PURPOSE: Participation of racial and ethnic minority groups (REMGs) in cancer trials is disproportionately low despite a high prevalence of certain cancers in REMG populations. We aimed to identify notable practices used by leading US cancer centers that facilitate REMG participation in cancer trials. METHODS: The National Minority Quality Forum and Sustainable Healthy Communities Diverse Cancer Communities Working Group developed criteria by which to identify eligible US cancer centers—REMGs comprise 10% or more of the catchment area; a 10% to 50% yearly accrual rate of REMGs in cancer trials; and the presence of formal community outreach and diversity enrollment programs. Cancer center leaders were interviewed to ascertain notable practices that facilitate REMG accrual in clinical trials. RESULTS: Eight cancer centers that met the Communities Working Group criteria were invited to participate in in-depth interviews. Notable strategies for increased REMG accrual to cancer trials were reported across five broad themes: commitment and center leadership, investigator training and mentoring, community engagement, patient engagement, and operational practices. Specific notable practices included increased engagement of health care professionals, the presence of formal processes for obtaining REMG patient/caregiver input on research projects, and engagement of community groups to drive REMG participation. Centers also reported an increase in the allocation of resources to improving health disparities and increased dedication of research staff to REMG engagement. CONCLUSION: We have identified notable practices that facilitate increased participation of REMGs in cancer trials. Wide implementation of such strategies across cancer centers is essential to ensure that all populations benefit from advances in an era of increasingly personalized treatment of cancer.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: In clinical research, eligibility criteria promote patient safety and optimize the evidence generated from clinical trials. However, overly stringent eligibility criteria, including laboratory requirements, may limit enrollment, resulting in delayed trial completion and potentially limiting applicability of trial results to a general practice population. Experimental Design: Starting in 2018, a working group consisting of experts in direct patient care, the FDA, industry, and patient advocacy developed recommendations to guide the optimal use of laboratory reference ranges and testing intervals in clinical trial eligibility criteria and study procedures. The working group evaluated current eligibility criteria across different clinical trial phases and performed a literature review to evaluate the impact of and justification for laboratory test eligibility requirements and testing intervals in clinical trials. Recommendations were developed on the basis of the goals of promoting safety and optimizing the evidence generated, while also expanding eligibility and applicability, and minimizing excess burden of trial participation. Results: In general, we found little variation over time and trial phase in laboratory test requirements, suggesting that these eligibility criteria are not refined according to ongoing clinical experience. We propose recommendations to optimize the use of laboratory tests when considering eligibility criteria. Conclusions: Tailoring the use of laboratory test requirements and testing intervals may increase the number and diversity of patients in clinical trials and provide clinical data that more closely represent the general practice populations. See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369

PURPOSE In patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), tumor mutational burden (TMB) may vary by genomic ancestry; however, its impact on treatment outcomes is unclear. This retrospective, observational study describes treatment patterns of patients with aNSCLC by genomic ancestry and electronic health record (EHR)-reported race and/or ethnicity and evaluates differences in TMB, cancer immunotherapy (CIT) access, and treatment outcomes across racial and ancestral groups. METHODS Patients diagnosed with aNSCLC after January 1, 2011, were selected from a real-world deidentified clinicogenomics database and EHR-derived database; continuously enrolled patients were evaluated. Race and/or ethnicity was recorded using variables from the EHR database; genomic ancestry was classified by single-nucleotide polymorphisms on a next-generation sequencing panel. A threshold of 16 mutations per megabase was used to categorize TMB status. RESULTS Of 59,559 patients in the EHR-derived database and 7,548 patients in the clinicogenomics database, 35,016 (58.8%) and 4,392 (58.2%) were continuously enrolled, respectively. CIT use was similar across EHR-reported race groups, ranging from 34.4% to 37.3% for non-Hispanic Asian and non-Hispanic Black patients, respectively. TMB levels varied significantly across ancestry groups ( P < .001); patients of African ancestry had the highest median TMB (8.75 mutations per megabase; interquartile range, 4.35-14.79). In patients who had received CIT, high TMB was associated with improved overall survival compared with low TMB (20.89 v 11.83 months; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.70) across genomic ancestral groups. CONCLUSION These results suggest that equitable access to next-generation sequencing may improve aNSCLC outcome disparities in racially and ancestrally diverse populations.