancer care concerns in historically marginalized communities. This review of the program suggests that integrating cancer evaluation services within community-based primary health care settings offers promise for enhancing the coordination and delivery of cancer diagnostic services among historically marginalized populations and could be a method to address clinical access disparities.

Training Hematologists/Oncologists for the Academic-Community Hybrid: Creating a Fellowship Framework for the Future.

PURPOSE: Conventional hematology/oncology fellowship training is designed to foster careers in academic practice through intensive exposure to clinical and laboratory research. Even so, a notable proportion of graduating fellows opt to pursue a clinically focused career outside the realm of academic medicine. Given the corresponding shortage of oncologists in nonurban and rural settings, improving the representation of hematologists/oncologists in the community setting is a national priority. METHODS: We reviewed current national challenges and changing models of cancer care delivery in the context of the traditional academic training model along with trends in practice patterns for recent hematology/oncology graduates. We defined the Academic-Community hybrid (ACH) and how it supports the evolution in contemporary models of cancer care. We then drew on the authors' experiences to formulate an innovative goal-concordant training paradigm for fellows seeking careers in the ACH model. RESULTS: The ACH hematology/oncology fellowship training pathway emphasizes and optimizes professional development domains including clinical care, patient safety and quality improvement, business and operations, cancer care equity and community access, healthy policy and alignment with professional organizations, and medical education. CONCLUSION: This novel hematology/oncology training model provides a paradigm for optimizing preparedness for practice in an increasingly complex cancer care delivery environment while addressing workforce shortages and health disparities.

Protocol for a randomized controlled trial of the Enhanced Smoking Cessation Approach to Promote Empowerment (ESCAPE) digitalized intervention to promote lung health in high-risk individuals who smoke.

Low dose computed tomography (LDCT) is an effective screening test to decrease lung cancer deaths. Lung cancer screening may be a teachable moment helping people who smoke to quit, which may result in increased benefit of screening. Innovative strategies are needed to engage high-risk individuals in learning about LDCT screening. More precise methods such as polygenic risk scores quantify genetic predisposition to tobacco use, and optimize lung health interventions. We present the ESCAPE (Enhanced Smoking Cessation Approach to Promote Empowerment) protocol. This study will test a smoking cessation intervention using personal stories and a lung cancer screening decision-aide compared to standard care (brief advice, referral to a quit line, and a lung cancer screening decision-aide), examine the relationship between a polygenic risk score and smoking abstinence, and describe perceptions about integration of genomic information into smoking cessation treatment. A randomized controlled trial followed by a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach will compare the efficacy of the interventions. Interviews will add insight into the use of genomic information and risk perceptions to tailor smoking cessation treatment. Two-hundred and fifty individuals will be recruited from primary care, community-based organizations, mailing lists and through social media. Data will be collected at baseline, 1, 3 and 6-months. The primary outcomes are 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence and stage of lung cancer screening at 6-months. The results from this study will provide information to refine the ESCAPE intervention and facilitate integration of precision health into future lung health interventions. Clinical trial registration number: NCT0469129T.

Inequities in Alliance Acute Leukemia Clinical Trial and Biobank Participation: Defining Targets for Intervention.

PURPOSE: Representativeness in acute leukemia clinical research is essential for achieving health equity. The National Cancer Institute's mandate for Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) to define and assume responsibility for cancer control and treatment across a geographic catchment area provides an enforceable mechanism to target and potentially remediate participatory inequities. METHODS: We examined enrollee characteristics across 15 Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance cooperative group adult acute leukemia clinical trials (N = 3,734) from 1998 to 2013, including participation in optional companion biobanks. We determined enrollment odds by race-ethnicity for all participants adjusted for national incidence, and for those enrolled at CCCs adjusted for catchment area incidence. We modeled biobank participation by sociodemographics using logistic regression. RESULTS: Non-Hispanic (NH)-White patients were more likely to be enrolled than NH-Black, NH-Asian, or Hispanic patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.75, 0.48, and 0.44, respectively; all P < .001), but less likely than NH-Native American patients (OR, 1.91; P < .001), adjusted for national incidence. Enrollment odds were lower for NH-Black, NH-Asian, and Hispanic patients at CCCs adjusted for catchment area incidence (OR, 0.57, 0.26, and 0.32, respectively; P < .001); differences were driven by overenrollment of NH-White patients from outside self-defined catchment areas (18.1% v 12.3%; χ2 P = .01) and by CCCs with less absolute enrollee diversity (rank sum P = .03). Among all enrollees, NH-White race-ethnicity and lower neighborhood deprivation correlated with biobank participation (OR, 1.81 and 1.45, respectively; P = .01 and .03). For CCC enrollees, the correlation of race-ethnicity with biobank participation was attenuated by a measure accounting for their site's degree of enrollment disparity but not neighborhood deprivation. CONCLUSION: Acute leukemia clinical research disparities are substantial and driven by structural trial enrollment barriers at CCCs. Real-time CCC access and enrollment monitoring is needed to better align research participation with local populations.

Maintaining and Advancing Quality Cancer Care During a Global Pandemic.

ABSTRACT: The care of patients with cancer occurs in a fast-moving, high-pressure, and high-stakes ecosystem. Early in 2020, that complex ecosystem was further complicated by the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. We address actions taken by care providers and systems during the initial phases of the pandemic, and how those actions preserved lifesaving and life-sustaining cancer care despite severely constrained resources. We outline cancer care principles and guidelines that were developed, shared, and adopted by cancer care organizations across the country. Care delivery concerns that arose during the pandemic, including equipment and personnel shortages, moral distress for care providers, and exacerbation of health care inequities are addressed. Process and operations changes taken by payers to serve their clients are described. Lessons learned are highlighted, along with a call to action that we learn from the experience, broaden our cancer care delivery mission, and commit to structural changes that will permanently improve the capacity of cancer care teams.

Racial disparities in treatment delay among younger men with prostate cancer.

Young men (≤55 years) with prostate cancer (PC) may experience treatment delays despite clinical consequences of delays beyond six months. Using the United States National Cancer Database (2004-2017), we employed multivariable logistic regression analysis to retrospectively examine racial disparities in localized PC treatment delays >6 months since diagnosis. Of the 89,196 men ≤55 years included, young Black men experienced treatment delays beyond six months more frequently than young White men (7.39% vs. 3.96%; AOR 1.95, 95% CI 1.81-2.09, p < 0.001), a disparity that was greater than that among men ages 56-64 (pinteraction < 0.001). This result persisted upon restricting the sample to men with private insurance/managed care. The finding that Black men with localized PC experienced treatment delays almost twice as frequently as White men underscores access barriers that may go beyond the direct costs of care.

Lung Cancer Strategist Program: A novel care delivery model to improve timeliness of diagnosis and treatment in high-risk patients.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer is challenged by complex diagnostic pathways and fragmented care that can lead to care disparities for vulnerable patients. METHODS: A multi-institutional, multidisciplinary conference was convened to address the complexity of lung cancer care particularly in patients at high-risk for treatment delay. The resulting care delivery model, called the Lung Cancer Strategist Program (LCSP), was led by a thoracic-trained advanced practice provider (APP) with emphasis on expedited surgery and early oncologic consultation in the assessment of a newly diagnosed suspicious lung nodule. We performed a retrospective review to evaluate care efficiency and oncologic outcomes in the first 100 LCSP patients compared to 100 concurrent patients managed via routine surgical referral. RESULTS: In the 78 LCSP and 41 routine referral patients managed via nodule surveillance, LCSP patients had a shorter time from suspicious finding to work-up (3 vs. 26 days, p < 0.001) and to surveillance decision (12.5 vs. 39 days, p < 0.001). In the 22 LCSP and 59 routine referral patients treated for intrathoracic malignancy, LCSP patients had fewer hospital visits (4 vs 6, p < 0.001), clinicians seen (1.5 vs. 2, p = 0.08), and diagnostic studies (4 vs 5, p = 0.01) with a shorter time to diagnosis (30.5 vs. 48 days, p = 0.02) and treatment (40.5 vs. 68.5 days, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patient triage through a thoracic-trained APP in consultation with surgical, medical, and radiation oncology facilitates rapid assessment of benign versus malignant lesions with reduced time to diagnosis and treatment, even among patients at high-risk for treatment delay.

Race, Age, Gender, and Insurance Status: A Comparative Analysis of Access to and Quality of Gastrointestinal Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomics, demographics, and insurance status play roles in healthcare access. Considering the limited resources available, understanding the relative impact of disparities helps prioritize programs designed to overcome them. This study evaluates gastrointestinal cancer care disparity by comparing the impact of different patient factors across oncologic care metrices. METHODS: A multi-institutional prospectively maintained cancer database was reviewed retrospectively for gastrointestinal cancers (esophagus, stomach, liver, pancreas, colorectal, and hepato-pancreato-biliary) from 2007 to 2017 to assess quality of care provided. Quality of care was defined by clinical course following national guidelines for the respective cancer. This included surgical intervention, chemotherapy, palliative care, and minimal delay to treatment/diagnosis. Logistic regression was used to adjust for confounders and identify factors associated with quality of care. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared using log-rank test. RESULTS: One thousand seventy-two patients were identified. Survival improved in patients with private insurance compared to government-funded options [median overall survival (mOS) 57.8 vs. 21.2 months; P < .001]. Private insurance also correlated with earlier stage at diagnosis [stages I-II = 50.9% vs. 37.5%, stages III-IV = 37.7% vs. 49.1%, P < .001], increased chemotherapy use [44.2% vs. 37.1%, P < .001], and more surgical intervention [62.4% vs. 48.8%, P < .001]. Outcomes were inferior for Black Americans, including trend towards lower rate of surgical treatment [42% vs. 54%, P = .058] and worse survival in private insurance carriers [mOS 7.8 vs. 57.8 months, P = .021] and those with early stage disease [mOS 39.2 vs. 81.5 months, P = .045] compared to White counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Insurance status has the strongest impact on the quality of gastrointestinal oncologic care with negative synergistic negative effect of race for Black Americans. While governmental programs aim to improve equality of care, there remains significant disparity compared to private insurance. Moreover, private insurance doesn't correct disparity for Black Americans, suggesting the need to address racial imbalances in cancer care.

Recommendations from a Dialogue on Evolving National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center Community Outreach and Engagement Requirements: A Path Forward.

While cancer mortality is declining in the United States, significant racial, ethnic, economic and geographic inequities persist. To help address inequities in cancer treatment, care, support and research, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) instituted the community outreach and engagement (COE) mandate for NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs). The Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation designed a convening and listening session on COE with NCI leaders and staff gathering representatives from CCCs and the broader cancer community. This paper captures recommendations from the listening session for the NCI and CCCs to further evolve the implementation and impact of the COE mandate on cancer control and outcomes.