Disparities in outcomes between Black and White patients in North America with thoracic malignancies and COVID-19 infection (TERAVOLT).

BACKGROUND: Patients with thoracic malignancies who develop COVID-19 infection have a higher hospitalization rate compared to the general population and to those with other cancer types, but how this outcome differs by race and ethnicity is relatively understudied. METHODS: The TERAVOLT database is an international, multi-center repository of cross-sectional and longitudinal data studying the impact of COVID-19 on individuals with thoracic malignancies. Patients from North America with thoracic malignancies and confirmed COVID-19 infection were included for this analysis of racial and ethnic disparities. Patients with missing race data or races and ethnicities with fewer than 50 patients were excluded from analysis. Multivariable analyses for endpoints of hospitalization and death were performed on these 471 patients. RESULTS: Of the 471 patients, 73% were White and 27% were Black. The majority (90%) were non-Hispanic ethnicity, 5% were Hispanic, and 4% were missing ethnicity data. Black patients were more likely to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status ≥ 2 (p-value = 0.04). On multivariable analysis, Black patients were more likely than White patients to require hospitalization (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.69, 95% CI: 1.01-2.83, p-value = 0.044). These differences remained across different waves of the pandemic. However, no statistically significant difference in mortality was found between Black and White patients (OR 1.29, 95% CI: 0.69-2.40, p-value = 0.408). CONCLUSIONS: Black patients with thoracic malignancies who acquire COVID-19 infection are at a significantly higher risk of hospitalization compared to White patients, but there is no significant difference in mortality. The underlying drivers of racial disparity among patients with thoracic malignancies and COVID-19 infection require ongoing investigation.

A Grant-Based Experiment to Train Clinical Investigators: The AACR/ASCO Methods in Clinical Cancer Research Workshop.

To address the need for clinical investigators in oncology, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) and American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) established the Methods in Clinical Cancer Research Workshop (MCCRW). The workshop's objectives were to: (i) provide training in the methods, design, and conduct of clinical trials; (ii) ensure that clinical trials met federal and international ethical guidelines; (iii) evaluate the effectiveness of the workshop; and (iv) create networking opportunities for young investigators with mentoring senior faculty. Educational methods included: (i) didactic lectures, (ii) Small Group Discussion Sessions, (iii) Protocol Development Groups, and (iv) one-on-one mentoring. Learning focused on the development of an Institutional Review Board (IRB)-ready protocol, which was submitted on the last day of the workshop. Evaluation methods included: (i) pre- and postworkshop tests, (ii) students' workshop evaluations, (iii) faculty's ratings of protocol development, (iv) students' productivity in clinical research after the workshop, and (v) an independent assessment of the workshop. From 1996 to 2014, 1,932 students from diverse backgrounds attended the workshop. There was a significant improvement in the students' level of knowledge from the pre- to the postworkshop exams (P < 0.001). Across the classes, student evaluations were very favorable. At the end of the workshop, faculty rated 92% to 100% of the students' protocols as ready for IRB submission. Intermediate and long-term follow-ups indicated that more than 92% of students were actively involved in patient-related research, and 66% had implemented five or more protocols. This NCI-sponsored MCCRW has had a major impact on the training of clinicians in their ability to design and implement clinical trials in cancer research.

Fewer actionable mutations but higher tumor mutational burden characterizes NSCLC in black patients at an urban academic medical center.

Background: Black patients have been historically underrepresented in studies investigating molecular patterns in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to investigate differences in actionable mutations among patients at our urban, diverse medical center. Results: 146 patients were included (59 black, 76 white, 7 Asian, 3 Hispanic, 1 mixed). 35 patients had a targetable mutation. Seven black patients (11.8%) had a targetable mutation compared to 28 non-black patients (32.2%, p = 0.005). 15 black patients had PD-L1 expression ≥50% compared to 19 non-black (25.4% vs 21.8%, p = 0.69). Black patients had a higher TMB compared to non-black (15.3 mutations/Mb compared to 11.5 mutations/Mb, p = 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, TMB was driven by smoking (p < 0.01), without any additive interaction in black patients who smoke (p = 0.8). Conclusion: NSCLC tumors from black patients had a higher TMB and were less likely to carry a targetable mutation. The higher TMB seen was driven by a higher prevalence of smoking among black patients in our study, which may not reflect nationwide trends. Our results serve as a proof of concept that differences in molecular markers exist between black and non-black patients, and that these differences may impact the treatment options available to black patients. Methods: Retrospective chart review of patients with a diagnosis of NSCLC who underwent both PD-L1 testing and massively parallel sequencing (UCM-OncoPlus) was conducted. We examined whether high PD-L1 expression, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and presence of targetable mutations (EGFR, BRAF, ERBB2, RET or ALK translocations, ROS1 rearrangements) occur at different frequencies in tumors from black patients compared to non-black patients.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Strategic Plan for Increasing Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Oncology Workforce.

In December 2016, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Board of Directors approved the ASCO Strategic Plan to Increase Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Oncology Workforce. Developed through a multistakeholder effort led by the ASCO Health Disparities Committee, the purpose of the plan is to guide the formal efforts of ASCO in this area over the next three years (2017 to 2020). There are three primary goals: (1) to establish a longitudinal pathway for increasing workforce diversity, (2) to enhance ASCO leadership diversity, and (3) to integrate a focus on diversity across ASCO programs and policies. Improving quality cancer care in the United States requires the recruitment of oncology professionals from diverse backgrounds. The ASCO Strategic Plan to Increase Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Oncology Workforce is designed to enhance existing programs and create new opportunities that will move us closer to the vision of achieving an oncology workforce that reflects the demographics of the US population it serves.

Clinical Cancer Advances 2013: Annual Report on Progress Against Cancer from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

A MESSAGE FROM ASCO'S PRESIDENT: Since its founding in 1964, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has been committed to improving cancer outcomes through research and the delivery of quality care. Research is the bedrock of discovering better treatments--providing hope to the millions of individuals who face a cancer diagnosis each year. The studies featured in "Clinical Cancer Advances 2013: Annual Report on Progress Against Cancer From the American Society of Clinical Oncology" represent the invaluable contributions of thousands of patients who participate in clinical trials and the scientists who conduct basic and clinical research. The insights described in this report, such as how cancers hide from the immune system and why cancers may become resistant to targeted drugs, enable us to envision a future in which cancer will be even more controllable and preventable. The scientific process is thoughtful, deliberate, and sometimes slow, but each advance, while helping patients, now also points toward new research questions and unexplored opportunities. Both dramatic and subtle breakthroughs occur so that progress against cancer typically builds over many years. Success requires vision, persistence, and a long-term commitment to supporting cancer research and training. Our nation's longstanding investment in federally funded cancer research has contributed significantly to a growing array of effective new treatments and a much deeper understanding of the drivers of cancer. But despite this progress, our position as a world leader in advancing medical knowledge and our ability to attract the most promising and talented investigators are now threatened by an acute problem: Federal funding for cancer research has steadily eroded over the past decade, and only 15% of the ever-shrinking budget is actually spent on clinical trials. This dismal reality threatens the pace of progress against cancer and undermines our ability to address the continuing needs of our patients. Despite this extremely challenging economic environment, we continue to make progress. Maintaining and accelerating that progress require that we keep our eyes on the future and pursue a path that builds on the stunning successes of the past. We must continue to show our policymakers the successes in cancer survival and quality of life (QOL) they have enabled, emphasizing the need to sustain our national investment in the remarkably productive US cancer research enterprise. We must also look to innovative methods for transforming how we care for-and learn from-patients with cancer. Consider, for example, that fewer than 5% of adult patients with cancer currently participate in clinical trials. What if we were able to draw lessons from the other 95%? This possibility led ASCO this year to launch CancerLinQ, a groundbreaking health information technology initiative that will provide physicians with access to vast quantities of clinical data about real-world patients and help achieve higher quality, higher value cancer care. As you read the following pages, I hope our collective progress against cancer over the past year inspires you. More importantly, I hope the pride you feel motivates you to help us accelerate the pace of scientific advancement. Clifford A. Hudis, MD, FACP President American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Clinical cancer advances 2011: Annual Report on Progress Against Cancer from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

A message from ASCO'S President. It has been forty years since President Richard Nixon signed the National Cancer Act of 1971, which many view as the nation's declaration of the "War on Cancer." The bill has led to major investments in cancer research and significant increases in cancer survival. Today, two-thirds of patients survive at least five years after being diagnosed with cancer compared with just half of all diagnosed patients surviving five years after diagnosis in 1975. The research advances detailed in this year's Clinical Cancer Advances demonstrate that improvements in cancer screening, treatment, and prevention save and improve lives. But although much progress has been made, cancer remains one of the world's most serious health problems. In the United States, the disease is expected to become the nation's leading cause of death in the years ahead as our population ages. I believe we can accelerate the pace of progress, provided that everyone involved in cancer care works together to achieve this goal. It is this viewpoint that has shaped the theme for my presidential term: Collaborating to Conquer Cancer. In practice, this means that physicians and researchers must learn from every patient's experience, ensure greater collaboration between members of a patient's medical team, and involve more patients in the search for cures through clinical trials. Cancer advocates, insurers, and government agencies also have important roles to play. Today, we have an incredible opportunity to improve the quality of cancer care by drawing lessons from the real-world experiences of patients. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is taking the lead in this area, in part through innovative use of health information technology. In addition to our existing quality initiatives, ASCO is working with partners to develop a comprehensive rapid-learning system for cancer care. When complete, this system will provide physicians with personalized, real-time information that can inform the care of every patient with cancer as well as connect patients with their entire medical teams. The rapid learning system will form a continuous cycle of learning: securely capturing data from every patient at the point of care, drawing on evidence-based guidelines, and evaluating quality of care against those standards and the outcomes of other patients. Clinical trials are another area in which collaboration is critical. Increasing clinical trial participation will require commitment across the cancer community from physicians, patients, insurers, hospitals, and industry. A 2010 report by the Institute of Medicine described challenges to participation in trials by both physicians and patients and provided recommendations for revitalizing clinical trials conducted through the National Cancer Institute's Cooperative Group Program. ASCO has pledged its support for the full implementation of these recommendations. More broadly, ASCO recently outlined a bold vision for translational and clinical cancer research for the next decade and made recommendations to achieve that vision. Accelerating Progress Against Cancer: ASCO's Blueprint for Transforming Clinical and Translational Research, released in November, calls for a research system that takes full advantage of today's scientific and technologic opportunities and sets a high-level agenda for policy makers, regulators, and advocates. Cancer research has transformed cancer care in the past forty years, and this year's Clinical Cancer Advances illustrates how far we have come in the past year alone. We now have a tremendous opportunity to use today's knowledge and collaborate across all facets of cancer care to conquer this deadly disease. Michael P. Link, MD President American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Role of American Society of Clinical Oncology in low- and middle-income countries.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is a global community of health care professionals whose stated purpose is to "make a world of difference" by improving cancer care around the world. Unfortunately, cancer survival rates vary significantly among countries with differing financial and infrastructural resources. Because ASCO is a professional oncology society committed to conquering cancer through research, education, prevention, and delivery of high-quality patient care, it is ideally suited to address this issue. ASCO could bring together oncology professionals and other necessary stakeholders from around the world to improve cancer care and lessen suffering for patients worldwide. As part of the ongoing commitment of ASCO to the future of cancer care, the Leadership Development Program was created to foster the leadership skills of early and midcareer oncologists and provide these participants with a working knowledge of the depth and breadth of the organization. As participants in the inaugural class of the ASCO Leadership Development Program, we were charged with investigating how ASCO might favorably affect cancer prevention and treatment in resource-poor countries in a cost-effective, scalable, and sustainable fashion. ASCO can significantly influence cancer care in low- and middle-income countries through a comprehensive approach that promotes cancer awareness and education, improves clinical practice by identifying and removing barriers to delivery of quality cancer care, and fosters innovation to initiate novel solutions to complex problems.

Evaluating the supportive care costs of severe radiochemotherapy-induced mucositis and pharyngitis : results from a Northwestern University Costs of Cancer Program pilot study with head and neck and nonsmall cell lung cancer patients who received care at a county hospital, a Veterans Administration hospital, or a comprehensive cancer care center.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the costs of supportive care for radiochemotherapy-induced mucosits/pharyngitis among patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) or lung cancers despite the documented negative clinical impact of these complications. METHODS: The authors identified a retrospective cohort of patients with HNC or nonsmall lung cancer (NSCLC) who had received radiochemotherapy at 1 of 3 Chicago hospitals (a Veterans Administration hospital, a county hospital, or a tertiary care hospital). Charts were reviewed for the presence/absence of severe mucositis/pharyngitis and the medical resources that were used. Resource estimates were converted into cost units obtained from standard sources (hospital bills, Medicare physician fee schedule, Red Book). Estimates of resources used and direct medical costs were compared for patients who did and patients who did not develop severe mucositis/pharyngitis. RESULTS: Severe mucositis/pharyngitis occurred in 70.1% of 99 patients with HNC and in 37.5% of 40 patients with NSCLC during radiochemotherapy. The total median medical costs per patient were USD 39,313 for patients with mucositis/pharyngitis and USD 20,798 for patients without mucositis/pharyngitis (P = .007). Extended inpatient hospitalization accounted for USD 12,600 of the increased medical costs (median 14 days [USD 19,600] with severe mucositis/pharyngitis vs 5 days [USD 7,000] without; P = .017). For patients who had HNC with mucositis/pharyngitis, incremental inpatient hospitalization costs were USD 14,000, and total medical costs were USD 17,244. For patients who had NSCLC with mucositis/pharyngitis, these costs were USD 11,200 and USD 25,000, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, the medical costs among the patients with HNC and NSCLC who received radiochemotherapy were greater for those who developed severe mucositis/pharyngitis than for those who did not.