Clinical ethics consultation services: public-facing information on NCI-designated cancer center websites.

Clinical ethics consultation services (CECS) can be particularly complex in oncology, and widespread misconceptions exist about their nature. As a result, visibility and accessibility of information regarding CECS is critical. We investigated the availability and content of information regarding CECS on websites of NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers and cancer centers (CCs). Each website was reviewed for information on CECS and reviewed for benchmarks partially derived from the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities recommendations for CECS. Our analysis revealed that of 70 NCI-designated center websites, 38 had information on CECS, and 17 were found directly on these sites. When CECS information was available, most websites provided a mission statement (71%) and an explanation of what constitutes an ethics consult (74%). Few provided a description of the consult process (45%) or service membership (39%). Our findings reveal a significant gap in CECS visibility on the websites of NCI-designated CCs.

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.

Establishing and Defining an Approach to Climate Conscious Clinical Medical Ethics.

An anthropocentric scope for clinical medical ethics (CME) has largely separated this area of bioethics from environmental concerns. In this article, we first identify and reconcile the ethical issues imposed on CME by climate change including the dispersion of related causes and effects, the transdisciplinary and transhuman nature of climate change, and the historic divorce of CME from the environment. We then establish how several moral theories undergirding modern CME, such as virtue ethics, feminist ethics, and several theories of justice, promote both a flourishing of human medical practice and the environment. We conclude by defining an expanded the scope of CME as inclusive of not only patients, families, physicians, and other health professionals but other humans, non-humans, and their shared environment. We then apply this scope and theory to a widely used framework for applying CME, the Four Topics model, to construct a climate conscious approach to CME.

Shifting from Equality toward Equity: Addressing Disparities in Research Participation for Clinical Cancer Research.

AbstractThere is societal consensus that cancer clinical trial participation is unjust because some sociodemographic groups have been systematically underrepresented. Despite this, neither a definition nor an ethical explication for the justice norm of equity has been clearly articulated in this setting, leading to confusion over its application and goals. Herein we define equity as acknowledging sociodemographic circumstances and apportioning resource and opportunity allocation to eliminate disparities in outcomes, and we explore the issues and tensions this norm generates through practical examples. We assess how equality-based enrollment structures in clinical cancer research have perpetuated historical disparities and what equity-based alternatives are necessary to achieve representativeness and an expansive conception of participatory justice in clinical cancer research. This framework addresses the breadth from normative to applied by defining the justice norm of equity and translating it into practical strategies for addressing participation disparities in clinical cancer research.

Impact of Allocation on Survival During Intermittent Chemotherapy Shortages: A Modeling Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent shortages of chemotherapeutics used to treat curable malignancies are a worldwide problem that increases patient mortality. Although multiple strategies have been proposed for managing these shortages (eg, prioritizing patients by age, scarce treatment efficacy per volume, alternative treatment efficacy difference), critical clinical dilemmas arise when selecting a management strategy and understanding its impact. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We developed a model to compare the impact of different allocation strategies on overall survival during intermittent chemotherapy shortages and tested it using vincristine, which was recently scarce for 9 months in the United States. Demographic and treatment data were abstracted from 1,689 previously treated patients in our tertiary-care system; alternatives were abstracted from NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for each disease and survival probabilities from the studies cited therein. Modeled survival was validated using SEER data. Nine-month shortages were modeled for all possible supply levels. Pairwise differences in 3-year survival and risk reductions were calculated for each strategy compared with standard practice (first-come, first-served) for each 50-mg supply increment, as were supply thresholds above which each strategy maintained survival similar to scenarios without shortages. RESULTS: A strategy prioritizing by higher vincristine efficacy per volume and greater alternative treatment efficacy difference performed best, improving survival significantly (P<.01) across 86.5% of possible shortages (relative risk reduction, 8.3%; 99% CI, 8.0-8.5) compared with standard practice. This strategy also maintained survival rates similar to a model without shortages until supply fell below 72.2% of the amount required to treat all patients, compared with 94.3% for standard practice. CONCLUSIONS: During modeled vincristine shortages, prioritizing patients by higher efficacy per volume and alternative treatment efficacy difference significantly improved survival over standard practice. This approach can help optimize allocation as intermittent chemotherapy shortages continue to arise.

Gait speed, survival, and recommended treatment intensity in older adults with blood cancer requiring treatment.

BACKGROUND: Brief measures of physical function such as gait speed may be useful to optimize treatment intensity for older adults who have blood cancer; however, little is known about whether such assessments are already captured within oncologists' "gestalt" assessments. METHODS: Gait speed was assessed in 782 patients ≥75 years of age who had blood cancer, with results reported to providers after treatment decisions were made; 408 patients required treatment when different intensities were available per National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. We performed structured abstractions of treatment intensity recommendations into standard intensity, reduced intensity, or supportive care, based on NCCN guidelines. We modeled gait speed and survival using Cox regression and performed ordinal logistic regression to assess predictors of NCCN-based categorizations of oncologists' treatment intensity recommendations, including gait speed. RESULTS: The median survival by gait speed category was 10.8 months (<0.4 m/s), 18.6 months (0.4-0.6 m/s), 34.0 months (0.6-0.8 m/s), and unreached (>0.8 m/s). Univariable hazard ratios (HRs) for death increased for each lower category compared with ≥0.8 m/s (0.6-0.8 m/s: HR, 1.76; 0.4-0.6 m/s: HR, 2.30; <0.4 m/s: HR, 3.31). Gait speed predicted survival in multivariable Cox regression (all P < .05). In multivariable models including age, sex, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, gait speed did not predict oncologists' recommended treatment intensity (all P > .05) and did not add to a base model predicting recommended treatment intensity. CONCLUSION: In older adults with blood cancer who presented for treatment, gait speed predicted survival but not treatment intensity recommendation. Incorporating gait speed into decision making may improve optimal treatment selection.

Peri-transfusion quality-of-life assessment for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) receive red cell transfusions to relieve symptoms associated with anemia, with transfusions triggered by hemoglobin level. It is not known if patients' quality of life (QOL) improves after transfusion, nor if peri-transfusion QOL assessment (PTQA) can guide future transfusion decisions. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective pilot study of adults with MDS at three centers. Participants, who had to have hemoglobin ≥7.5, completed an MDS-specific measure of QOL (the Quality of Life in Myelodysplasia Scale, [QUALMS]) 1 day before and 7 days after red cell transfusion. A report was sent to each patient and provider before the next transfusion opportunity, indicating whether there were clinically significant changes in QOL. We assessed the proportion of patients experiencing changes in QOL, and with a follow-up questionnaire, whether they perceived their PTQA data were used for future transfusion decisions. RESULTS: From 2018 to 2020, 62 patients enrolled (mean age 73 years) and 37 completed both pre- and post-transfusion QOL assessments. Of these, 35% experienced a clinically significant increase in QUALMS score 7 days after transfusion; 46% no change; and 19% a decrease. Among those completing the follow-up questionnaire, 23% reported that PTQA results were discussed by their provider when considering repeat transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest PTQA is feasible for patients with MDS. Moreover, while helpful for some, for many others, red cell transfusion may not achieve its intended goal of improving QOL. PTQA offers a strategy to inform shared decision-making regarding red cell transfusion.

TP53 and Decitabine in Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: The molecular determinants of clinical responses to decitabine therapy in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are unclear. METHODS: We enrolled 84 adult patients with AML or MDS in a single-institution trial of decitabine to identify somatic mutations and their relationships to clinical responses. Decitabine was administered at a dose of 20 mg per square meter of body-surface area per day for 10 consecutive days in monthly cycles. We performed enhanced exome or gene-panel sequencing in 67 of these patients and serial sequencing at multiple time points to evaluate patterns of mutation clearance in 54 patients. An extension cohort included 32 additional patients who received decitabine in different protocols. RESULTS: Of the 116 patients, 53 (46%) had bone marrow blast clearance (<5% blasts). Response rates were higher among patients with an unfavorable-risk cytogenetic profile than among patients with an intermediate-risk or favorable-risk cytogenetic profile (29 of 43 patients [67%] vs. 24 of 71 patients [34%], P<0.001) and among patients with TP53 mutations than among patients with wild-type TP53 (21 of 21 [100%] vs. 32 of 78 [41%], P<0.001). Previous studies have consistently shown that patients with an unfavorable-risk cytogenetic profile and TP53 mutations who receive conventional chemotherapy have poor outcomes. However, in this study of 10-day courses of decitabine, neither of these risk factors was associated with a lower rate of overall survival than the rate of survival among study patients with intermediate-risk cytogenetic profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AML and MDS who had cytogenetic abnormalities associated with unfavorable risk, TP53 mutations, or both had favorable clinical responses and robust (but incomplete) mutation clearance after receiving serial 10-day courses of decitabine. Although these responses were not durable, they resulted in rates of overall survival that were similar to those among patients with AML who had an intermediate-risk cytogenetic profile and who also received serial 10-day courses of decitabine. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01687400 .).

Practical allocation system for the distribution of specialised care during cellular therapy access scarcity.

Novel cellular therapy techniques promise to cure many haematology patients refractory to other treatment modalities. These therapies are intensive and require referral to and care from specialised providers. In the USA, this pool of providers is not expanding at a rate necessary to meet expected demand; therefore, access scarcity appears forthcoming and is likely to be widespread. To maintain fair access to these scarce and curative therapies, we must prospectively create a just and practical system to distribute care. In this article, we first review previously implemented medical product and personnel allocation systems, examining their applicability to cellular therapy provider shortages to demonstrate that this problem requires a novel approach. We then present an innovative system for allocating cellular therapy access, which accounts for the constraints of distribution during real-world oncology practice by using a combination of the following principles: (1) maximising life-years per personnel time, (2) youngest and robust first, (3) sickest first, (4) first come/first served and (5) instrumental value. We conclude with justifications for the incorporation of these principles and the omission of others, discuss how access can be distributed using this combination, consider cost and review fundamental factors necessary for the practical implementation and maintenance of this system.

The Promise and Perils of Diversity Action Plans for Clinical Trials.

This Viewpoint discusses the US Food and Drug Administration's authority to require drug and device sponsors to submit diversity action plans and policy gaps that limit the organization's ability to achieve demographic representation in clinical trials.

A protocol and ethical framework for the distribution of rationed chemotherapy.

Shortages of generic, injectable chemotherapeutics have been increasing in prevalence since 2006. Due to the lack of access to first-line, lifesaving treatments, physicians have been forced to ration chemotherapy between patients. Although the scarcity has been managed with good intentions, it has been done in an ad hoc manner, without the benefit of an ethically grounded and standardized schema. Using an approach based on the "accountability for reasonableness" method by Daniel and Sabin, I establish a framework and protocol for rationing that is specific to chemotherapy. Prior to the state of true shortage, I present guidelines for the use of an adequate supply of chemotherapy with knowledge of upcoming scarcity. Within the rationing framework itself, I first prioritize emergency use of chemotherapeutics and those already receiving treatment at the time of shortage. I advocate for stratifying patients based on the prognostic indicators of their cancer type, using a combination of clinical-trial-based initial response and longer term survival, followed by the patients' line of treatment. All patients who are not able to receive their "best" treatment must receive a sequent, next-best treatment, and their treatment team must have the ability to appeal to a rationing committee in special circumstances. I reject the ideas of stratification based on the intention of the treatment, perceived quality of life, pre-existing condition not impacting performance status, the classical "sickest first" argument, and giving preference to pediatric cases. Lastly, I advocate for any system of rationing to be transparent to those it affects and acknowledge the difficulties it presents to patients and physicians alike.

Digital Health to Patient-Facing Artificial Intelligence: Ethical Implications and Threats to Dignity for Patients With Cancer.

Ethical considerations for patient-facing AI for oncology: dignity, autonomy, safety, equity, inclusivity.

Assessing the Environmental and Downstream Human Health Impacts of Decentralizing Cancer Care.

Importance: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from health care are substantial and disproportionately harm persons with cancer. Emissions from a central component of oncology care, outpatient clinician visits, are not well described, nor are the reductions in emissions and human harms that could be obtained through decentralizing this aspect of cancer care (ie, telemedicine and local clinician care when possible). Objective: To assess potential reductions in GHG emissions and downstream health harms associated with telemedicine and fully decentralized cancer care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study and counterfactual analyses using life cycle assessment methods analyzed persons receiving cancer care at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute between May 2015 and December 2020 as well as persons diagnosed with cancer over the same period from the Cancer in North America (CiNA) public dataset. Data were analyzed from October 2023 to April 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: The adjusted per-visit day difference in GHG emissions in kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents between 2 periods: an in-person care model period (May 2015 to February 2020; preperiod) and a telemedicine period (March to December 2020; postperiod), and the annual decrease in disability-adjusted life-years in a counterfactual model where care during the preperiod was maximally decentralized nationwide. Results: Of 123 890 included patients, 73 988 (59.7%) were female, and the median (IQR) age at first diagnosis was 59 (48-68) years. Patients were seen over 1.6 million visit days. In mixed-effects log-linear regression, the mean absolute reduction in per-visit day CO2 equivalent emissions between the preperiod and postperiod was 36.4 kg (95% CI, 36.2-36.6), a reduction of 81.3% (95% CI, 80.8-81.7) compared with the baseline model. In a counterfactual decentralized care model of the preperiod, there was a relative emissions reduction of 33.1% (95% CI, 32.9-33.3). When demographically matched to 10.3 million persons in the CiNA dataset, decentralized care would have reduced national emissions by 75.3 million kg of CO2 equivalents annually; this corresponded to an estimated annual reduction of 15.0 to 47.7 disability-adjusted life-years. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that using decentralization through telemedicine and local care may substantially reduce cancer care's GHG emissions; this corresponds to small reductions in human mortality.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Phase 3 Clinical Trials for Blood Cancers: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Published research suggests that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are neither commonly collected nor reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for solid tumors. Little is known about these practices in RCTs for hematological malignant neoplasms. Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of PROs as prespecified end points in RCTs of hematological malignant neoplasms, and to assess reporting of PROs in associated trial publications. Evidence Review: All issues of 8 journals known for publishing high-impact RCTs (NEJM, Lancet, Lancet Hematology, Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Blood, JAMA, and JAMA Oncology) between January 1, 2018, and December 13, 2022, were searched for primary publications of therapeutic phase 3 trials for adults with hematological malignant neoplasms. Studies that evaluated pretransplant conditioning regimens, graft-vs-host disease treatment, or radiotherapy as experimental treatment were excluded. Data regarding trial characteristics and PROs were extracted from manuscripts and trial protocols. Univariable analyses assessed associations between trial characteristics and PRO collection or reporting. Findings: Ninety RCTs were eligible for analysis. PROs were an end point in 66 (73%) trials: in 1 trial (1%) as a primary end point, in 50 (56%) as a secondary end point, and in 15 (17%) as an exploratory end point. PRO data were reported in 26 of 66 primary publications (39%): outcomes were unchanged in 18 and improved in 8, with none reporting worse PROs with experimental treatment. Trials sponsored by for-profit entities were more likely to include PROs as an end point (49 of 55 [89%] vs 17 of 35 [49%]; P < .001) but were not significantly more likely to report PRO data (20 of 49 [41%] vs 6 of 17 [35%]; P = .69). Compared with trials involving lymphoma (18 of 29 [62%]) or leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome (18 of 28 [64%]), those involving plasma cell disorders or multiple myeloma (27 of 30 [90%]) or myeloproliferative neoplasms (3 of 3 [100%]) were more likely to include PROs as an end point (P = .03). Similarly, compared with trials involving lymphoma (3 of 18 [17%]) or leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome (5 of 18 [28%]), those involving plasma cell disorders or multiple myeloma (16 of 27 [59%]) or myeloproliferative neoplasms (2 of 3 [67%]) were more likely to report PROs in the primary publication (P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review, almost 3 of every 4 therapeutic RCTs for blood cancers collected PRO data; however, only 1 RCT included PROs as a primary end point. Moreover, most did not report resulting PRO data in the primary publication and when reported, PROs were either better or unchanged, raising concern for publication bias. This analysis suggests a critical gap in dissemination of data on the lived experiences of patients enrolled in RCTs for hematological malignant neoplasms.

Cancer Trial Eligibility and Therapy Modifications for Individuals With Duffy Null-Associated Neutrophil Count.

Importance: Absolute neutrophil counts (ANCs) are used to determine cancer clinical trial (CCT) eligibility and systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) dose modifications. Duffy null-associated ANC (DANC) is a nonpathologic phenotype associated with lower ANC and most frequently seen in individuals with African and Middle Eastern ancestry. It is unclear whether CCTs exclude or SACT regimens modify doses for individuals with ANC within the DANC reference range. Objective: To investigate CCT exclusions and SACT dose modifications for ANC within the DANC reference range. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of contemporary CCTs and SACT regimens included adult, interventional, phase 3 CCTs for the 5 most prevalent cancers in the US and United Kingdom (prostate, breast, melanoma, colorectal, and lung cancers) testing SACTs with start dates between November 1, 2021, and November 1, 2023, and that were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Preferred curative-intent SACT regimens were listed in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Exposure: Cancer clinical trial exclusions and SACT regimen modifications. Main Outcome and Measures: Proportions of CCTs that exclude and SACT regimens that modify doses for individuals with an ANC within the DANC reference range. Results: For CCTs, 289 of 382 trials (75.7%) were eligible, of which 221 (76.5% [95% CI, 71.1%-81.2%]) excluded patients with ANC values within the DANC reference range. Colorectal CCTs had the highest (38 of 44 [86.4% (95% CI, 72.6%-94.8%)]) and prostate CCTs had the lowest (11 of 23 [47.8% (95% CI, 26.8%-69.4%)]) proportions of exclusions. Of CCTs testing cytotoxic chemotherapy, 116 of 142 (81.7% [95% CI, 74.3%-87.7%]) had exclusions; 93 of 123 (75.6% [95% CI, 67.0%-82.9%]) CCTs testing targeted therapies alone and 12 of 24 (50.0% [95% CI, 29.1%-70.9%]) testing hormonal therapies alone had exclusions. Among the 113 US- and UK-based trials, exclusions were present in 89 (78.8% [95% CI, 70.1%-85.9%]). Of 71 SACT regimens, 38 (53.5% [95% CI, 41.3%-65.5%]) included dose modifications for ANC values within the DANC reference range. Lung cancer regimens had the highest (23 of 31 [74.2% (95% CI, 55.4%-88.1%)]) and prostate cancer had the lowest (0 of 12 [0 (95% CI, 0%-26.4%)]) proportions of modifications. Regimens including chemotherapy had modifications in 32 of 44 (72.7% [95% CI, 57.2%-85.0%]); 11 of 20 (55.0% [95% CI, 31.5%-76.9%]) of targeted therapy regimens and 0 of 16 (0% [95% CI, 0%-20.6%]) of hormonal therapy regimens had modifications. Among regimens including chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy, modifications were present in 38 of 55 (69.1% [95% CI, 49.7%-73.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, substantial proportions of CCTs excluded and SACT regimens modified doses for patients with ANCs in the DANC reference range. These practices structurally discriminate against patients of African and Middle Eastern ancestry. While determining optimal SACT dose modifications requires further study, CCT exclusion criteria should be revised.

Perspectives of Oncologists on the Ethical Implications of Using Artificial Intelligence for Cancer Care.

Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly integrating into cancer care. Understanding stakeholder views on ethical issues associated with the implementation of AI in oncology is critical to optimal deployment. Objective: To evaluate oncologists' views on the ethical domains of the use of AI in clinical care, including familiarity, predictions, explainability (the ability to explain how a result was determined), bias, deference, and responsibilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, population-based survey study was conducted from November 15, 2022, to July 31, 2023, among 204 US-based oncologists identified using the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was response to a question asking whether participants agreed or disagreed that patients need to provide informed consent for AI model use during cancer treatment decisions. Results: Of 387 surveys, 204 were completed (response rate, 52.7%). Participants represented 37 states, 120 (63.7%) identified as male, 128 (62.7%) as non-Hispanic White, and 60 (29.4%) were from academic practices; 95 (46.6%) had received some education on AI use in health care, and 45.3% (92 of 203) reported familiarity with clinical decision models. Most participants (84.8% [173 of 204]) reported that AI-based clinical decision models needed to be explainable by oncologists to be used in the clinic; 23.0% (47 of 204) stated they also needed to be explainable by patients. Patient consent for AI model use during treatment decisions was supported by 81.4% of participants (166 of 204). When presented with a scenario in which an AI decision model selected a different treatment regimen than the oncologist planned to recommend, the most common response was to present both options and let the patient decide (36.8% [75 of 204]); respondents from academic settings were more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.19-5.51). Most respondents (90.7% [185 of 204]) reported that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use. Some agreed that this responsibility was shared by physicians (47.1% [96 of 204]) or hospitals (43.1% [88 of 204]). Finally, most respondents (76.5% [156 of 204]) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools, but only 27.9% (57 of 204) were confident in their ability to identify poorly representative AI models. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional survey study, few oncologists reported that patients needed to understand AI models, but most agreed that patients should consent to their use, and many tasked patients with choosing between physician- and AI-recommended treatment regimens. These findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise.

The Trial Enrollment Diversity Dashboard for Acute Leukemia Clinical Research: Intervention Development and Cohort Analysis.

PURPOSE: Participation in acute leukemia clinical trials is inequitable across multiple sociodemographic categories. Tools that provide researchers with performance feedback on the representativeness of the patients they enroll are limited. We aimed to develop an electronic health record (EHR)-based dashboard to provide such feedback and to describe any enrollment inequities uncovered. METHODS: We created a visual dashboard linking leukemia clinical trial registration and EHR data at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Accuracy of a patient inclusion and assignment algorithm was tested with a target area under the receiver-operator curve (AUROC) of >0.90 against manual review. Demographic metric identification, visualization construction, and dashboard refinement were performed through stakeholder cognitive testing. Analysis of a recent 5-year cohort generated by the final algorithm assessed bivariate associations between enrollment and demographic metrics. Multivariable logistic regression included significant bivariate results. RESULTS: The final algorithm assignment AUROC was 0.98. Metrics were identified and visualizations successfully constructed. Fourteen individuals participated in testing and identified areas for revision: category mergers, denominator filters, and data delivery preferences. In the initial cohort of 1,315 patients, 1,020 (77.6%) had enrolled in any study protocol: 553 (42.1%) in a treatment trial and 936 (71.2%) in a biobanking study. In a multivariable model, older age (odds ratio [OR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73 to 0.94]) and Non-Hispanic Black race-ethnicity (OR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.18 to 0.82]) were associated with lower enrollment, and English primary language with higher enrollment (OR, 2.50 [95% CI, 1.30 to 4.79]). CONCLUSION: We developed a research participation equity performance feedback dashboard for clinical researchers, and we identified actionable inequities. Next steps include feasibility and efficacy testing as well as implementation.

Racial and 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 racial and 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 to 0.90) and reduced post-access enrollment for HW (aOR = 0.54, 95% CI =0.34 to 0.86) and NHB (aOR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.39 to 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 racial and ethnic inequities in acute leukemia trial enrollment at CCCs are from post-access enrollment, the majority of which was not explained by sociodemographic factors.