Upload
philip-caldwell
View
223
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Assessing Minority Participation in Clinical Trials: Setting Attainable Goals
The Minority and Women Clinical Trials Recruitment Program
Department of Health Disparities ResearchDivision of Cancer Prevention and Population SciencesPresented to 2009 CCOP Annual Investigators’ Meeting03/28/09
Lynne H. Nguyen, MPH
2
Overview• Reported clinical trial participation rates• Selecting a methodology• The impact of population demographics• Determining success
3
Clinical Trial Participation: The Assertions• Only 3% of adults with cancer
participate on cancer clinical trials – NCI
• …even smaller number of patients come from minority backgrounds – Galen, 2009
• Hispanics participate at far below their representation in the population – FDA, 2001
4
Clinical Trial Participation: The Evidence• NCI estimate based on ratio of patients on NCI cooperative group
trials (NCI-sponsored) to all Americans with cancer (SEER registry)… “only 2.5% of all cancer patients enter cooperative group clinical trials”
• Participation rates (all): 2.5%Non-Hispanic whites: 2.4%Non-Hispanic blacks: 2.6%Hispanics: 4.2%
• Need to compare apples to apples . . . people in trials to people with the disease
5
The True Participation Rate…?
“Of patients medically eligible for a trial, and were offered a trial, what percentage agreed to go on the trial?” Some challenges:• Who to include in the denominator?• CT not the best treatment option for all patients• CT not available for all pts • What trials are available?• Participation includes both accrual and retention• Race/ethnicity and other data (lack of)• How to assess accrual effectiveness for non-patients? • Resources to track data
6
FY07 all new pts* N=21,647
Malignant N=19,597
Reportable cancers**N=17,282
Interventional trial Pp n=6,302
(6,302/17,282=36%)
Non-Interventional trial Pp n=6,403
(6,403/17,282=37%)
Not Pp, n=4,577(4,577/17,282=26%)
Superficial cancers N=2,315
Non-malignant N=2,050
ICD-O codes ending in 2 or
3
Estimating Patient Participation Rate
* Excludes non-patients on trials, i.e. for behavioral and some epidemiologic trials
** Reportable cancers includes 2nd opinions, consults, and preventive screenings)
7
MDACC Patient Participation on Clinical Trials, FY07 Snapshot
36 37
32
36
27
37 3836
38
26
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
All White Sp surname Black Other
Per
cent
Intvn Non-Intvn
Is this REASONABLE?!
Core Grant reviewer comment (2002): “Goal should be to achieve accrual that approaches the City of Houston catchment area population.”
9
Impact of Population DemographicsWho is at highest risk for cancer?
OLD people!
Who is old in Texas?
47%
69% 69%
17%20%
38%
11%8%
11%
3%3%4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
TX Pop 2008 TX Pop 65+ TX ca pts 01-05
White
Hispanic
Black
Other
10
Percent of Texas Population by Age Groupand Ethnicity, 2000
39.541.6
45.0 45.043.1 44.4
47.8
53.0
57.260.2
63.566.4 67.1
72.6
44.041.3
38.0 38.440.5
38.635.3
30.5
26.724.2
22.420.6 20.3
16.7
< 5
year
s
5 to
9 y
ears
10 to
14
year
s
15 to
19
year
s
20 to
24
year
s
25 to
29
year
s
30 to
34
year
s
35 to
39
year
s
40 to
44
year
s
45 to
49
year
s
50 to
54
year
s
55 to
59
year
s
60 to
64
year
s
65 +
yea
rs0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0Percent
Anglo HispanicTX State Data Center
11
Other Impacts of Population Demographics• New immigrants (from w/in and outside U.S.)
Tend to be younger, sometimes more males Protective immigrant effect (from outside U.S.) Cultural beliefs and behaviors which can impact cancer risks Health literacy and linguistic competency
• Occupation Health insurance coverage Occupational risk exposures
• Geographic dispersal Rural/urban Availability/access to services
12
Selecting the Right Populations to Compare
• Define the community/catchment area• Look at cancer rates as well as proportions
Rates identify populations at higher risk. Proportions show your patient base.
• Define the denominator and numerator (patient population)
• Compare apples to apples
13
Assessing Reasonableness
Who gets cancer
Who comes into the Center
Who gets on a trial
69%72%
75%
12%14%17%
9%10%11%
3%4%3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Catchment MDA pts CT Pps
White
Hispanic
Black
Other
14
Assessing Accrual of Non-patients to Prevention/Behavioral Trials
47%42%
39%
12%
6%
69% 69%
17%20%
38%
11%8%
11%
3%3%4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
TX Pop2008
TX Pop 65+ TX ca pts01-05
Trial Pp
White
Hispanic
Black
Other
15
Other Variables to Consider
Race/ethnicity Age Gender Geography Cancer site, stage Clinical trial type/phase
16
A modified option, to assess non-therapeutic CT participation
Who gets cancer
Everyone who comes into the
Center
Everyone who gets on a trial
• People in the numerator not necessarily in the denominator.
• This provides a snapshot in time. Not “real” numbers, but useful for looking at trend over time.
17
18
In Conclusion…• There are more than one way to assess
effectiveness at recruiting to clinical trials. • Know the intricacies and limitations of your
data – precise definition of what is collected, what isn’t, and how it’s collected
• Understand your catchment area demographics, trends and drivers
• Collect the right data!
19
THANK YOU!