ArticleESMO open2025
Ethnic origin in cancer clinical trials: overrated or understated? A comprehensive analysis of cancer clinical trials leading to FDA and EMA approvals between 2020 and 2022.
Article in ESMO open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEthnic diversity in cancer clinical trials is essential to ensure that therapeutic advances are equitable and broadly applicable in multicultural societies. Yet, missing consensus on the documentation of ethnic origin, partially based on the complexity of the terminology and fear of discrimination, leads to suboptimal patient management of minority populations. Additionally, eligibility criteria, such as stringent laboratory cut-offs, often fail to account for variations across ethnic groups, potentially excluding patients without evidence-based justification. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis analysis addresses this issue by investigating ethnic diversity in clinical trials that led to European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals between 2020 and 2022. Trials were identified from FDA and EMA databases, and available protocols and full-text publications were reviewed for documentation of ethnic background and eligibility criteria for organ function (bone marrow, liver, and renal). Descriptive statistics were applied to summarize the findings.
resultsOf the 56 trials analyzed, only two-thirds of primary result publications included information on ethnic origin. Caucasian and Asian groups were documented in most of those trials and also had the highest percentages of participants across trials, while other ethnic subgroups were less frequently documented and only made up a small proportion of trial participants. Eligibility criteria often set strict organ function cut-offs that did not consider variations among ethnic groups, potentially excluding minorities. The Cockcroft-Gault formula was frequently used to assess kidney function, despite its known limitations for multiethnic cohorts.
conclusionsEthnic homogenous participants and eligibility criteria that favor majority groups limit the applicability of findings in diverse populations, leading to inadequate patient management. While United States guidelines encourage inclusivity, similar recommendations are lacking in Europe. Thus European regulatory authorities, research organizations, and patient advocates should establish guidelines to improve ethnic diversity in cancer clinical trials, aligning research practices with the increasingly multicultural composition of European societies.
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.