Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26018661›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2015

Temporal Trends and Predictors for Cancer Clinical Trial Availability for Medically Underserved Populations.

David E Gerber, Ashley M Lakoduk, Laurin L Priddy, Jingsheng Yan, Xian-Jin Xie

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Conceptual Model for Accrual to Cancer Clinical Trials.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Advancing Clinical Trials to Streamline Drug Development.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2015
    Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David E GerberDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Department of Cell Biology, Division of Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Sciences, and Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA; Oncology Clinic, Parkland Health and Hospital System, Dallas, Texas, USA david.gerber@utsouthwestern.edu.
Ashley M LakodukDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Department of Cell Biology, Division of Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Sciences, and Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA; Oncology Clinic, Parkland Health and Hospital System, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Laurin L PriddyDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Department of Cell Biology, Division of Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Sciences, and Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA; Oncology Clinic, Parkland Health and Hospital System, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Jingsheng YanDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Department of Cell Biology, Division of Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Sciences, and Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA; Oncology Clinic, Parkland Health and Hospital System, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Xian-Jin XieDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Department of Cell Biology, Division of Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Sciences, and Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA; Oncology Clinic, Parkland Health and Hospital System, Dallas, Texas, USA.
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USParkland Health & Hospital System · US

Funding

UT Southwestern Medical Center Simmons Comprehensive Cancer CenterP30CA142543 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI Sandi Leigh Pruitt · 2010 to 2026
$53.7M
UT Southwestern NCI National Clinical Trials Network Lead Academic Site - U10U10CA180870 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI GERBER, DAVID ERIC · 2014 to 2018
$3.4M
Mechanisms of Disease & Translational ScienceT32GM109776 · NIGMS · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI YIN, HELEN L · 2014 to 2018
$573k
Howard Hughes Medical Institute 56006776NCI NIH HHS 1P30 CA 142543-03NCI NIH HHS P30 CA142543NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180870NIGMS NIH HHS 1T32GM10977601NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM109776
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLack of access to available cancer clinical trials has been cited as a key factor limiting trial accrual, particularly among medically underserved populations. We examined the trends and factors in clinical trial availability within a major U.S. safety-net hospital system. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe identified cancer clinical trials activated at the Harold C. Simmons Cancer from 1991 to 2014 and recorded the characteristics of the trials that were and were not activated at the Parkland Health and Hospital System satellite site. We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression to determine the association between trial characteristics and nonactivation status, and chi-square analysis to determine the association between the trial characteristics and the reasons for nonactivation.

resultsA total of 773 trials were identified, of which 152 (20%) were not activated at Parkland. In multivariable analysis, nonactivation at Parkland was associated with trial year, sponsor, and phase. Compared with the 1991-2006 period, clinical trials in the 2007-2014 period were almost eightfold more likely not to be activated at Parkland. The most common reasons for nonactivation at Parkland were an inability to perform the study procedures (27%) and the startup costs (15%).

conclusionOver time, in this single-center setting, a decreasing proportion of cancer clinical trials were available to underserved populations. Trial complexity and costs appeared to account for much of this trend. Efforts to overcome these barriers will be key to equitable access to clinical trials, efficient accrual, and the generalizability of the results. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite numerous calls to increase and diversify cancer clinical trial accrual, the present study found that cancer clinical trial activation rates in a safety-net setting for medically underserved populations have decreased substantially in recent years. The principal reasons for study nonactivation were expenses and an inability to perform the study-related procedures, reflecting the increasing costs and complexity of cancer clinical trials. Future efforts need to focus on strategies to mitigate the increasing disparity in access to clinical research and cutting-edge therapies, which also threatens to hinder study accrual, completion rates, and generalizability.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicVulnerable PopulationsHumansNeoplasmsUnited StatesAccrualCancerClinical trialsUnderrepresented minoritiesUnderserved populations

Identifiers

PMID26018661
PMCPMC4571795
OpenAlexW2165194273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.