Observational studyCancer causes & control : CCC2025
Determinants of first-line clinical trial enrollment among Black and White gynecologic cancer patients.
Observational study in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDisparities in gynecologic cancer clinical trial enrollment exist between Black and White patients; however, few examine racial differences in clinical trial enrollment predictors. We examined whether first-line clinical trial enrollment determinants differed between Black and White gynecologic cancer patients.
methodsWe used the National Cancer Database to identify Black and White gynecologic cancer (cervix, ovarian, uterine) patients diagnosed in 2014-2020. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between clinical trial enrollment (yes vs no) and sociodemographic, facility, tumor, and treatment characteristics stratified by race. We included a multiplicative interaction term between each assessed predictor and race to test whether associations differed by race.
resultsWe included 703,022 gynecologic cancer patients (mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 60.9 [13.1] years). Clinical trial enrollment was lower among Black (49/86,058, 0.06%) vs. White patients (710/616,964, 0.11%). Only cancer site differed by race: among Black patients, a cervical vs. uterine cancer diagnosis (OR = 4.63, 95% CI = 1.67-12.88) was associated with higher clinical trial enrollment odds, while among White patients, both cervical (OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.48-3.29) and ovarian (OR = 3.40, 95% CI = 2.58-4.47) cancer diagnoses (vs. uterine cancer) were associated with higher enrollment odds. Most predictors were associated with clinical trial enrollment odds among White but not Black patients.
conclusionFew differences in first-line clinical trial enrollment predictors exist between Black and White gynecologic cancer patients. Although small numbers of Black patients and low clinical trial prevalence are limitations, this descriptive analysis is important in understanding racially disparate clinical trial enrollment.
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.