Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34748007›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Racial and Ethnic Disparities Among Participants in Precision Oncology Clinical Studies.

Christopher M Aldrighetti, Andrzej Niemierko, Eliezer Van Allen, Henning Willers, Sophia C Kamran

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 126 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
126citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

126 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Findings from the 2025 AMCP Foundation Symposium: Health Optimization 2.0.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

66 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Christopher M AldrighettiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Andrzej NiemierkoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Eliezer Van AllenDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Henning WillersDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Sophia C KamranDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Precision oncology is revolutionizing cancer care, allowing for personalized treatments to improve outcomes. Cancer research has benefitted from well-designed studies incorporating precision medicine objectives, but it is unclear if these studies are representative of the diverse cancer population. Objective: To evaluate racial and ethnic representation in breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer studies incorporating precision oncology objectives in the Clinicaltrials.gov registry and compare with the incidence of these cancer types in racial and ethnic minority groups in the US population. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study identified US-based breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer studies incorporating precision oncology objectives for reporting of race and ethnicity. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and US Census databases were used to determine cancer incidence by race and ethnicity, linked with cancer type and median year of enrollment for each trial. Data were collected and analyzed between December 2020 and April 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The expected number of participants per study by each racial and ethnic group was calculated based on the corresponding US-based proportion. Under- and overrepresentation was defined as the ratio of the actual number of enrolled cases to the expected number of cases for each trial by cancer type. Ratios above 1 indicated overrepresentation while a ratio below 1 indicated underrepresentation. Random-effects meta-analysis of representation ratios of individual trials was performed to weigh each individual study. Results: Of 93 studies encompassing 5867 enrollees with race and ethnicity data; 4826 participants (82.3%) were non-Hispanic White, 587 (10.0%) were Black, and 238 (4.1%) were Asian. Per observed-to-expected ratios, White participants were overrepresented in all studies, with a ratio of 1.35 (95% CI, 1.30-1.37), as well as Asian participants, with a ratio of 1.46 (95% CI, 1.28-1.66), while Black participants (ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.45-0.54), Hispanic participants (ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.20-0.28), and American Indian and Alaskan Native participants (ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24-0.78) were underrepresented. By individual cancer site, White participants were consistently overrepresented in all studies, while Black and Hispanic participants were underrepresented. Conclusions and Relevance: This analysis found that precision oncology studies for breast, lung, prostate, and colorectal cancers vastly underrepresent racial and ethnic minority populations relative to their cancer incidence in the US population. It is imperative to increase diversity among enrollees so that all individuals may benefit from cancer research breakthroughs and personalized treatments.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesCultural DiversityEthnic and Racial MinoritiesEthnicityFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPrecision Medicine

Identifiers

PMID34748007
PMCPMC8576580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.