Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators to Recruitment of Black People With Cancer in Biospecimen-Based Research.

The increasing focus on precision medicine to optimize cancer treatments and improve cancer outcomes is an opportunity to consider equitable engagement of people racialized as Black or African American (B/AA) in biospecimen-based cancer research. B/AA people have the highest cancer incidence and mortality rates compared with all other racial and ethnic groups in the United States, yet are under-represented in biospecimen-based research. A narrative scoping review was conducted to understand the current literature on barriers, facilitators, and evidence-based strategies associated with the engagement of B/AA people with cancer in biospecimen research. Three comprehensive searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Scopus were conducted. Of 770 studies generated by the search, 10 met all inclusion criteria for this review. The most frequently reported barriers to engagement of B/AA people in biospecimen research were lack of biospecimen research awareness, fear of medical harm, and violation of personal health information privacy, resource constraints, and medical mistrust. Key facilitators included previous exposure to research, knowledge about underlying genetic causes of cancer, and altruism. Recommended strategies to increase participation of B/AA people in biospecimen-based research included community engagement, transparent communication, workforce diversity, education and training, and research participant incentives. Inclusion of B/AA people in biospecimen-based research has the potential to advance the promise of precision oncology for all patients and reduce racial disparities in cancer outcomes.

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.

Clinician perspectives on patient-centered conversations about weight management with patients with early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to gather detailed insights from breast cancer (BC) clinicians on how to have patient-centered conversations about weight and weight management with women diagnosed with early BC. A high body mass index (BMI) is a risk factor for female BC, and many women diagnosed with BC experience unhealthy weight gain after their primary treatment. The oncology team has the opportunity to discuss the importance of healthy weight for BC prognosis and survival. METHODS: The sample of community-based BC clinicians included the following: three Black clinicians, three White clinicians, and two clinicians who were neither Black nor White; six females and two males; and six MDs and two physician assistants or nurse practitioners. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with these clinicians regarding their experience with and insights into having healthy weight conversations during routine clinic visits. RESULTS: Clinicians noted that weight-related conversations should focus less on BMI and weight loss and more on "healthy behavior." Clinicians looked for cues from their patients as to when they were ready for "healthy weight" counseling, receptive to diet/nutrition counseling and referrals, and ready to attempt behavioral change. Clinicians noted that encouraging physical activity could be especially challenging with patients accustomed to a sedentary lifestyle. CONCLUSIONS: Clinic-based conversations about healthy weight are likely to be most productive for both patients and their treating oncologists during the post-primary treatment phase when patients are most receptive to behavioral change that enhances their prognosis and survival.

Exposure and Reactions to Cancer Treatment Misinformation and Advice: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment misinformation, or false claims about alternative cures, often spreads faster and farther than true information on social media. Cancer treatment misinformation can harm the psychosocial and physical health of individuals with cancer and their cancer care networks by causing distress and encouraging people to abandon support, potentially leading to deviations from evidence-based care. There is a pressing need to understand how cancer treatment misinformation is shared and uncover ways to reduce misinformation. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to better understand exposure and reactions to cancer treatment misinformation, including the willingness of study participants to prosocially intervene and their intentions to share Instagram posts with cancer treatment misinformation. METHODS: We conducted a survey on cancer treatment misinformation among US adults in December 2021. Participants reported their exposure and reactions to cancer treatment misinformation generally (saw or heard, source, type of advice, and curiosity) and specifically on social media (platform, believability). Participants were then randomly assigned to view 1 of 3 cancer treatment misinformation posts or an information post and asked to report their willingness to prosocially intervene and their intentions to share. RESULTS: Among US adult participants (N=603; mean age 46, SD 18.83 years), including those with cancer and cancer caregivers, almost 1 in 4 (142/603, 23.5%) received advice about alternative ways to treat or cure cancer. Advice was primarily shared through family (39.4%) and friends (37.3%) for digestive (30.3%) and natural (14.1%) alternative cancer treatments, which generated curiosity among most recipients (106/142, 74.6%). More than half of participants (337/603, 55.9%) saw any cancer treatment misinformation on social media, with significantly higher exposure for those with cancer (53/109, 70.6%) than for those without cancer (89/494, 52.6%; P<.001). Participants saw cancer misinformation on Facebook (39.8%), YouTube (27%), Instagram (22.1%), and TikTok (14.1%), among other platforms. Participants (429/603, 71.1%) thought cancer treatment misinformation was true, at least sometimes, on social media. More than half (357/603, 59.2%) were likely to share any cancer misinformation posts shown. Many participants (412/603, 68.3%) were willing to prosocially intervene for any cancer misinformation posts, including flagging the cancer treatment misinformation posts as false (49.7%-51.4%) or reporting them to the platform (48.1%-51.4%). Among the participants, individuals with cancer and those who identified as Black or Hispanic reported greater willingness to intervene to reduce cancer misinformation but also higher intentions to share misinformation. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer treatment misinformation reaches US adults through social media, including on widely used platforms for support. Many believe that social media posts about alternative cancer treatment are true at least some of the time. The willingness of US adults, including those with cancer and members of susceptible populations, to prosocially intervene could initiate the necessary community action to reduce cancer treatment misinformation if coupled with strategies to help individuals discern false claims.

Research Priorities for Interventions to Address Health Disparities in Lung Nodule Management: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Lung nodules are common incidental findings, and timely evaluation is critical to ensure diagnosis of localized-stage and potentially curable lung cancers. Rates of guideline-concordant lung nodule evaluation are low, and the risk of delayed evaluation is higher for minoritized groups. Objectives: To summarize the existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and prioritize research questions related to interventions to reduce disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee was convened to review the evidence and identify key knowledge gaps in four domains: 1) research methodology, 2) patient-level interventions, 3) clinician-level interventions, and 4) health system-level interventions. A modified Delphi approach was used to identify research priorities. Results: Key knowledge gaps included 1) a lack of standardized approaches to identify factors associated with lung nodule management disparities, 2) limited data evaluating the role of social determinants of health on disparities in lung nodule management, 3) a lack of certainty regarding the optimal strategy to improve patient-clinician communication and information transmission and/or retention, and 4) a paucity of information on the impact of patient navigators and culturally trained multidisciplinary teams. Conclusions: This statement outlines a research agenda intended to stimulate high-impact studies of interventions to mitigate disparities in lung nodule evaluation. Research questions were prioritized around the following domains: 1) need for methodologic guidelines for conducting research related to disparities in nodule management, 2) evaluating how social determinants of health influence lung nodule evaluation, 3) studying approaches to improve patient-clinician communication, and 4) evaluating the utility of patient navigators and culturally enriched multidisciplinary teams to reduce disparities.

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Cancer Treatment Trials: Evaluation of an ASCO-Association of Community Cancer Centers Site Self-Assessment.

Clinical trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of people with cancer. ASCO and the Association of Community Cancer Centers collaborated on a quality improvement study to enhance racial and ethnic equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in cancer clinical trials. The groups conducted a pilot study to examine the feasibility, utility, and face validity of a two-part clinical trial site self-assessment to enable diverse types of research sites in the United States to (1) review internal data to assess racial and ethnic disparities in screening and enrollment and (2) review their policies, programs, procedures to identify opportunities and strategies to improve EDI. Overall, 81% of 62 participating sites were satisfied with the assessment; 82% identified opportunities for improvement; and 63% identified specific strategies and 74% thought the assessment had potential to help their site increase EDI. The assessment increased awareness about performance (82%) and helped identify specific strategies (63%) to increase EDI in trials. Although most sites (65%) were able to provide some data on the number of patients that consented, only two sites were able to provide all requested trial screening, offering, and enrollment data by race and ethnicity. Documenting and evaluating such data are critical steps toward improving EDI and are key to identifying and addressing disparities more broadly. ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers will partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting screening, offering, and enrollment data in systematic and automated ways.

Cross-Sectional Analysis of Clinical Trial Availability and North Carolina Neighborhood Social Vulnerability.

PURPOSE: Residents of communities facing social vulnerability (eg, poverty) have limited access to clinical trials, leaving them susceptible to experiencing poor health outcomes. We examined the association between North Carolina county-level social vulnerability and available multiple myeloma (MM) trials. METHODS: Using a novel data linkage between ClinicalTrials.gov, the 2019 American Community Survey, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index, we investigated at the county level (1) availability of MM trial sites and (2) the relationship between Social Vulnerability Index and MM trial site availability using logistic regression. RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2021, 229 trials were registered across 462 nonunique trial sites in 34 counties. Nearly 50% of trial sites were in academic medical centers, 80% (n = 372) of all trials were industry-sponsored, 60% (n = 274) were early-phase, and 50% (n = 232) were for patients with relapsed or refractory MM. Counties with low as opposed to high poverty rates had six times greater odds of having ≥ 1 MM trial sites (odds ratio [OR], 5.60; 95% CI, 1.85 to 19.64; P = .004). Counties with the lowest percentage of Black Indigenous Persons of Color and non-native English speakers had 77% lower odds (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.69; P = .011) of having ≥ 1 trial sites. The effect remained significant after accounting for the presence of five academic medical centers (n = 95; OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.6; P = .008) and adjustment for metropolitan, suburban, or rural status (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.81; P = .025). CONCLUSION: Counties with the lowest poverty rates had more MM trial sites, whereas those with the lowest percentage of Black Indigenous Persons of Color populations had fewer MM trial sites. Multilevel efforts are needed to improve the availability and access to trials for socially vulnerable populations.

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials: An American Society of Clinical Oncology and Association of Community Cancer Centers Joint Research Statement.

A concerted commitment across research stakeholders is necessary to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and address barriers to cancer clinical trial recruitment and participation. Racial and ethnic diversity among trial participants is key to understanding intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may affect patient response to cancer treatments. This ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Research Statement presents specific recommendations and strategies for the research community to improve EDI in cancer clinical trials. There are six overarching recommendations: (1) clinical trials are an integral component of high-quality cancer care, and every person with cancer should have the opportunity to participate; (2) trial sponsors and investigators should design and implement trials with a focus on reducing barriers and enhancing EDI, and work with sites to conduct trials in ways that increase participation of under-represented populations; (3) trial sponsors, researchers, and sites should form long-standing partnerships with patients, patient advocacy groups, and community leaders and groups; (4) anyone designing or conducting trials should complete recurring education, training, and evaluation to demonstrate and maintain cross-cultural competencies, mitigation of bias, effective communication, and a commitment to achieving EDI; (5) research stakeholders should invest in programs and policies that increase EDI in trials and in the research workforce; and (6) research stakeholders should collect and publish aggregate data on racial and ethnic diversity of trial participants when reporting results of trials, programs, and interventions to increase EDI. The recommendations are intended to serve as a guide for the research community to improve participation rates among people from racial and ethnic minority populations historically under-represented in cancer clinical trials. ASCO and ACCC will work at all levels to advance the recommendations in this publication.

Effect of an Antiracism Intervention on Racial Disparities in Time to Lung Cancer Surgery.

PURPOSE: Timely lung cancer surgery is a metric of high-quality cancer care and improves survival for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. Historically, Black patients experience longer delays to surgery than White patients and have lower survival rates. Antiracism interventions have shown benefits in reducing racial disparities in lung cancer treatment. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity, an antiracism prospective pragmatic trial, at five cancer centers to assess the impact on overall timeliness of lung cancer surgery and racial disparities in timely surgery. The intervention consisted of (1) a real-time warning system to identify unmet care milestones, (2) race-specific feedback on lung cancer treatment rates, and (3) patient navigation. The primary outcome was surgery within 8 weeks of diagnosis. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using log-binomial regression and adjusted for clinical and demographic factors. RESULTS: A total of 2,363 patients with stage I and II non-small-cell lung cancer were included in the analyses: intervention (n = 263), retrospective control (n = 1,798), and concurrent control (n = 302). 87.1% of Black patients and 85.4% of White patients in the intervention group (P = .13) received surgery within 8 weeks of diagnosis compared with 58.7% of Black patients and 75.0% of White patients in the retrospective group (P < .01) and 64.9% of Black patients and 73.2% of White patients (P = .29) in the concurrent group. Black patients in the intervention group were more likely to receive timely surgery than Black patients in the retrospective group (RR 1.43; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.64). White patients in the intervention group also had timelier surgery than White patients in the retrospective group (RR 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.18). CONCLUSION: Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity is associated with timelier lung cancer surgery and reduction of the racial gap in timely surgery.

Social support and outcomes in older adults with lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Insufficient social support is associated with increased mortality among older adults. Lung cancer is primarily a disease of older adults and is the leading cause of all cancer deaths. We assessed the association of social support with outcomes among older adults with lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults age 65 and older with lung cancer with a completed geriatric assessment (GA) were assessed. Emotional social support (ES) and tangible (material, instrumental) support (TS) measures and patient characteristics were obtained from the GA. The electronic health record was used to extract clinical variables. Simple linear regression models evaluated the association between social support scales with patient and clinical factors. RESULTS: 79 adults were assessed. White race was positively associated with ES score (p=.04), while higher BMI (p=.03), depression (p=.03) and anxiety (p=.02) were associated with worse ES. Higher BMI was associated with higher/better TS score (p=.02) while living alone was associated with lower/worse TS score (p=.03). Completion of platinum-based doublet chemotherapy with immunotherapy as planned was associated with higher ES scores (p=.02) and higher TS scores (p=.02). Disease progression was associated with lower ES scores (p=.03). CONCLUSION: Social support may influence clinical outcomes in older adults with lung cancer. As lung cancer often portends to poor prognosis, social support may be an important prognostic indicator.

Patient powered research: an approach to building capacity for a hardly reached patient population to engage in cancer research.

BACKGROUND: Participating in clinical trials is a metric of high-quality cancer care and improves survival. However, Black individuals with cancer are less likely to be enrolled in clinical trials and experience a disproportionate burden of cancer mortality compared to Whites. Patient-engaged research is one potential strategy to address racial inequities in clinical trials, but little is known about best practices for engaging Black individuals and communities impacted by cancer in research partnerships. METHODS: We used a community engaged research approach to establish a patient advisory council (PAC) representative of the patient population served by a safety net hospital cancer center. We outline the process of establishing the PAC and the lessons learned. RESULTS: The inaugural PAC included 7 members representative of the cancer center's patient demographics. PAC members developed a patient centered vision, mission and action plan. PAC and community-academic research partners experienced the transformative power of centering the lived experiences of patients of color to promote health equity in cancer research. CONCLUSION: Establishing a patient advisory council at a safety net hospital cancer care center provided a platform for engaging a hardly reached population in patient centered research.

Participating in clinical trials is an important measure of high-quality cancer care and improves survival. However, Black individuals with cancer are less likely to participate in clinical trials and are more likely to die from cancer compared to Whites. Including Black patients as research partners is one way to improve racial equity in clinical trial participation. We established a patient advisory council (PAC) including patients and caregivers with similar racial demographics as the patients receiving care at a safety net hospital cancer center. PAC members partnered with the research team to develop a vision, mission, and action plan to improve research participation among patients of color. PAC members used their lived experiences and training from the research team to help develop a strategy to improve representation of patients of color in cancer research. This paper is focused on the PAC development process.

Person-centered communication about weight and weight management: Focus group discussions in a diverse sample of women with nonmetastatic breast cancer and obesity.

BACKGROUND: Women with obesity are at higher risk for high-grade and/or advanced-stage breast cancer in comparison with women without obesity. Many women with a high body mass index (BMI) at breast cancer diagnosis experience further weight gain during and after treatment. This study investigated Black and White patient perspectives on conversations with their oncologists about weight and weight management. METHODS: Focus groups using a virtual platform (Zoom) were conducted with women after primary treatment for stage I to III breast cancer who were 21 years or older and had a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 : 2 with Black women (n = 12) and 2 with White women (n = 14). RESULTS: Participants asked that their oncologists be "transparent" about weight gain as a potential side effect of their cancer treatment and how excess weight might affect their prognosis and survival. They asked to be "seen as an individual" to facilitate both person-centered and culturally appropriate conversations about behavioral changes needed for weight management. Participants urged clinicians to take the lead in initiating conversations about weight to underscore its importance in cancer care and survivorship. They welcomed actionable recommendations about nutrition and exercise from either the oncology clinician or a specialist. Participants offered specific suggestions on how clinicians could initiate weight-related conversations, beginning with questions eliciting patients' perspectives on their weight and lifestyle. CONCLUSIONS: Many women with early-stage breast cancer and obesity have concerns about weight and weight gain and urge their oncologists to use an active and personalized approach in recommending and supporting efforts at weight management. LAY SUMMARY: Focus group discussions with Black and White women with early-stage breast cancer and obesity have elicited patient perspectives on conversations with their oncologists about weight and weight management. Many patients have concerns about weight and weight gain and urge their oncologists to use an active and personalized approach in recommending and supporting efforts at weight management.

Sociodemographic disparities in the management of advanced lung cancer: a narrative review.

Treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has markedly changed in the past decade with the integration of biomarker testing, targeted therapies, immunotherapy, and palliative care. These advancements have led to significant improvements in quality of life and overall survival. Despite these improvements, racial and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer mortality persist. This narrative review aims to assess and synthesize the literature on sociodemographic disparities in the management of advanced NSCLC. A narrative overview of the literature was conducted using PubMed and Scopus and was narrowed to articles published from January 1, 2010, until July 22, 2020. Articles relevant to sociodemographic variation in (I) chemoradiation for stage III NSCLC, (II) molecular biomarker testing, (III) systemic treatment, including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy, and (IV) palliative and end of life care were included in this review. Twenty-two studies were included. Sociodemographic disparities in the management of advanced NSCLC varied, but recurring findings emerged. Across most treatment domains, Black patients, the uninsured, and patients with Medicaid were less likely to receive recommended lung cancer care. However, some of the literature was limited due to incomplete data to adequately assess appropriateness of care, and several studies were out of date with current practice guidelines. Sociodemographic disparities in the management of advanced lung cancer are evident. Given the rapidly evolving treatment paradigm for advanced NSCLC, updated research is needed. Research on interventions to address disparities in advanced NSCLC is also needed.

The Ethical Imperative of Equity in Oncology: Lessons Learned From 2020 and a Path Forward.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the simultaneous increased focus on structural racism and racial/ethnic disparities across the United States have shed light on glaring inequities in U.S. health care, both in oncology and more generally. In this article, we describe how, through the lens of fundamental ethical principles, an ethical imperative exists for the oncology community to overcome these inequities in cancer care, research, and the oncology workforce. We first explain why this is an ethical imperative, centering the discussion on lessons learned during 2020. We continue by describing ongoing equity-focused efforts by ASCO and other related professional medical organizations. We end with a call to action-all members of the oncology community have an ethical responsibility to take steps to address inequities in their clinical and academic work-and with guidance to practicing oncologists looking to optimize equity in their research and clinical practice.

Molecular Biomarker and Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Expression Testing in Patients With Advanced Stage Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Across North Carolina Community Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Precision medicine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) requires molecular biomarker testing in patients with nonsquamous and select patients with squamous histologies, and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) testing in both. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are rates of molecular and PD-L1 biomarker testing in patients with advanced NSCLC in community practices, and do rates vary by sociodemographic factors? What is the prevalence of molecular biomarker mutations and PD-L1 expression levels? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: From 389 stage IV NSCLC pathology reports obtained through the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center's Rapid Case Ascertainment Program from 38 community hospitals across North Carolina, we abstracted demographics, histology, molecular biomarker testing and results, and PD-L1 testing and expression. We geocoded patient and hospital addresses to determine travel time, distance to care, and census block level contextual variables. We compared molecular biomarker and PD-L1 testing rates, the prevalence of molecular biomarkers, and PD-L1 expression levels by race and sex, using χ2 tests. We determined predictors of testing, using multivariable logistic regression and report adjusted ORs and 95%CI. RESULTS: Among patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, 64.4% were tested for molecular biomarkers, and among all NSCLC patients 53.2% were tested for PD-L1 expression. Differences in biomarker testing rates by sociodemographic factors were not statistically significant in univariate or adjusted analyses. Adjusted analyses showed that patients living in areas with higher household internet access were more likely to undergo PD-L1 testing (adjusted OR = 1.66, 95% CI, 1.02-2.71). Sociodemographic differences in molecular biomarker prevalence and PD-L1 expression levels were not statistically significant, except for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) mutations, which occurred in 16.7% of males vs 0% in females, P = .05. INTERPRETATION: Biomarker testing remains underused in NSCLC. Future work should include larger populations and evaluate hospital-specific testing protocols to identify and address barriers to guideline-recommended testing.