Search

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.

e18599 Background: Low participation of Black, Hispanic, Latinx and other underrepresented racial/ethnic groups in clinical research remains a problem across the U.S. Recent studies have highlighted that stereotypes, assumptions, and bias play a role in lack of diversity in cancer trial participation. To help address this, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) piloted an implicit bias training program for clinical research teams. Methods: Adapted from the Duke University Just Ask™ program, the pilot program is comprised of eLearning modules which can be completed in about 60 minutes. Features include education on diversity, equity, and bias in clinical trial participation, case vignettes, and strategies to mitigate disparities. A call was issued to members of both organizations. After completing the training, all individual participants were asked to complete a retrospective pre/post survey to assess change in knowledge and attitude. Focus groups explored participants’ experience with the training. Another survey was administered 6 weeks later to assess sustainability of changes. Results: Research teams from 50 programs were selected for the pilot. 129 individuals consented, and 126 completed the training and evaluations (98% response rate). 48% of participants reported that they had completed training on implicit bias and/or related topics prior to the pilot. Increased levels of knowledge were reported across all key training concepts, with an average % increase from 19% to 45%. Similar increases were observed for strategies for addressing implicit bias, with an average % increase from 10% to 31%. At 6 weeks post-training, there was a slight decrease in knowledge across most items, from -1% to -8%. Most (92%) participants reported satisfaction with the course, and most (92%) indicated they would recommend it to a colleague and would recommend implementing it at their program. Suggestions to improve the course included streamlining content and providing additional tools and resources. Conclusions: Pilot findings support the feasibility and utility of the training, which can help cancer programs to address disparities in clinical research. Next steps include modifying the course based on participant feedback, disseminating the training and supplementary resources, and exploring options for assessing the impact on upstream outcomes such as diversity in trial participation.[Table: see text]

6530 Background: Only a small fraction of patients with cancer participate in treatment trials. Patients identifying as members of racial and ethnic minority groups are consistently underrepresented in these trials. A recent systematic review reported that patients, regardless of race and ethnicity, are willing to enroll in trials if asked to participate by their treating clinician. Prospective and longitudinal data and metrics at the site- and clinician-level are necessary to understand whether patients are equitably considered for clinical trials. Methods: ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) developed a self-assessment for trial sites to record and gauge the number of patients across races and ethnicities screened, offered, and enrolled into clinical trials. Research sites, from across the US, were recruited through an open call to apply to participate in the ASCO-ACCC Pilot Project. There were 65 sites assigned to this pilot study, which tested the feasibility and utility of the site assessment. Sites were asked to enter 2019 and 2020 aggregate data for each step along the clinical trial enrollment continuum by select races and ethnicities (Black, Hispanic/Latinx, White) and overall. Results: 62 of 65 sites completed the study and represented a range of settings and practice types (61% academic, 26% hospital/health system, 13% independent). Only 2 sites (3%) were able to provide the data requested at each enrollment step in the assessment (table). Sites that collected the data did not do so routinely (table) and most had to compile data through multiple sources and/or manual extraction (40-100% across enrollment steps). Sites with missing data reported they did not collect data at all (36-64% across enrollment steps), did not collect data in a systematic way (0-29% across enrollment steps), or stated it would be too burdensome to manually review charts to extract data (12-29% across enrollment steps). Conclusions: Data collection and routine evaluation of participation metrics, by race and ethnicity, are necessary to assess and monitor equity and diversity in clinical trials. Most sites in this study did not collect, or routinely collect, data for screening, offering, and consenting patients to clinical trials. Without these data, sites are unable to evaluate and monitor whether their patients have equitable access to clinical trials or establish strategies to address any inequities. ASCO and ACCC will continue to partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting such data in a systematic and automated way, such as through electronic health record systems. [Table: see text]

236 Background: Older adults are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than their younger counterparts. Because the underlying health status of older adults with cancer is generally heterogeneous, geriatric assessment (GA) is helpful for uncovering age-related vulnerabilities and guiding subsequent care planning. GA provides multidimensional, multidisciplinary evaluations of pertinent health domains. When used to evaluate an older adult with cancer prior to initiating therapy, GA and screening tools can help oncologists differentiate between fit and frail patients and tailor their treatment accordingly. Methods: The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) conducted a 4-round Delphi method to achieve expert consensus (≥75%) related to 9 domains of geriatric oncology care from a multidisciplinary perspective. A survey was conducted with 70 international clinicians working in geriatric oncology to assess perspectives on guideline-recommended GA tools in clinical practice. Facilitator led focus groups were conducted to review the results in a large group format and come to consensus. Aggregated results were shared back with the group to ensure effective capture of group discussion regarding validated clinical practice tools to include as resources in the gap assessment instrument. Results: A 32 question geriatric oncology gap assessment was developed in an online survey platform. This tool was beta tested by 30 individuals at cancer programs of various types and regions across the US. A final version was published and made accessible for multidisciplinary teams to self-assess care delivery for older adults with cancer in 9 domains: Functional Status; Cognition; Comorbidities; Decision Making: Screening, Life Expectancy, Chemo Toxicity; Pharmacy/Medication Management; Psychological Health; Nutrition; Patient Goals and Needs; and Communication and Workforce Training. Within each domain, respondents select the level (see Table) that most closely represents the practice(s) at their institution. A personalized report is generated. Sample Question. Conclusions: The ACCC geriatric oncology gap assessment offers cancer programs a validated way to evaluate care delivery for older adults with cancer. To optimize workflow, cancer programs should consider utilizing gap assessment results to develop and advance scalable quality improvement programs at their institution, taking into consideration resource level and infrastructure.[Table: see text]

54 Background: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing for germline variants in the DPYD and UGT1A1 genes can be used to guide fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan dosing, respectively. Despite the known association between PGx variants and chemotherapy toxicity, preemptive testing prior to chemotherapy initiation is rarely performed in routine practice. Methods: We conducted a multi-site mixed-methods study to understand clinician attitudes toward PGx testing and to identify facilitators and barriers to using preemptive testing to guide chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. Each participant completed a demographic survey and semi-structured interview informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Interviews were analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach. Results: A total of 16 medical oncologists and 9 oncology pharmacists from one academic medical center and two community hospitals participated. Fifteen (60%) participants reported feeling comfortable or very comfortable with interpreting PGx test results. While clinicians expressed generally favorable attitudes toward PGx testing, many were hesitant to use it to preemptively guide chemotherapy dosing due to a perceived lack of evidence for this practice. They cited a lack of consensus chemotherapy dosing recommendations in response to PGx test results, as well as concerns about decreased drug efficacy, especially in patients treated with curative intent. Additional barriers included 1) a low prevalence of actionable PGx variants; 2) lengthy PGx test turnaround time; 3) concerns about testing costs and lack of insurance coverage; and 4) burdensome integration of PGx testing into clinical workflows. The electronic health record emerged as a potential tool for the unobtrusive integration of PGx testing into clinical practice–suggested applications included default PGx test orders for eligible patients, discrete reporting of PGx variant results, and clinical decision support to guide subsequent chemotherapy dosing. Conclusions: Successful adoption of preemptive PGx-guided chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies will require a multi-level effort to demonstrate clinical effectiveness while addressing the contextual factors identified in this study. The electronic health record should be explored as a tool to integrate PGx testing into routine practice.

105 Background: Medicaid patients with lung cancer have poorer outcomes than non-Medicaid patients, partly because of suboptimal care quality. The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) launched a project to develop, test, and refine an OCCM. Methods: The OCCM comprised 13 areas, spanning care access to supportive care/survivorship. Using the OCCM, 7 cancer programs in 6 US states conducted self-assessments of care delivery systems and implemented quality improvement projects. Sites worked with ACCC to conduct data benchmarked projects. Data collection and analysis were centralized. Statistical analyses used Kruskal−Wallis and chi-squared tests. Results: There were 926 patients (257 Medicaid/dual eligible; 669 non-Medicaid) across 7 sites. Medicaid/dual eligible patients were 52% male, 69% Caucasian, 48% active smokers, and 45% clinical stage III/IV. Prospective multidisciplinary case planning (PMCP), patient care access, and tobacco cessation were commonly selected for projects. PMCP evaluation used fortnightly tumor board (FTB), virtual tumor board (VTB), and multidisciplinary team huddle (MTH). Presentation of eligible patients was higher for VTB and MTH (FTB: 23%, VTB: 100%, MTH: 100%, p < 0.0001). While FTB and MTH discussed all cases prospectively, VTB achieved 80%. Median days (d) from diagnosis to presentation were 18 (FTB), 14 (VTB), and 9 (MTH, p = 0.14). Patient care access was evaluated with timeliness metrics at 2 sites. Site 1: Medicaid patients had a median of 13 d from lesion discovery to diagnosis and 21 d from diagnosis to treatment (not different from non-Medicaid; p = 0.96 and 0.38). 94% met the goal of treatment initiation within 45 d. Site 2: Medicaid patients had a median of 16 d from discovery to diagnosis and 27 d from diagnosis to treatment (not different from non-Medicaid; p = 0.68 and 0.83). Similar benchmarks were collected and compared for other assessment areas. Sites identified enhanced collaboration and improved programming (e.g., patient navigation) as successes. Challenges at project start included inadequate staffing and lack of centralized data collection and benchmarking. Importance of lung cancer–dedicated navigation, PMCP, and Medicaid patient needs were key transferable lessons. Conclusions: The OCCM is useful for cancer programs’ self-assessment of care delivery to Medicaid patients across 13 high-impact areas. Dissemination can advance multidisciplinary coordinated care delivery, but sites may need additional resources to evaluate outcomes.

95 Background: Oncology Advanced Practitioners (APs), including Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, Clinical Nurse Specialists, and Pharmacists are highly trained health care providers that contribute significantly to quality cancer care. Given low clinical trial enrollment among adult oncology patients, understanding current research responsibilities of APs could lead to identification of opportunities to leverage this workforce to enhance accrual and conduct of clinical trials. Methods: A 65-item validated survey addressing attitudes, beliefs and responsibilities of oncology APs participating in clinical research was distributed from January 22 through March 6, 2020. Outreach via the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) and Harborside was utilized to reach a sample set of 14,601 oncology APs’ emails. The survey was administered and data were analyzed using Survey Monkey. Results: 408 U.S. oncology APs completed the survey. Respondents were primarily white (83%), female (92%) and nurse practitioners (71%). Thirty-five percent practiced in an academic setting and 62% practiced in a community setting. Nearly all respondents believed that clinical trials are important to improve oncology care standards and more than 90% reported that clinical trials were available at their practice. Nearly 80% reported that they are comfortable discussing treatment options with patients, discussing clinical trials in general, and know where to find clinical trials. Furthermore, 80% participate in the care of patients enrolled on clinical trials. Only 60%, however, are comfortable discussing trials available at their practice and only 38% routinely explore whether a clinical trial is available for their patients. While 70% of APs approach eligible patients about clinical trials at their practice, only 20% reported doing so “a great deal” or “a lot”. Ninety percent of APs reported that they should play a role in clinical research and 75% would like to be more involved in the clinical trial process. Barriers to greater involvement in clinical trials include lack of time, inadequate awareness of clinical trial specifics, and under-representation on research committees. Conclusions: The majority of oncology APs are engaged and interested in clinical trials and believe that research is important to improve cancer care. However, they are not being utilized to their full scope. Multidisciplinary team integration, trials-related education, and policy change is needed to allow this group of skilled professionals to realize their full potential within cancer clinical trials.

104 Background: In 2016, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) launched a 3-year initiative to design, test, and refine an OCCM for Medicaid patients with lung cancer. The aim was to help cancer programs identify and reduce the barriers experienced by Medicaid patients by strengthening lung cancer care delivery systems. Methods: Phase I included Model development. Phases II and III included selection of 7 community-based cancer programs as testing sites to implement quality improvement projects, utilizing qualitative and quantitative assessments. Beta testing demonstrated the Model’s ability to offer practical guidance on improving care coordination to achievable target levels in high-impact areas such as patient access to care, prospective multidisciplinary case planning, and tobacco cessation. Opportunities were identified to improve care coordination beyond lung cancer to other tumor sites. Refinements for clarity of intent, ease of use, specificity, and uniformity across assessment areas were implemented, based on feedback from testing sites. Members of the Technical Expert Panel and the Advisory Committee, ACCC staff, and consultants revised the Model using consensus decision-making. Results: The final OCCM is composed of 12 inter-related assessment areas: patient entry into lung cancer program; multidisciplinary treatment planning; clinical trials; supportive care; survivorship care; financial, transportation, and housing needs; tobacco education; navigation; treatment team integration; physician engagement; electronic health records and patient access to information; and quality measurement and improvement. Each assessment area has 5 levels and corresponding metrics—level 1 represents the most basic provision of care, and level 5 represents optimal care coordination, which may be attainable for some cancer programs and aspirational for others. Progress implies cumulative and sustained fulfillment of lower level criteria. The OCCM can be deployed by cancer programs, regardless of size, setting, resource level, or cancer type. Dissemination to promote wider use is planned through an online benchmarking tool, blogs, a brochure, podcasts, and other resources. Conclusions: The OCCM can be utilized by cancer programs for objective self assessments of care delivery capabilities across 12 high-impact areas. Dissemination can advance multidisciplinary coordinated care delivery and improve clinical outcomes for patients nationwide, regardless of cancer type.

66 Background: Studies have shown that aggressive cancer care at end of life is associated with decreased quality of life, decreased median survival, and increased cost of care. This study describes the patients most likely to receive aggressive anti-cancer therapy at the end of life in a community cancer institute. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 213 patients who received anti-cancer therapy in our institution and died between July 2016-April 2017. Data collected included primary malignancy, death date, date of last anti-cancer treatment, hospice enrollment, healthcare utilization, Oncology Care Model (OCM) enrollment, and clinical assessments at last office visit prior to a treatment decision before death. Data were analyzed using univariate logistic regression to determine feature importance. Results: Of the 201 patients who died of cancer, 36 (17%) received anti-cancer therapy within the last 14 days of life. Several factors were significantly positively correlated with receiving anti-cancer therapy at end of life, including enrollment in OCM (p < 0.001), frequency of hospital utilization (p < 0.001), death in hospital (p