Executing plans to enhance diversity across cancer centers in the United States: Opportunities and challenges.

BACKGROUND: Lack of diversity in the cancer research workforce persists which the new requirement for all NCI-designated cancer centers to have a Plan to Enhance Diversity (PED) seeks to address. However, it is not well understood how different cancer centers are approaching the development and execution of these plans. Our objective was to assess how cancer centers are establishing and pursuing their PED. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of members of the Cancer Center DEI Network which includes all NCI-designated cancer centers and several emerging centers. 62 cancer centers (75% of those invited), including 58 NCI-designated cancer centers (81% of those with this designation), participated and completed a questionnaire that assessed PED leadership, major challenges, implementation strategies, and approach to evaluate PED progress. RESULTS: The most common PED challenge identified is recruiting diverse faculty (68% of centers) and the most common strategy currently used to address this is reviewing and revising faculty recruitment practices (67%). The most common approach centers are using to measure PED progress are shifts in demographics (68%), and data on the demographics of faculty, leadership, and trainees are available at 79%, 81%, and 75% of centers, respectively. CONCLUSION(S): While almost all centers have established a PED leadership structure, there is considerable variation in the approaches used to realize PED goals, and in the resources provided to support PED work. Realizing opportunities to share and implement common best practices and exemplar programs has the potential to elevate the impact of PED efforts nationally.

CAR T-Cell Immunotherapy in Minority Patients with Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Administration of anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CART19) immunotherapy for large B-cell lymphomas (LBCLs), a subset of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), involves high costs and access to specialized tertiary care centers. We investigated whether minority health populations (MHPs) have equal access to CART19 and whether their outcomes are similar to those of non-MHPs. METHODS: We analyzed the prevalence and clinical outcomes of patients treated with commercial CART19 at two geographically and socioeconomically different institutions: the Abramson Cancer Center (ACC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) and the Knight Cancer Institute (KCI, Portland, Oregon). RESULTS: In the ACC catchment area, 8956 patients were diagnosed with NHL between 2015 and 2019 (latest available data from the state registry), including 17.9% MHPs. In the ACC, between 2018 and 2022 (CART became available in 2018), 1492 patients with LBCL were treated, and 194 received CART19. The proportion of MHPs was 15.7% for the entire LBCL cohort but only 6.7% for the CART19 cohort. During the same time, in the KCI catchment area, 4568 patients were diagnosed with NHL, including 4.2% MHPs. In the KCI, 396 patients with LBCL were treated, and 47 received CART19. The proportion of MHPs was 6.6% for the entire LBCL cohort and 4.2% for the CART19 cohort. The 3-month response, survival, and toxicities after CART19 infusion showed similar results, although the number of patients who were treated was limited. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the access of MHPs to tertiary centers for LBCL care was preserved but appeared reduced for commercial CART19 immunotherapy. Although clinical outcomes of MHPs seemed similar to those of non-MHPs, the small sample size precludes drawing firm conclusions. Further studies are needed. (Funded by the Laffey McHugh Foundation and others.).

Interventions to Mitigate Financial Toxicity in Adult Patients with Cancer in the United States: A Scoping Review.

Financial toxicity adversely affects quality of life and treatment outcomes for patients with cancer. This scoping review examined interventions aimed at mitigating financial toxicity in adult patients with cancer and their effectiveness. We utilized five bibliographical databases to identify studies that met our inclusion criteria. The review included studies conducted among adult patients with cancer in the United States and published in English between January 2011 to March 2023. The review identified eight studies that met the inclusion criteria. Each of the studies discussed the implementation of interventions at the patient/provider and/or health system level. Collectively, the findings from this scoping review highlight both the limited number of published studies that are aimed at mitigating financial toxicity and the need to create and assess interventions that directly impact financial toxicity in demographically diverse populations of adult patients with cancer.

American Cancer Society's report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States, 2023.

In 2021, the American Cancer Society published its first biennial report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States. In this second report, the authors provide updated data on racial, ethnic, socioeconomic (educational attainment as a marker), and geographic (metropolitan status) disparities in cancer occurrence and outcomes and contributing factors to these disparities in the country. The authors also review programs that have reduced cancer disparities and provide policy recommendations to further mitigate these inequalities. There are substantial variations in risk factors, stage at diagnosis, receipt of care, survival, and mortality for many cancers by race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and metropolitan status. During 2016 through 2020, Black and American Indian/Alaska Native people continued to bear a disproportionately higher burden of cancer deaths, both overall and from major cancers. By educational attainment, overall cancer mortality rates were about 1.6-2.8 times higher in individuals with ≤12 years of education than in those with ≥16 years of education among Black and White men and women. These disparities by educational attainment within each race were considerably larger than the Black-White disparities in overall cancer mortality within each educational attainment, ranging from 1.03 to 1.5 times higher among Black people, suggesting a major role for socioeconomic status disparities in racial disparities in cancer mortality given the disproportionally larger representation of Black people in lower socioeconomic status groups. Of note, the largest Black-White disparities in overall cancer mortality were among those who had ≥16 years of education. By area of residence, mortality from all cancer and from leading causes of cancer death were substantially higher in nonmetropolitan areas than in large metropolitan areas. For colorectal cancer, for example, mortality rates in nonmetropolitan areas versus large metropolitan areas were 23% higher among males and 21% higher among females. By age group, the racial and geographic disparities in cancer mortality were greater among individuals younger than 65 years than among those aged 65 years and older. Many of the observed racial, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities in cancer mortality align with disparities in exposure to risk factors and access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, which are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health. Equitable policies at all levels of government, broad interdisciplinary engagement to address these inequities, and equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as increasing health insurance coverage, are needed to reduce cancer disparities.

Multi-Cancer Early Detection: The New Frontier in Cancer Early Detection.

The new generation of cancer early detection tests holds remarkable promise for revolutionizing and changing the paradigm of cancer early detection. Dozens of cancer early detection tests are being developed and evaluated. Some are already commercialized and available for use, most as a complement to and not in place of existing recommended cancer screening tests. This review evaluates existing single- and multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs), discussing their performance characteristics including sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy. It also critically looks at the potential harms that could result from these tests, including false positive and negative results, the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, psychological and economic harms, and the risk of widening cancer inequities. We also review the large-scale, population-based studies that are being launched in the United States and United Kingdom to determine the impact of MCEDs on clinically relevant outcomes and implications for current practice.

Screening for lung cancer: 2023 guideline update from the American Cancer Society.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of mortality and person-years of life lost from cancer among US men and women. Early detection has been shown to be associated with reduced lung cancer mortality. Our objective was to update the American Cancer Society (ACS) 2013 lung cancer screening (LCS) guideline for adults at high risk for lung cancer. The guideline is intended to provide guidance for screening to health care providers and their patients who are at high risk for lung cancer due to a history of smoking. The ACS Guideline Development Group (GDG) utilized a systematic review of the LCS literature commissioned for the US Preventive Services Task Force 2021 LCS recommendation update; a second systematic review of lung cancer risk associated with years since quitting smoking (YSQ); literature published since 2021; two Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network-validated lung cancer models to assess the benefits and harms of screening; an epidemiologic and modeling analysis examining the effect of YSQ and aging on lung cancer risk; and an updated analysis of benefit-to-radiation-risk ratios from LCS and follow-up examinations. The GDG also examined disease burden data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Formulation of recommendations was based on the quality of the evidence and judgment (incorporating values and preferences) about the balance of benefits and harms. The GDG judged that the overall evidence was moderate and sufficient to support a strong recommendation for screening individuals who meet the eligibility criteria. LCS in men and women aged 50-80 years is associated with a reduction in lung cancer deaths across a range of study designs, and inferential evidence supports LCS for men and women older than 80 years who are in good health. The ACS recommends annual LCS with low-dose computed tomography for asymptomatic individuals aged 50-80 years who currently smoke or formerly smoked and have a ≥20 pack-year smoking history (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence). Before the decision is made to initiate LCS, individuals should engage in a shared decision-making discussion with a qualified health professional. For individuals who formerly smoked, the number of YSQ is not an eligibility criterion to begin or to stop screening. Individuals who currently smoke should receive counseling to quit and be connected to cessation resources. Individuals with comorbid conditions that substantially limit life expectancy should not be screened. These recommendations should be considered by health care providers and adults at high risk for lung cancer in discussions about LCS. If fully implemented, these recommendations have a high likelihood of significantly reducing death and suffering from lung cancer in the United States.

Protocol for a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to increase supplemental breast MRI screening among patients with extremely dense breasts.

BACKGROUND: Increased breast density augments breast cancer risk and reduces mammography sensitivity. Supplemental breast MRI screening can significantly increase cancer detection among women with dense breasts. However, few women undergo this exam, and screening is consistently lower among racially minoritized populations. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics ("nudges") can promote evidence-based practices by improving clinician decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. Nudges directed toward clinicians and patients may facilitate the implementation of supplemental breast MRI. METHODS: Approximately 1600 patients identified as having extremely dense breasts after non-actionable mammograms, along with about 1100 clinicians involved with their care at 32 primary care or OB/GYN clinics across a racially diverse academically based health system, will be enrolled. A 2 × 2 randomized pragmatic trial will test nudges to patients, clinicians, both, or neither to promote supplemental breast MRI screening. Before implementation, rapid cycle approaches informed by clinician and patient experiences and behavioral economics and health equity frameworks guided nudge design. Clinicians will be clustered into clinic groups based on existing administrative departments and care patterns, and these clinic groups will be randomized to have the nudge activated at different times per a stepped wedge design. Clinicians will receive nudges integrated into the routine mammographic report or sent through electronic health record (EHR) in-basket messaging once their clinic group (i.e., wedge) is randomized to receive the intervention. Independently, patients will be randomized to receive text message nudges or not. The primary outcome will be defined as ordering or scheduling supplemental breast MRI. Secondary outcomes include MRI completion, cancer detection rates, and false-positive rates. Patient sociodemographic information and clinic-level variables will be examined as moderators of nudge effectiveness. Qualitative interviews conducted at the trial's conclusion will examine barriers and facilitators to implementation. DISCUSSION: This study will add to the growing literature on the effectiveness of behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies to promote evidence-based interventions. The design will facilitate testing the relative effects of nudges to patients and clinicians and the effects of moderators of nudge effectiveness, including key indicators of health disparities. The results may inform the introduction of low-cost, scalable implementation strategies to promote early breast cancer detection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05787249. Registered on March 28, 2023.

Community Outreach and Engagement at U.S. Cancer Centers: Notes from the Third Cancer Center Community Impact Forum.

Community outreach and engagement (COE) is a fundamental activity of cancer centers as they aim to reduce cancer disparities in their geographic catchment areas. As part of COE, NCI-Designated Cancer Centers must monitor the burden of cancer in their catchment area, implement and evaluate evidence-based strategies, stimulate catchment area relevant research, support clinical trial enrollment, and participate in policy and advocacy initiatives, in addition to other responsibilities. The Cancer Center Community Impact Forum (CCCIF) is a national annual meeting of COE professionals who work at or with cancer centers across the country. CCCIF grew out of earlier discussions at American Society of Preventive Oncology (ASPO) annual meetings, where COE was often discussed, but not exclusively. The third annual CCCIF meeting-hosted by the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University-was held in June 2022 in Philadelphia, PA, where more than 200 participants listened to dynamic presentations across 12 COE-related panel sessions. CCCIF leadership and ASPO AD/PL Workshop Planners worked together on the agenda. The 12 sessions used a COE lens to focus on: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; Policy; State Cancer Coalitions; Evaluation and Metrics; Implementation Science; In-reach; Outreach; Training and Education; Funding, Personnel and Resources; Clinical Trials; Innovative Methods; and Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. This article is a summary of main points and key lessons from each session, as well as a summary of overarching themes that were evident across the sessions.

Together We Go Farther: Improving Access to Cancer Screening Through a Multidisciplinary, One-Stop-Shop Approach.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Despite significant scientific advances in cancer treatment in recent decades, Black Americans still face marked inequities in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Redressing these persistent inequities will require innovative strategies for community engagement. Radiologists, as experts in cancer screening and diagnosis for multiple malignancies, including breast, lung, and colon, are ideally suited to lead and implement community-based strategies to address local cancer disparities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Through an established academic-community partnership in West Philadelphia built over the course of multiple prior community healthcare events, the authors piloted a novel radiology-led multidisciplinary approach to improve access to cancer screening for the predominantly Black, medically-underserved residents. Using a "one-stop-shop" framework to provide a comprehensive suite of screening and ancillary services in the heart of the community, the authors sought to remove as many impediments to screening as possible. RESULTS: Approximately 350 participants attended the health fair, and a total of 232 screening tests or assessments were completed. Data from this event suggest that this inclusive approach, as well as the use of a health fair "passport" to incentivize engagement, can successfully improve access to screening and follow-up in an underserved community. CONCLUSION: This "one-stop-shop" community approach can be replicated by radiology-led teams in other settings as a high-value, scalable opportunity to reduce disparities in access to cancer screening.

Factors Associated With Primary Care Physician Decision-making When Making Medication Recommendations vs Surgical Referrals.

Importance: Although objective data are used routinely in prescription drug recommendations, it is unclear how referring physicians apply evidence when making surgeon or hospital recommendations for surgery. Objective: To compare the factors associated with the hospital or surgeon referral decision-making process with that used for prescription medication recommendations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study comprised interviews conducted between April 26 and May 18, 2021, of a purposive sample of 21 primary care physicians from a large primary care network in the Northeast US. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were the factors considered when making prescription medication recommendations vs referral recommendations to specific surgeons or hospitals for surgery. Results: All 21 participant primary care physicians (14 women [66.7%]) reported use of evidence-based decision support tools and patient attributes for prescription medication recommendations. In contrast, for surgeon and hospital referral recommendations, primary care physicians relied on professional experience and training, personal beliefs about surgical quality, and perceived convenience. Primary care physicians cited perceived limitations of existing data on surgical quality as a barrier to the use of such data in the process of making surgical referrals. Conclusions and Relevance: As opposed to the widespread use of objective decision support tools for guidance on medication recommendations, primary care physicians relied on subjective factors when making referrals to specific surgeons and hospitals. The findings of this study highlight the potential to improve surgical outcomes by introducing accessible, reliable data as an imperative step in the surgical referral process.

Comparison of Simulated Outcomes of Colorectal Cancer Surgery at the Highest-Performing vs Chosen Local Hospitals.

Importance: Variation in outcomes across hospitals adversely affects surgical patients. The use of high-quality hospitals varies by population, which may contribute to surgical disparities. Objective: To simulate the implications of data-driven hospital selection for social welfare among patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used the hospital inpatient file from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration. Surgical outcomes of patients who were treated between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018 (training cohort), were used to estimate hospital performance. Costs and benefits of care at alternative hospitals were assessed in patients who were treated between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019 (testing cohort). The cohorts comprised patients 18 years or older who underwent elective colorectal resection for benign or malignant neoplasms. Data were analyzed from March to October 2022. Exposures: Using hierarchical logistic regression, we estimated the implications of hospital selection for in-hospital mortality risk in patients in the training cohort. These estimates were applied to patients in the testing cohort using bayesian simulations to compare outcomes at each patient's highest-performing and chosen local hospitals. Analyses were stratified by race and ethnicity to evaluate the potential implications for equity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the mean patient-level change in social welfare, a composite measure balancing the value of reduced mortality with associated costs of care at higher-performing hospitals. Results: A total of 21 098 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.3 [12.0] years; 10 782 males [51.1%]; 2232 Black [10.6%] and 18 866 White [89.4%] individuals) who were treated at 178 hospitals were included. A higher-quality local hospital was identified for 3057 of 5000 patients (61.1%) in the testing cohort. Selecting the highest-performing hospital was associated with a 26.5% (95% CI, 24.5%-29.0%) relative reduction and 0.24% (95% CI, 0.23%-0.25%) absolute reduction in mortality risk. A mean amount of $1953 (95% CI, $1744-$2162) was gained in social welfare per patient treated. Simulated reassignment to a higher-quality local hospital was associated with a 23.5% (95% CI, 19.3%-32.9%) relative reduction and 0.26% (95% CI, 0.21%-0.30%) absolute reduction in mortality risk for Black patients, with $2427 (95% CI, $1697-$3158) gained in social welfare. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, using procedure-specific hospital performance as the primary factor in the selection of a local hospital for colorectal cancer surgery was associated with improved outcomes for both patients and society. Surgical outcomes data can be used to transform care and guide policy in colorectal cancer.

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

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

Financial toxicity in prostate cancer survivors: A national cross-sectional assessment of subjective financial burden.

BACKGROUND: In prostate cancer (CaP) survivorship, subjective financial burden (SFB), an aspect of financial toxicity, has not been studied using a national sample. Our goal was to explore and identify factors associated with patient-reported SFB in CaP survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study of 264 adult individuals with a history of CaP that completed the AHRQ - Medical Expenditures Panel Survey - Household Component and Cancer Self-Administered Questionnaire Supplement in 2016 or 2017. Primary outcomes were the presence of cancer-related SFB and the severity of this burden. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression and logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with the severity of SFB and different domains of burden. RESULTS: Most participants were non-Hispanic white, had 3 or more comorbidities and had a median age of 72 years. 62.1% of survivors indicated SFB associated with their CaP care and long-term effects. 49.2% of CaP survivors indicated coping SFB, 27.7% psychological, and 29.2% material. Older (OR: 0.95, 95%CI 0.92-0.98) was associated with less SFB. Low-income level (OR: 2.1, 95%CI 1.01-4.36) was associated with higher SFB. Hispanic survivors (OR: 2.8 95%CI 1.1-7.4) indicated more psychologic SFB. Presence of a caregiver was noted as a predictor of material (OR 2.6, 95%CI 1.45-4.49) and psychological (OR: 2.2, 95%CI 1.13-3.91) SFB. CONCLUSIONS: Many CaP survivors experience SFB and associated factors differ in domain of financial burden. This provides evidence and groundwork for understanding financial burden and improving the quality of counseling and care for this population.

Enhancing access to and diversity in cancer clinical trials through a financial reimbursement program: Protocol to evaluate a novel program.

As clinical trials have become more complex, with increasing numbers of required procedures and clinic visits, gaining access to promising new treatments has become even more challenging for many individuals. To address these barriers, we implemented a financial reimbursement and outreach program designed to increase the number and diversity of participants in cancer clinical trials at centers in Dallas, Houston, and Philadelphia. As endorsed by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Texas and Pennsylvania State Legislatures, the program provides financial reimbursement for non-clinical costs (e.g., travel, lodging) to patients on cancer clinical trials with household income up to 700% the Federal poverty rate. The research study described here, centered at the Dallas site, evaluates program impact by assessing (1) numbers and diversity of patients enrolled to cancer clinical trials before and after program implementation; (2) characteristics of patients offered participation in the program who do versus do not enroll; (3) characteristics of patients enrolled in the program who do versus do not complete the reimbursement process. To evaluate perceived barriers and facilitators of program participation, we will conduct semi-structured interviews and administer the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity Patient Reported Outcome Measure (COST PROM) and the Short Assessment of Health Literacy (SAHL). This program will examine how reimbursement of non-clinical costs can improve access to cancer clinical trials, with the eventual goal of increasing trial enrollment, diversity, representativeness, and generalizability.

Embracing Allyship in Academic Surgery: How All Surgeons Can Become Effective Champions for Change.

As the surgical community continues to work towards greater diversity, equity, and inclusion, the need for buy-in from all surgeons-including those of the White majority-becomes increasingly apparent. This article invites all surgeons to aid in diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts as "allies," "upstanders," and "champions for change," and provides 2 specific frameworks for enacting allyship within the surgical field. Overt and conscious efforts to embrace allyship are imperative as we seek to fulfill our professional responsibilities to patients and will help create a workplace environment where all persons feel accepted, valued, welcomed, and respected.

Strategies to Advance Equity in Cancer Clinical Trials.

Cancer clinical trials are critical for testing new treatments, yet less than 5% of patients with cancer enroll in these trials. Minority groups, elderly individuals, and rural populations are particularly underrepresented in cancer treatment trials. Strategies for advancing equity in cancer clinical trials for these populations include (1) optimizing clinical trial matching by broadening eligibility criteria, screening all patients for trial eligibility, expanding the number of trials against which patients are screened, and following up on all patient matches with an enrollment invitation; (2) conducting site self-assessments to identify clinical-, patient-, provider-, and system-level barriers that contribute to low rates of clinical trial screening and enrollment; (3) creating a quality improvement plan that addresses the barriers to enrollment and incorporates the use of tools and strategies such as clinical trial checklists; workforce development and trainings to improve cultural competence and reduce unconscious bias; guides to promote community education, outreach and engagement with cancer clinical trials; screening and accrual logs designed to measure participation by demographics; models of informed consent that improve understanding; clinical trial designs that reduce accessibility barriers; use of cancer clinical trial patient navigators; and programs to eliminate barriers to participation and out-of-pocket expenses; and (4) working with stakeholders to develop both protocols that are inclusive of diverse populations' geographic locations, and strategies to access those trials. These actions will support greater access for populations that have remained underrepresented in cancer clinical trials and thereby increase the generalizability and efficiency of cancer research.

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.