Evidence Hub

Disparities in endometrial cancer clinical trial participation

E. Ko, R. Álvarez, J. Heintz, Fiona Simpkins, A. J. Smith

Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2022

4,662 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

e18514 Background: Clinical trial participation may be a way to mitigate disparities in endometrial cancer. Our objective was to examine the association of clinical trial participation with patient, health system, and cancer factors in endometrial cancer. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with endometrial cancer diagnosed from 2013-2021 using the nationwide de-identified electronic health record-derived Flatiron Health database. We used multi-level Poisson regression modeling to analyze the association of clinical trial participation (receipt of clinical trial drug) with patient, sociodemographic, health system, and cancer factors. Results: Of 4,662 patients with endometrial cancer, 3.9% (95% CI 3.3-4.5) were ever enrolled in a clinical drug trial. While Black patients accounted for 12% of endometrial cancers and 59% of high-risk histologies (MMT, serous, clear cell), only 3% were enrolled in clinical trials. Black patients were 57% less likely to enroll in a clinical trial (95%CI 0.26-0.72), and this disparity persisted in academic and community settings. Having a more aggressive cancer histology and living in the Southeast were associated with higher rates of clinical trial enrollment. Conclusions: Despite higher rates of aggressive cancer histologies, Black patients were disproportionately under-enrolled in endometrial cancer drug trials. Efforts to increase clinical trial diversity are needed.[Table: see text]

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: 4,662 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