ArticleAmerican journal of clinical oncology2024
Racial Disparities in Endometrial Cancer Clinical Trial Representation: Exploring the Role of Eligibility Criteria.
Article in American journal of clinical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Single-Cell Atlas of Uterine Carcinosarcoma from Diverse Ancestries.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Enhancing accessibility and impact of digitally enabled clinical trials: the WeShare engagement and equity toolkit.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to determine whether Black patients with recurrent endometrial cancer were more likely than White patients to be ineligible for a recently published clinical trial due to specific eligibility criteria.
methodsPatients with recurrent or progressive endometrial cancer diagnosed from January 2010 to December 2021 who received care at a single institution were identified. Demographic and clinicopathologic information was abstracted and determination of clinical trial eligibility was made based on 14 criteria from the KEYNOTE-775 trial. Characteristics of the eligible and ineligible cohorts were compared, and each ineligibility criterion was evaluated by race.
resultsOne hundred seventy-five patients were identified, 89 who would have met all inclusion and no exclusion criteria for KEYNOTE-775, and 86 who would have been ineligible by one or more exclusion criteria. Patients in the ineligible cohort were more likely to have lower BMI (median 26.5 vs. 29.2, P <0.001), but were otherwise similar with regard to insurance status, histology, and stage at diagnosis. Black patients had 33% lower odds of being eligible (95% CI: 0.33-1.34) and were more likely to meet the exclusion criterion of having a previous intestinal anastomosis, but the result was not statistically significant. If this criterion were removed, the racial distribution of those ineligible for the trial would be more similar (46.4% Black vs. 42.2% White).
conclusionsClinical trial eligibility criteria may contribute to the underrepresentation of racial groups in clinical trials, but other factors should be explored. Studies to quantify and lessen the impact of implicit bias are also needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.