Evidence Hub

Identifying eligibility criteria that perpetuate race/ethnic disparities in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) clinical trial participation

A. Hantel, Yating Wang, I. Abraham, A. Patel, S. Monick, Garth H Rauscher, Ana Maria Avila Rodriguez, Carlos Galvez et al.

Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2024

1,283 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

1589 Background: The extent to which eligibility criteria perpetuate race/ethnic disparities in adult AML clinical trial participation is unknown. Methods: This multicenter cohort study counterfactually assessed race/ethnic disparities in trial eligibility between Non-Hispanic Whites (NHW) and Minoritized Individuals (MI: Hispanic, Black, Asian, and/or Other) diagnosed with AML between 2010-2022 at six hospitals in Chicago, IL and one in Boston, MA. All newly diagnosed patients were catalogued; those with complete data were analyzed. Eligibility criteria were obtained from 190 front-line phase II/III therapeutic studies active during the same period (1). Common sets of criteria for intensive and non-intensive trials were generated based on prevalent criteria and medians of any associated limits (e.g., QTc ≤480 ms). Proportions of MI and NHW that would have been eligible based on these common criteria sets were assessed using X2 tests with odds ratios (OR). Mann-Whitney U tests assessed differences in the median number of trials for which each MI and NHW patient would have been eligible. Analyses with MI groups disaggregated were also performed. Results: There were 1283 patients (405 MI, 878 NHW) with a median age of 60 years (57 MI, 61 NHW; p<0.001); 44% were female. According to the common set of 23 intensive trial criteria that was generated, similar proportions of MI and NHW were eligible (24.7% and 24.5%, OR 1.01, 95% CI [0.77,1.33]). With the age limit criterion…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,283 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free