Ann Oluloro, Elizabeth M Swisher, Heidi J Gray, Barbara Goff, Kemi M Doll
{"title":"妇科癌症临床试验资格标准作为公平临床试验准入的标志","authors":"Ann Oluloro, Elizabeth M Swisher, Heidi J Gray, Barbara Goff, Kemi M Doll","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djae338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Racial and ethnic minorities remain underrepresented in gynecologic cancer clinical trials despite disproportionately worse oncologic outcomes. Research shows differential racial enrollment patterns due to comorbidity-based exclusion criteria (CEC). Our objective was to evaluate contemporary trends in CECs among NCI-sponsored gynecologic cancer clinical trials and protocol adherence to broadened eligibility criteria guidelines as an assessment of equitable enrollment access. Methods The ClinicalTrials.gov registry was queried for NCI-sponsored gynecologic cancer clinical trials (1994-2021). Study characteristics and CECs were abstracted from protocols. Descriptive statistics and temporal trends were calculated using chi-square testing with STATA v17 software. Results Among 279 clinical trials identified, 65% completed enrollment, 53% were Phase II, and 48% focused on ovarian cancer. Pharmaceutical agents (85%) were the primary therapeutic interventions. Several inequitably restrictive exclusion criteria increased over time such as hepatitis infection (17% in 1994-2000 vs 49% in 2015-2021, p < .001) and cardiovascular disease (47% in 1994-2000 vs 66% in 2015-2021, p = .002). A previously rare exclusion, “mental illness/social situations,” dramatically increased from 5% to 51% (p < .001) over three decades. Adherence to broadened eligibility criteria recommendations was mixed. Renal function, cardiovascular disease, and performance status criteria were not broadened but HIV, prior/concurrent malignancies, and brain metastasis criteria were. Conclusions Some, but not all, of the known restrictive CECs have increased in gynecologic cancer clinical trial design, despite calls for improving racial and ethnic minority representation. While exclusion criteria are critical for trial safety, they must be carefully considered given the differential racial impact on eligibility.","PeriodicalId":501635,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":"86 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gynecologic cancer clinical trial eligibility criteria as a marker for equitable clinical trial access\",\"authors\":\"Ann Oluloro, Elizabeth M Swisher, Heidi J Gray, Barbara Goff, Kemi M Doll\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jnci/djae338\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Racial and ethnic minorities remain underrepresented in gynecologic cancer clinical trials despite disproportionately worse oncologic outcomes. Research shows differential racial enrollment patterns due to comorbidity-based exclusion criteria (CEC). Our objective was to evaluate contemporary trends in CECs among NCI-sponsored gynecologic cancer clinical trials and protocol adherence to broadened eligibility criteria guidelines as an assessment of equitable enrollment access. Methods The ClinicalTrials.gov registry was queried for NCI-sponsored gynecologic cancer clinical trials (1994-2021). Study characteristics and CECs were abstracted from protocols. Descriptive statistics and temporal trends were calculated using chi-square testing with STATA v17 software. Results Among 279 clinical trials identified, 65% completed enrollment, 53% were Phase II, and 48% focused on ovarian cancer. Pharmaceutical agents (85%) were the primary therapeutic interventions. Several inequitably restrictive exclusion criteria increased over time such as hepatitis infection (17% in 1994-2000 vs 49% in 2015-2021, p < .001) and cardiovascular disease (47% in 1994-2000 vs 66% in 2015-2021, p = .002). A previously rare exclusion, “mental illness/social situations,” dramatically increased from 5% to 51% (p < .001) over three decades. Adherence to broadened eligibility criteria recommendations was mixed. Renal function, cardiovascular disease, and performance status criteria were not broadened but HIV, prior/concurrent malignancies, and brain metastasis criteria were. Conclusions Some, but not all, of the known restrictive CECs have increased in gynecologic cancer clinical trial design, despite calls for improving racial and ethnic minority representation. While exclusion criteria are critical for trial safety, they must be carefully considered given the differential racial impact on eligibility.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501635,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the National Cancer Institute\",\"volume\":\"86 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the National Cancer Institute\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae338\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae338","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
种族和少数民族在妇科癌症临床试验中的代表性仍然不足,尽管肿瘤预后不成比例地差。研究表明,由于基于合并症的排除标准(CEC),不同种族的入学模式存在差异。我们的目的是评估nci赞助的妇科癌症临床试验中CECs的当代趋势,以及扩大资格标准指南的协议遵守情况,以评估公平的入组机会。方法查询ClinicalTrials.gov注册中心1994-2021年nci赞助的妇科癌症临床试验。从方案中提取研究特征和CECs。描述性统计和时间趋势采用STATA v17软件卡方检验计算。结果在279项临床试验中,65%完成入组,53%为II期,48%为卵巢癌。药物(85%)是主要的治疗干预措施。一些不公平的限制性排除标准随着时间的推移而增加,例如肝炎感染(1994-2000年为17%,2015-2021年为49%)。.001)和心血管疾病(1994-2000年47% vs 2015-2021年66%,p = .002)。以前很少被排除在外的“精神疾病/社会状况”从5%急剧增加到51% (p <;.001)。对扩大资格标准建议的遵守情况参差不齐。肾功能、心血管疾病和运动状态标准没有扩大,但艾滋病毒、既往/并发恶性肿瘤和脑转移标准扩大了。结论:尽管人们呼吁提高少数种族和少数民族的代表性,但在妇科癌症临床试验设计中,一些(但不是全部)已知的限制性CECs有所增加。虽然排除标准对试验安全至关重要,但考虑到种族对资格的不同影响,必须仔细考虑排除标准。
Gynecologic cancer clinical trial eligibility criteria as a marker for equitable clinical trial access
Background Racial and ethnic minorities remain underrepresented in gynecologic cancer clinical trials despite disproportionately worse oncologic outcomes. Research shows differential racial enrollment patterns due to comorbidity-based exclusion criteria (CEC). Our objective was to evaluate contemporary trends in CECs among NCI-sponsored gynecologic cancer clinical trials and protocol adherence to broadened eligibility criteria guidelines as an assessment of equitable enrollment access. Methods The ClinicalTrials.gov registry was queried for NCI-sponsored gynecologic cancer clinical trials (1994-2021). Study characteristics and CECs were abstracted from protocols. Descriptive statistics and temporal trends were calculated using chi-square testing with STATA v17 software. Results Among 279 clinical trials identified, 65% completed enrollment, 53% were Phase II, and 48% focused on ovarian cancer. Pharmaceutical agents (85%) were the primary therapeutic interventions. Several inequitably restrictive exclusion criteria increased over time such as hepatitis infection (17% in 1994-2000 vs 49% in 2015-2021, p < .001) and cardiovascular disease (47% in 1994-2000 vs 66% in 2015-2021, p = .002). A previously rare exclusion, “mental illness/social situations,” dramatically increased from 5% to 51% (p < .001) over three decades. Adherence to broadened eligibility criteria recommendations was mixed. Renal function, cardiovascular disease, and performance status criteria were not broadened but HIV, prior/concurrent malignancies, and brain metastasis criteria were. Conclusions Some, but not all, of the known restrictive CECs have increased in gynecologic cancer clinical trial design, despite calls for improving racial and ethnic minority representation. While exclusion criteria are critical for trial safety, they must be carefully considered given the differential racial impact on eligibility.