Racialized economic segregation and inequities in treatment initiation and survival among patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Racialized economic segregation, a form of structural racism, may drive persistent inequities among patients with breast cancer. We examined whether a composite area-level index of racialized economic segregation was associated with real-world treatment and survival in metastatic breast cancer (mBC). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among adult women with mBC using a US nationwide electronic health record-derived de-identified database (2011-2022). Population-weighted quintiles of the index of concentration at the extremes were estimated using census tract data. To identify inequities in time to treatment initiation (TTI) and overall survival (OS), we employed Kaplan-Meier methods and estimated hazard ratios (HR) adjusted for clinical factors. RESULTS: The cohort included 27,459 patients. Compared with patients from the most privileged areas, those from the least privileged areas were disproportionately Black (36.9% vs. 2.6%) or Latinx (13.2% vs. 2.6%) and increasingly diagnosed with de novo mBC (33.6% vs. 28.9%). Those from the least privileged areas had longer median TTI than those from the most privileged areas (38 vs 31 days) and shorter median OS (29.7 vs 39.2 months). Multivariable-adjusted HR indicated less timely treatment initiation (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.83, 0.91, p < 0.01) and worse OS (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.13, 1.25, p < 0.01) among those from the least privileged areas compared to the most privileged areas. CONCLUSION: Racialized economic segregation is a social determinant of health associated with treatment and survival inequities in mBC. Public investments directly addressing racialized economic segregation and other forms of structural racism are needed to reduce inequities in cancer care and outcomes.

Racial and Ethnic Inequities in US Oncology Clinical Trial Participation From 2017 to 2022.

Importance: There is increasing recognition from regulatory agencies that racial and ethnic representation in clinical trials is inadequate and linked to health inequities. The extent of racial inequities in clinical trial participation is unclear because prior studies have synthesized enrollment data from published trials, which often do not report participant race and ethnicity. Objective: To evaluate racial and ethnic inequities in oncology clinical trial participation in a contemporary cohort of patients with cancer before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database, which includes data for approximately 280 US cancer clinics (approximately 800 sites of care). The study included Latinx, non-Latinx Black (hereinafter, Black), and non-Latinx White (reference; hereinafter, White) patients aged 18 years or older who had been diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, metastatic colorectal cancer, metastatic breast cancer, multiple myeloma, or metastatic pancreatic cancer between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2022 (follow-up through December 31, 2022). Data analysis was performed between August 1, 2022, and February 7, 2023. Exposures: Electronic health record-documented race and ethnicity. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was oncology trial participation (ie, receipt of a clinical study drug). Stratified cause-specific hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for likelihood of participation. Participation was assessed overall, by cancer type, and by period of diagnosis (2017-2019 vs 2020-2022). Results: Of the 50 411 patients in this study, 28 878 (57.3%) were women and 21 533 (42.7%) were men. Black and Latinx patients were younger than White patients, with a median age of 65 (IQR, 57-72), 64 (IQR, 54-73), and 68 (IQR, 60-76) years, respectively. Oncology trial participation was lower among Black patients (307 of 6912 [4.4%]) and Latinx patients (166 of 3973 [4.2%]) relative to White patients (2858 of 39 526 [7.2%]) over the entire study period. Inequities in participation were observed across the 5 cancer types studied, with notably large inequities observed among Black patients (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.36-0.81]) and Latinx patients (HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.27-0.77]) with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Moreover, inequities between Black and White patients in terms of participation widened among those diagnosed in the COVID-19 era (2020-2022: HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.40-0.60] vs 1.00 [95% CI, 0.93-1.09]) relative to those diagnosed before the pandemic (2017-2019: HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.53-0.70] vs 1 [reference]). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that oncology trial participation was lower among Black and Latinx patients relative to White patients across all 5 cancer types examined. These findings, including potentially widening inequities in the COVID-19 era, support the need for regulatory guidance to improve enrollment of participants from historically excluded racial and ethnic populations in clinical trials.

Evaluation of US oncology electronic health record real-world data to reduce uncertainty in health technology appraisals: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Examine whether data from early access to medicines in the USA can be used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) health technology assessments (HTA) in oncology. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Oncology-based community and academic treatment centres in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Patients present in a nationwide electronic health record (EHR)-derived deidentified database. INTERVENTIONS: Cancer drugs that underwent NICE technology appraisal (TA) between 2014 and 2019. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The count and follow-up time of US patients, available in the EHR, who were exposed to cancer drugs of interest in the period between Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and dates relevant to the NICE appraisal process. RESULTS: In 59 of 60 TAs analysed, the cancer therapy was approved in the USA before the final appraisal by NICE. The median time from FDA approval to the publication of NICE recommendations was 18.5 months, at which time the US EHR-derived database had, on average, 269 patients (SD=356) exposed to the new therapy, with a median of 75.3 person-years (IQR: 13.1-173) in time-at-risk. A case study generated evidence on real-world overall survival and treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: Across different cancer therapies, there was substantial variability in US real-world data accumulated between FDA approval and NICE decision milestones. The applicability of these data to generate evidence for HTA decision-making should be assessed on a case-by-case basis depending on the intended HTA use case.

Real-world Use of Radiation for Newly Diagnosed Brain Metastases in Patients With ALK-positive Lung Cancer Receiving First-line ALK Inhibitor.

PURPOSE: Management paradigms now allow for systemic targeted drugs before central nervous system (CNS)-directed radiation therapy (RT) in selected asymptomatic patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and brain metastases (BM). We aimed to quantify how novel targeted agents with improved CNS activity, such as second-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors (eg, alectinib), might affect the role of CNS-directed RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective, observational, real-world, patterns-of-care study used a nationwide, electronic, health record-derived, de-identified, longitudinal database. A random sample of patients with ALK+ advanced NSCLC and BM on first-line ALK-inhibitor monotherapy between January 1, 2014 and August 31, 2019 were included. Using an index date of the first instance of BM, the outcome was brain-directed local treatment within 4 months. Trends over time were reported and tested using multivariable modified Poisson regression with robust error variance, including an indicator during or after 2017 (when alectinib was approved). RESULTS: Of the 352 included patients, 146 had BM. In addition, 104 patients received CNS-directed local therapy, and 42 did not. The majority of patients (89.4%) were treated with RT alone. Of those receiving RT, stereotactic radiosurgery monotherapy was the most common (53%), followed by whole brain RT alone (39%). On multivariable analysis, patients who had their first BM during or after 2017 had a decreased rate of receiving local BM treatment versus those before 2017 with an adjusted incidence rate ratio of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.95; P = .026). We found no change in the proportion of BM treated with whole brain RT during or after 2017 versus before (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.24-2.06; P = .517). CONCLUSIONS: We found decreasing use of CNS-directed RT in patients with NSCLC with new BM on first-line ALK inhibitors. Clinical outcomes for these patients require continued investigation, because physicians may become increasingly comfortable deferring upfront local therapy for BM in lieu of novel targeted agents with improved CNS activity.

The Impact Of Academic Medical Center Policies Restricting Direct-To-Physician Marketing On Opioid Prescribing.

Direct-to-physician opioid marketing by pharmaceutical companies is widespread and may contribute to opioid overprescribing, an important driver of the US opioid crisis. Using a difference-in-differences approach and Medicare Part D prescriber data, we examined the effects of academic medical centers' conflict-of-interest policies that restrict direct-to-physician marketing of all drugs on opioid prescribing by physicians at eighty-five centers in the period 2013-16. We examined restrictions on gifts and meals, speaking and consulting engagements, and industry representatives' access to academic medical centers, as well as rules requiring conflict-of-interest disclosures. Bans on sales representatives were associated with a 4.7 percent reduction in the total volume of opioids prescribed and disclosure requirements with a 2.5 percent reduction, while having all four marketing restriction policies was associated with an 8.8 percent reduction. Policies that restrict direct-to-physician pharmaceutical marketing may curb opioid prescribing, but additional patient-level research is needed to understand how such policies affect the delivery of evidence-based treatment for chronic pain.