Inequalities In Cancer Care Research Articles

Cancer care treatment attrition in adults: Measurement approaches and inequities in patient dropout rates – a rapid review

BackgroundCancer treatment attrition refers to the discontinuation of prescribed cancer therapies before completion. It can significantly impact patient outcomes and cancer survival rates making it a critical concern. There is growing evidence on inequalities in cancer care, the avoidable systematic differences in the health of different groups of people. Understanding the extent of treatment attrition, why it happens, for whom, and associated inequalities may improve cancer care delivery and patient outcomes.MethodsA rapid review was conducted to identify existing evidence on measures of cancer treatment attrition, definitions, reasons for attrition and potential inequalities. The review followed a systematic approach but with abbreviated processes to facilitate quicker evidence synthesis. Searches were restricted to MEDLINE and Embase databases from their inception dates to May 7, 2024. Additional searches were performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, and key grey literature from relevant organizations. Inclusion criteria were adults with any type of cancer undergoing treatment, with studies reporting quantitative or qualitative data on treatment attrition conducted outside of clinical trials. Exclusion criteria included studies on children or adolescents, clinical trials, non-English publications, and various non-research article types. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed using standardized tools, and studies were synthesized narratively.ResultsThe search retrieved 1,353 references, with 40 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Most studies were retrospective. Studies covered various cancer types and treatments, reporting measures of attrition and reasons for treatment drop-out. Factors influencing attrition included disease progression, death, clinical deterioration, treatment toxicity, and socioeconomic factors such as lower income or socioeconomic disadvantage.ConclusionsThis review highlights significant variability in how treatment attrition is measured and defined, and suggests potential inequalities in who discontinues treatment. Standardized measures of attrition and data collection on reasons for discontinuation are essential to improve cancer care outcomes and equity. Future research should focus on developing these standardized metrics and exploring interventions targeting identified disparities to support cancer patients to complete treatment and improve outcomes.

Practices and barriers to cancer care among oncologists for patients with serious mental illness.

171 Background: Serious mental illness (SMI), defined as a mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder resulting in serious functional impairment, that substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities, includes schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression. Patients with SMI and cancer have poor survival rates attributed to inequities in cancer care. Such patients are often diagnosed at an advanced stage and are more likely to have their cancer care interrupted. This study surveyed the general practices oncologists apply to integrate mental health and cancer care in their clinical practice. The study also surveyed perspectives on personalized collaborative care intervention to improve cancer outcomes in patients with SMI while identifying the barriers to adapting such intervention in clinical settings. Methods: In February and March 2024, US-based hematologists/oncologists convened at live meetings to discuss abstracts presented at the 2023 ASCO Quality Care Symposium. An online premeeting survey was used to collect participants’ demographics. Participants’ approach to mental health care for patients with cancer were captured via an audience response system during the live meetings. Responses were aggregated and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Among 125 participants, 77% were community providers. The majority of participants (60%) reported frequently discussing mental health with their patients with cancer. Respondents support the mental health needs of their patients with cancer by utilizing in-house social workers (52%) or in-house counseling services (31%), or by referring to in-house clinical psychologist (40%) or an external psychiatrist (41%). They identified challenges to integrating mental health care into cancer treatment: lack of dedicated staff (54%), high patient volume (44%), and lack of available psychosocial tools (40%). Additionally, a subset of participants was asked about their perspectives on collaborative care intervention for cancer care of patients with SMI, and while most participants were encouraged, they also reported that mental health services should be coordinated primarily through either a psychiatrist (25%) or a social worker (25%). Interestingly, limited access to psychiatric care (78%) and lack of resources to screen patients for SMI (56%) were the primary barriers to adapting a personalized and collaborative care approach in the real-world setting. Conclusions: Participants were inclined to incorporate personalized mental health assessments into routine clinical care for their patients with cancer, however they face several barriers to implementation. Further research is needed to address those modifiable barriers and assess the impact of a personalized and collaborative care approach on timely diagnosis and mitigating inequities in cancer care to improve cancer outcomes in patients with SMI.

Barriers to identifying and addressing health-related social needs in cancer care: Patient and patient navigator perspectives

BackgroundThe study aimed to gain insight into the experiences of patients with cancer and survivors regarding the integration of social needs assessment into their care, while also gathering perspectives from patient navigators on the barriers to obtaining and utilizing social needs information during cancer care, which taken together may influence cancer care policies. By comparing the perspectives of patients and navigators, the study sought to inform best practices for integrating, identifying, and addressing social needs to improve patient experiences and outcomes. MethodsWe conducted qualitative interviews and self-report surveys involving patients with cancer, providers, and patient navigators or care coordinators, seeking their insights and firsthand experiences related to health-related social needs in cancer care. Interviews were transcribed, separated into memos of main themes based on deductive coding, and further analyzed for new emergent themes using inductive coding. ResultsThe present analysis focuses solely on the perspectives of 20 patient navigators and 21 patients. Qualitative analyses revealed two overarching themes: Theme 1: Personal and health system-related factors may create barriers for patients to disclose health-related social needs information during cancer care; and Theme 2: When social needs are identified, it is best practice to acknowledge and address social needs through referrals, resources, timely follow-up, and continued care coordination. Key barriers include individual beliefs and attitudes, concerns regarding privacy and sensitivity of questions, uncertainties about the outcomes of disclosing information, and patient-provider relationships and trust. ConclusionDrawing upon the perspectives of patients and patient navigators provided valuable insight into the challenges associated with acquiring information on social needs. Their viewpoints presented feasible solutions to overcome barriers through early acknowledgment of patient needs, timely resource provision, and maintaining consistent follow-up actions. Additionally, it enhanced understanding of the pivotal role patient navigators play in oncology, serving as crucial links between screening for health-related social needs and addressing individual patient requirements. Policy SummaryThe policies and policy improvements our paper seeks to impact include: inequalities in cancer care and health-related social needs of cancer.

Abstract B075: The "let's talk about Black people and cancer" conference

Abstract In the United Kingdom, despite having a healthcare service that is free at the point of access, inequalities in cancer care persist. Recent data shows that for certain cancer groups (e.g. breast cancer), Black patients present with worse grade and stage leading to poorer outcomes. Reasons for the disparities are multifactorial but include lack of awareness in the community, structural barriers to accessing healthcare, limited research into genetic variability and/or biological differences, and hesitancy to engage with health care professionals due to historic wrongs. Often different stakeholders work in different silos to try and remediate these barriers however they are not often in one space and have the opportunity to learn from patient experiences and how they can all dovetail together to improve patient outcomes. In an attempt to bring different sectors together the senior author established the “Let’s talk about Black people and cancer” conference 2024. The aim of this event was to increase awareness and understanding of cancer in the UK Black population. Methods This event covered the major cancer groups (breast, prostate, haematological, bowel and gynaecological) focusing on genomics, symptom awareness, screening programs, and how and when to access secondary care. We sought patient feedback from this conference style intervention to see the effect on attendees in terms of increase in knowledge specifically around Black people and cancer. This study utilized a two-part survey to evaluate the effectiveness of the conference, assessing knowledge held by registered attendees pre- and post-conference. A 5-point Likert scale was used to extract degrees of opinion, providing accurate and representative feedback. There was a total of 46 questions in the survey targeting the demographics of the attendees, their connection to cancer, and knowledge about cancer including the risks/outcomes regarding Black people specifically. Results The world cancer day conference had 190 registrants. 83 responses to the questionnaire (43.7% response rate). Pre-conference questionnaires highlighted around two thirds had knowledge of the 3 major screening programs, but after the conference this increased to more than 90%. A similar trend was noticed when looking at change in knowledge regarding the five cancer groups covered. Conclusion We have demonstrated that this targeted conference style intervention was effective in raising awareness not just for the public but for those professionals involved in the delivery of cancer care for Black people. While these are snap shots in time it would be useful to see how that information translates in a longitudinal fashion in terms of positive modifications in health behaviors and delivery of services. Citation Format: Teniola Adeboye, Georgette Oni. The "let's talk about Black people and cancer" conference [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl):Abstract nr B075.

Artificial Intelligence as a Potential Catalyst to a More Equitable Cancer Care.

As we enter the era of digital interdependence, artificial intelligence (AI) emerges as a key instrument to transform health care and address disparities and barriers in access to services. This viewpoint explores AI's potential to reduce inequalities in cancer care by improving diagnostic accuracy, optimizing resource allocation, and expanding access to medical care, especially in underserved communities. Despite persistent barriers, such as socioeconomic and geographical disparities, AI can significantly improve health care delivery. Key applications include AI-driven health equity monitoring, predictive analytics, mental health support, and personalized medicine. This viewpoint highlights the need for inclusive development practices and ethical considerations to ensure diverse data representation and equitable access. Emphasizing the role of AI in cancer care, especially in low- and middle-income countries, we underscore the importance of collaborative and multidisciplinary efforts to integrate AI effectively and ethically into health systems. This call to action highlights the need for further research on user experiences and the unique social, cultural, and political barriers to AI implementation in cancer care.

Inequalities in patients’ experiences with cancer care: the role of economic and health literacy determinants

BackgroundPatients with fewer socioeconomic and health literacy resources are disadvantaged in their access and use of healthcare, which may give rise to worse experiences with care and thus inequalities in patient experiences. However, only a limited number of studies have examined how socioeconomic and health literacy factors shape inequalities in patients’ experiences with cancer care.ObjectiveTo examine whether patients’ experiences with cancer care differ according to their economic status and health literacy.MethodsSecondary analysis of data on 2789 adult patients diagnosed with cancer from the Swiss Cancer Patient Experiences-2 (SCAPE-2) study, a cross-sectional survey conducted in eight hospitals across Switzerland from September 2021 to February 2022. Regression analysis was applied to examine the independent effect of patients’ economic status and health literacy on various outcomes of experiences with cancer care, covering eight different dimensions of patient-centred care, controlling for confounding factors.ResultsAdjusted regression analysis showed that patients with lower economic status reported significantly worse experiences with cancer care in 12 out of 29 specific care experiences, especially in the dimensions of ‘respect for patients’ preferences’ and ‘physical comfort’ where all items of experiences were associated with economic status. Additionally, lower health literacy was associated with worse patient experiences in 23 specific care experiences. All items in the dimensions of ‘respect for patients’ preferences’, ‘physical comfort’ and ‘emotional support’ were associated with health literacy.DiscussionThis study revealed significant inequalities in experiences with cancer care shaped by the economic status and health literacy of patients across different dimensions of patient-centred care. It is essential to address the needs of more disadvantaged patients who face obstacles in their access and use of the healthcare system, not only to mitigate inequalities in cancer care but also to avoid inequalities in health outcomes.

Racial/ethnic inequities in care for patients with advanced endometrial cancer: What’s structural racism and social determinants of health got to do with it?

1602 Background: Structural racism and social determinants of health (SDOH) have been linked to inequities in cancer care and outcomes. However, little is known about the contribution of such factors to care inequities among patients with endometrial cancer, where Black women experience a nearly two-fold increased risk of death relative to their White counterparts. We examined the role of structural racism and SDOH in explaining racial/ethnic inequities in care for patients with advanced endometrial cancer (aEC). Methods: This retrospective study used the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database, focusing on patients diagnosed with aEC from January 2013 to September 2023 (follow-up through December 2023). Outcomes included time-to-treatment initiation, use of immunotherapy or targeted therapy, biomarker testing, and clinical trial participation. We estimated a series of multivariable Cox proportional hazards models assessing racial/ethnic inequities in outcomes, sequentially adjusting for clinical factors (e.g., age, stage at diagnosis) followed by structural racism (residential segregation) and SDOH factors (e.g., insurance, practice setting, area-level vehicle ownership). Results: The cohort included 5,496 patients (2.2% Asian, 14.8% Black, 5.2% Latinx, 61.4% White, and 16.0% Other/Unknown). Although diagnosed with more aggressive disease (37% vs. 21% serous carcinoma), Black patients were less likely than White patients to initiate treatment during follow-up (hazard ratio [HR]=0.91 [95% CI: 0.83-0.99]), participate in a clinical trial (HR=0.56 [95% CI: 0.38-0.84]), and receive biomarker testing (HR=0.88 [95% CI: 0.81-0.97]). Compared with their White counterparts, Latinx patients were less likely to participate in a clinical trial (HR=0.41 [95% CI: 0.19-0.87]). Black-White (HR=0.80 [95% CI: 0.47-1.38]) and Latinx-White (HR=0.71 [95% CI: 0.31-1.60]) inequities in clinical trial participation were partly explained by structural racism and SDOH factors, while Black-White inequities in treatment and biomarker testing remained largely unchanged following structural and social determinants adjustment. We saw no racial/ethnic differences in use of immunotherapy or targeted therapy. Conclusions: We observed racial/ethnic inequities in treatment initiation, biomarker testing, and clinical trial participation among patients with aEC, with structural racism and SDOH substantially accounting for inequities in trial participation. Thus, findings from this study suggest that efforts aimed at improving diversity in endometrial cancer trials, and overall equity in endometrial cancer outcomes, should prioritize mitigating the structural and social barriers to clinical trial participation.

An Annual Symposium on Disparities in Milwaukee, WI, with a 2023 Focus on Older Adults with Cancer.

Cancer-related inequities are prevalent in Wisconsin, with lower survival rates for breast, colorectal, and lung cancer patients from marginalized communities. This manuscript describes the ongoing efforts at the Medical College of Wisconsin and potential pathways of community engagement to promote education and awareness in reducing inequities in cancer care. While some cancer inequities are related to aggressive disease biology, health-related social risks may be addressed through community-academic partnerships via an open dialogue between the community members and academic faculty. To develop potential pathways of community-academic partnerships, an annual Cancer Disparities Symposium concept evolved as a pragmatic and sustainable model in an interactive learning environment. In this manuscript, we describe the programmatic development and execution of the annual Cancer Disparities Symposium, followed by highlights from this year's meeting focused on geriatric oncology as discussed by the speakers.

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

PurposeRacialized 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).MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionRacialized 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.

Integrating Implementation Theory to Address Inequities in Cancer Care: Perspectives from an International Working Group

Background . There are well‐established, persistent inequities in cancer care and cancer outcomes within and between countries. The aim of this article is to explore how implementation theory, specifically the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), alongside coproduction principles, could be used to maximise the effectiveness of innovations with a vision of reducing inequity in cancer care. Methods. Workshops were conducted with partners from US, Australia, and UK, participating in the University Global Partnership Network (UGPN), which funded the collaboration. From these workshops, three case studies were identified and the framework was applied to identify ways of using CFIR to maximise the effectiveness of innovations. Results. The three case studies focused on human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and vaccination, participation in clinical trials, and use of translation services. We identified opportunities, for each of the case studies, where CFIR could be applied to improve implementation and proposed recommendations to ensure effective implementation of innovations using CFIR domains, including individual constructs (e.g., awareness and cultural competence), inner setting constructs (e.g., technology infrastructure), and outer setting constructs (e.g., how services are monitored, evaluated, and commissioned). Conclusions. Applying CFIR as an implementation framework offers a structured and holistic approach to consider how to maximise the effectiveness of innovations in the context of reducing inequities in cancer care. Working with other countries to apply this framework also provides a uniform approach to understand and reduce inequities across a range of innovations and address the global mission to improve cancer care for all.

Cancer care for people with significant mental health difficulties (SMHD) - patient perspectives

Objectives People with significant mental health difficulties (SMHD) experience inequities in cancer care. This study aims to deepen understanding of cancer care for individuals with SMHD. Method We conducted semi-structured interviews with seven individuals with SMHD regarding their experiences accessing and engaging with cancer care from August 2021 to February 2022. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis where both inductive and deductive coding was adopted through the lens of the socio-ecological model (SEM) as a theoretical framework. Results The main themes included intrapersonal, interpersonal and organizational barriers and facilitators to care with a specific focus on modifiable factors related to cancer care delivery. Conclusion This study provides further evidence for promoting collaborative mental health and cancer care delivery to prevent inequalities in cancer care for patients with SMHD. Practice implications Adopting an interdisciplinary, team-based approach to cancer care and help with patient navigation across services are potential factors in improving cancer care for individuals with SMHD.

Residential Redlining, Neighborhood Trajectory, and Equity of Breast and Colorectal Cancer Care.

To determine the influence of structural racism, vis-à-vis neighborhood socioeconomic trajectory, on colorectal and breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Inequities in cancer care are well-documented in the United States but less is understood about how historical policies like residential redlining and evolving neighborhood characteristics influence current gaps in care. This retrospective cohort study included adult patients diagnosed with colorectal or breast cancer between 2010 and 2015 in 7 Indiana cities with available historic redlining data. Current neighborhood socioeconomic status was determined by the Area Deprivation Index. Based on historic redlining maps and the current Area Deprivation Index, we created 4 "neighborhood trajectory" categories: advantage stable, advantage reduced, disadvantage stable, and disadvantage reduced. Modified Poisson regression models estimated the relative risks (RRs) of neighborhood trajectory on cancer stage at diagnosis and receipt of cancer-directed surgery (CDS). A final cohort derivation identified 4862 cancer patients with colorectal or breast cancer. Compared with "advantage stable" neighborhoods, "disadvantage stable" neighborhood was associated with a late-stage diagnosis for both colorectal and breast cancer [RR = 1.30 (95% CI: 1.05-1.59); RR = 1.41 (1.09-1.83), respectively]. Black patients had a lower likelihood of receiving CDS in "disadvantage reduced" neighborhoods [RR = 0.92 (0.86-0.99)] than White patients. Disadvantage stable neighborhoods were associated with late-stage diagnoses of breast and colorectal cancer. "Disadvantage reduced" (gentrified) neighborhoods were associated with racial inequity in CDS. Improved neighborhood socioeconomic conditions may improve timely diagnosis but could contribute to racial inequities in surgical treatment.

BRIDGE: A randomized trial of person-centered collaborative care for adults with serious mental illness (SMI) and newly diagnosed cancers.

216 Background: Individuals with SMI experience increased cancer mortality due to inequities in cancer care. Proactive psychiatry care may improve cancer care outcomes for patients with SMI, yet access to mental health care remains inadequate. The BRIDGE trial assessed the impact of person-centered collaborative care vs enhanced usual care (EUC) on cancer care disruptions for adults with SMI and newly diagnosed cancers. Methods: Eligible patients had SMI (schizophrenia spectrum, bipolar, or severe major depressive disorders) and potentially curable head/neck, lung, breast, or gastrointestinal cancers. Patients were randomized 1:1 to BRIDGE (person-centered collaborative care: proactive psychiatry consultation, linkage to a social work/navigator team, and co-management with oncology across care settings) or EUC (proactive identification at cancer diagnosis using an algorithm to inform the oncology team of the SMI diagnosis and patient of psychosocial resources). The primary outcome was clinically significant cancer care disruptions over 24 weeks (delays in treatment initiation, deviations from guideline-concordant care recommended/received, or interruptions in planned cancer treatment). Oncologists blinded to intervention arm determined the presence of disruptions (yes/no) using NCCN guidelines; discrepancies were resolved by a consensus panel. Secondary outcomes included psychiatric illness severity according to the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Clinical Global Severity (CGI), and depression/anxiety measures (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ] 9, Generalized Anxiety [GAD] 7) at 24 weeks. The rate of disruption was compared using Fisher’s exact test, and secondary outcomes were compared using ANCOVA and logistic regression. Results: From May 2019-December 2021,120 of 141 eligible patients enrolled in the trial. Participants had a mean age of 63 years, were 65% female, 87.5% reported White race, 52.5% had income &lt;25,000, 51.7% had Medicaid, 38.3% were on disability, 39.4% reported current smoking, and 49% reported past/current substance use disorder. Patients assigned to BRIDGE were significantly less likely to experience cancer care disruptions compared to those receiving EUC (17.2% vs 35.1%, p=.035). BRIDGE patients had significantly improved psychiatric illness severity and anxiety (BPRS: 31.91 vs 36.65, p=.02; CGI: 15% vs 25%, p=.02; GAD: 4.86 vs 6.86, p=.02) compared to EUC patients. Differences in PHQ were not significant (6.62 vs 7.72, p=.28). Conclusions: In this randomized trial of person-centered collaborative care for adults with SMI and cancer, the BRIDGE intervention led to significantly fewer disruptions in cancer care and improvement in psychiatric illness severity. Findings support the need for multi-site trials that include community settings to enhance generalizability. Clinical trial information: NCT03360695 .

Big advocacy, little recognition: the hidden work of Black patients in precision medicine

As cost-effective next-generation genome sequencing rapidly develops, calls for greater inclusion of Black people in genomic research, policy, and practice are necessary for effective translation of genomic science into precision population health and medicine. Employing a community-based participatory mixed methods research design, we developed a semi-structured survey that was disseminated to three cancer advocacy organizations. Of the 81 survey respondents 49 (60%) self-identified as Black, and 26 (32%) indicated a prior breast cancer diagnosis. Black participants’ expressed concerns about genetic testing were evenly distributed between concerns that could be addressed through genetic counseling (24%) and concerns about subsequent use of their genetic data (27%). Patient advocates contributed to contextualization of respondent concerns in terms of community experiences. Although genetic counseling services and policies governing genomic data use are not always accessible to many Black communities, advocates on our research team provided a bridge to discussion of the intersection between respondent concerns and the roles advocates play in filling gaps in access to genetic counseling and data governance. Concerns expressed by Black patients underscore a shared need among all patients for access to education, inclusion in research, and assurances regarding the use and handling of genetic data. Black cancer patients have joined in patient-led efforts to overcome systemic inequities in cancer care to improve their health outcomes through representation. Often their efforts are overshadowed by a relentless burden of continued health disparities. Future research should support their hidden work as a means to reduce barriers and improve representation in genomic databases.

Exploring equity in cancer treatment, survivorship, and service utilisation for culturally and linguistically diverse migrant populations living in Queensland, Australia: a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundThere is strong international evidence documenting inequities in cancer care for migrant populations. In Australia, there is limited information regarding cancer equity for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) migrant populations, defined in this study as migrants born in a country or region where English is not the primary language. This study sought to quantify and compare cancer treatment, survivorship, and service utilisation measures between CALD migrant and Australian born cancer populations.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted utilising electronic medical records at a major, tertiary hospital. Inpatient and outpatient encounters were assessed for all individuals diagnosed with a solid tumour malignancy in the year 2016 and followed for a total of five years. Individuals were screened for inclusion in the CALD migrant or Australian born cohort. Bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were used to compare treatment, survivorship, and service utilisation measures. Sociodemographic measures included age, sex, post code, employment, region of birth and marital status.ResultsA total of 523 individuals were included, with 117 (22%) in the CALD migrant cohort and 406 (78%) in the Australian-born cohort. CALD migrants displayed a statistically significant difference in time from diagnosis to commencement of first treatment for radiation (P = 0.03) and surgery (P = 0.02) and had 16.6 times higher odds of declining recommended chemotherapy than those born in Australia (P = 0.00). Survivorship indicators favoured CALD migrants in mean time from diagnosis to death, however their odds of experiencing disease progression during the study period were 1.6 times higher than those born in Australia (P = 0.04). Service utilisation measures displayed that CALD migrants exhibited higher numbers of unplanned admissions (P = < 0.00), longer cumulative length of those admissions (P = < 0.00) and higher failure to attend scheduled appointments (P = < 0.00).ConclusionThis novel study has produced valuable findings in the areas of treatment, survivorship, and service utilisation for a neglected population in cancer research. The differences identified suggest potential issues of institutional inaccessibility. Future research is needed to examine the clinical impacts of these health differences in the field of cancer care, including the social and institutional determinants of influence.

Children's Oncology Group's 2023 blueprint for research: Behavioral science.

As survival rates for childhood cancer have improved, there has been increasing focus on identifying and addressing adverse impacts of cancer and its treatment on children and their families during treatment and into survivorship. The Behavioral Science Committee (BSC) of the Children's Oncology Group (COG), comprised of psychologists, neuropsychologists, social workers, nurses, physicians, and clinical research associates, aims to improve the lives of children with cancer and their families through research and dissemination of empirically supported knowledge. Key achievements of the BSC include enhanced interprofessional collaboration through integration of liaisons into other key committees within COG, successful measurement of critical neurocognitive outcomes through standardized neurocognitive assessment strategies, contributions to evidence-based guidelines, and optimization of patient-reported outcome measurement. The collection of neurocognitive and behavioral data continues to be an essential function of the BSC, in the context of therapeutic trials that are modifying treatments to maximize event-free survival, minimize adverse outcomes, and optimize quality of life. In addition, through hypothesis-driven research and multidisciplinary collaborations, the BSC will also begin to prioritize initiatives to expand the systematic collection of predictive factors (e.g., social determinants of health) and psychosocial outcomes, with overarching goals of addressing health inequities in cancer care and outcomes, and promoting evidence-based interventions to improve outcomes for all children, adolescents, and young adults with cancer.

Abstract 92: Using Innovative Technology and Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Disparities and Inequities in Cancer Care and Improve the Lives of Patients in Low-Middle Income Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa: South African and Lesotho Experience of the ECHO Model

Abstract Purpose: Sub-Saharan Africa has huge disparities and inequities in cancer care. Some low resource countries have no facilities or trained oncologists and other healthcare professionals for cancer care. Patients often must travel long distances to access specialised cancer care such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy and palliative care. Patients with cancer in Lesotho who needed chemotherapy had to be flown to India; those who needed radiotherapy were referred to South Africa. Majority of the cancers diagnosed in the Northern cape province and Lesotho are in late stages and need treatment with chemotherapy and radiotherapy as part of the multimodality therapy. Methods: The Northern Cape Cancer Centre of Excellence and Research (NCCanCER) at Kimberley Hospital in South Africa collaborated with the Senkatana Hospital in Lesotho. Oncologists, specialist oncology nurses and IT personnel were trained at Project ECHO Institute in Albuquerque, NM to use the ECHO model for training, transfer of skills and mentorship. NCCanCER assisted Lesotho to set up a chemotherapy facility at Senkatana Hospital. An initial visit to the Kimberley Hospital Oncology Department for benchmarking was done by oncology staff from Lesotho. NCCanCER oncology staff went to Lesotho to provide on-site training in chemotherapy administration. Weekly virtual ECHO clinics were run from the Hub at Kimberley with spoke sites in Lesotho, Upington, Springbok and Kuruman. At the ECHO clinics, management of patients are discussed using evidence-based management protocols for continued training, transfer of skills, support and mentorship. Results: Doctors, nurses, pharmacists, social workers, clinical psychologists and community healthcare workers have been trained to provide cancer care and palliative care services in the underprivileged and underserved areas of the Northern cape and Lesotho. The first chemotherapy facility was opened in Lesotho in July 2022 and patients in Lesotho are no longer flown to India for chemotherapy. Patients in remote areas of the Northern cape province of South Africa can now receive chemotherapy and palliative care closer to their homes. There is continuous training, transfer of skills, expertise and mentorship of oncology staff. Conclusion: The ECHO model is useful in democratizing knowledge, transfer skills and expertise to improve care to patients in low resource countries. Citation Format: Daniel Osei-Fofie, Kabelo Mputsoe Cekwane, Mobashshar Hassan, Sophie Victoria Masuabi, Pearl Ntsekhe. Using Innovative Technology and Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Disparities and Inequities in Cancer Care and Improve the Lives of Patients in Low-Middle Income Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa: South African and Lesotho Experience of the ECHO Model [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Symposium on Global Cancer Research; Closing the Research-to-Implementation Gap; 2023 Apr 4-6. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 92.

Racioethnic differences in missing data in the national cancer database: A window into inequities in cancer care.

e18502 Background: While the National Cancer Database (NCDB) is frequently used for observational studies about cancer care including disparities, study populations are often overwhelmingly White. The aim of this study was to assess racioethnic inequities in the NCDB by characterizing the completeness of data in the registry. We hypothesized that Black and Hispanic patients are more likely, compared to White patients, to have missing data about staging, treatment, and survival. Methods: We used the 2004-2016 NCDB files for breast, colon, and lung cancer focusing on non-Hispanic White, Black, and Hispanic patients. The primary outcome was the comparative missingness in data between the three racioethnic groups, measured using multivariable logistic regression models. A stepwise study progression from diagnosis of cancer, histology, clinical staging, treatment documentation, survival, and guideline-concordant care was used. Results: Compared to the U.S. Census data from 2010, Black and especially Hispanic patients were much less likely to be registered in the NCDB compared to Whites. Black and Hispanic patients were also more likely to have missing or non-usable histology data, incomplete or missing clinical staging, and treatment documentation (Table). Survival and follow-up documentation was similar between the three groups. Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to receive surgery for stage I-III disease compared to White patients. Conclusions: Our study suggests that the NCDB may be a limited resource for study of cancer in Black and Hispanic patients, and that inequities in missing data in its own structure may reflect racioethnic inequities in cancer care in the United States. Summary of fraction of missing treatment status, by malignancy, stratified by race/ethnicity in the NCDB. Data are represented as count (percent) unless otherwise noted. The p values are obtained by the Pearson’s chi squared test. Results from a multivariable logistic regression examining the odds of missing treatment status are provided for each malignancy as well. [Table: see text]

Evaluation of potential socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities in all-cause mortality in adolescent and young adult patients with cancer.

6501 Background: Adolescent Young Adult (AYA) cancer patients, aged 15-39, have historically been understudied. For older adults, socioeconomic (SES) and racial/ethnic disparities in mortality have been demonstrated, but less is known about survival disparities for AYA patients. Most existing studies do not account for the influence of insurance status and access to care. To address this gap, we evaluated the association of SES and race/ethnicity with overall mortality for AYA cancer patients who were members of an integrated health delivery system with relatively equal access to care. Methods: Patients diagnosed with cancer at age 15-39 years old in Kaiser Permanente Southern California between 2010-2018 were included. The fourteen most common AYA cancer types within our cohort were included (excluding thyroid cancer due to low mortality rate). The Neighborhood Deprivation Index (NDI) was used as a marker of SES. Patients were placed into NDI quartiles (Q1: least deprived-Q4: most deprived). Mortality rate per 1,000 patient years was calculated for each racial/ethnic group and NDI quartile. Multivariable cox model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality. Models included race/ethnicity and NDI subgroup simultaneously, adjusting for sex, age and stage at diagnosis, and cancer type. Results: A total of 6,380 patients (59% female, median age: 33) were followed for a maximum of ten years. Racial/ethnic distribution was 45% Hispanic, 36% non-Hispanic White, 10% non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, 7% non-Hispanic Black, 2% Other/Unknown. Overall mortality was 21.8 deaths per 1,000 person years. Crude mortality rates were higher among Non-White racial/ethnic groups (Asian/Pacific Islander: 26.7, Black: 26.2, Hispanic: 25.6, Other/Unknown: 30.3) compared to White patients (16.4). In the adjusted model, Hispanic (HR=1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.50, p=0.004) and Black (HR=1.35, 95% CI 1.00-1.83, p=0.05) patients experienced significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality compared to White patients. No mortality differences were observed between Asian/Pacific Islander and White patients. Patients from more deprived neighborhoods had higher mortality risk (Q1: 19.9, Q2: 19.8, Q3: 24.1, Q4: 27.4). In the adjusted model, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between Q1 and Q2-Q4 [Q2 (HR=0.88, 95% CI 0.71-1.10), Q3 (HR=0.94, 95% CI 0.75-1.17), Q4 (HR=0.96, 95% CI 0.76-1.22)]. Conclusions: Our study suggests that for insured AYA cancer patients with similar access to care, Hispanic and Black patients have increased risk of all-cause mortality as compared to White patients, while no significant SES survival disparities were observed. These findings warrant further investigation, awareness, and intervention to address inequities in cancer care among vulnerable populations.

A quantitative synthesis of disparities in the inclusion of racial/ethnic minorities and older women in breast cancer trials.

6557 Background: Trials that inadequately include underrepresented minority (URM) populations widen inequities in cancer care. We assessed reporting patterns, representation, and trends of URM representation in breast cancer (BC) trials. Methods: We analyzed all phase 2/3 trials for age disparity and trials recruiting from the US for racial/ethnic disparity amongst BC RCTs (1990-2021). Enrollment-incidence ratios (EIR), which compare trial proportions (TP) from age subgroups against global estimates of incidence in the corresponding age group (from Global Burden of Disease) and racial/ethnic subgroups against US-population-based incidence in the corresponding racial/ethnic group (from SEER 22), were calculated. Individual-trial EIRs were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. EIRs of &lt;0.80 indicated meaningful underrepresentation, while EIRs &gt;1.20 indicated meaningful overrepresentation. Meta-regression was used to explore associations between key trial characteristics and EIR, and trends in EIR over the last three decades. Results: Of 842 global trials with 490,657 participants, 232 (27.6%) reported the number of participants in specific age strata and 144 (17.1%) reported outcomes by age. Only 60 trials recruited exclusively from the US. Of these, 41 (68.3%) reported race and 24 (40.0%) reported ethnicity, and 2 (3.3%) analyzed outcomes by race. Older adults aged ≥65 years (TP: 24.3%; EIR: 0.53 [95% CI: 0.47-0.60]) and Hispanic women (TP: 5.3%; 0.54; 0.40-0.75) were underrepresented across global trials and US-only trials respectively. Black women were significantly underrepresented in trials that led to FDA approval (0.38; 0.25-0.58) but not in US-only trials. Stratified analysis by BC subtype (with subtype-specific population incidence) showed underrepresentation of Black women in US-only trials for HER2+ BC (0.66; 0.47-0.93), Hispanic women in ER+ BC (0.42; 0.20-0.90), Asians in triple-negative BC (0.24; 0.11-0.53), and older women in HER2+ BC (0.35; 0.31-0.40) and triple-negative BC (0.36; 0.29-0.45). From 1990-2021, the representation of older women declined significantly (meta-regression coefficient for EIR: -0.4 per 10 years), while Black and Hispanic representation showed no significant change. Black (p = 0.02) and Hispanic representation (p = 0.05) worsened significantly in larger trials. Conclusions: Published reports of BC trials do not consistently report the inclusion of URM. Older and Hispanic women were consistently underrepresented, whereas Black women were underrepresented in large, practice-changing trials. [Table: see text]