Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42177546›Full record

ArticleTrials2026

Identifying underrepresented groups in oncology clinical trials using routinely collected data in an English academic trial setting.

Georgiana Synesi, Rebecca Lewis, Lucy Kilburn, Judith Bliss, Emma Hall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Georgiana SynesiClinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5GP, UK. Georgiana.Synesi@icr.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7220-6604
Rebecca LewisClinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5GP, UK.
Lucy KilburnClinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5GP, UK.
Judith BlissClinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5GP, UK.
Emma HallClinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SM2 5GP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo facilitate equitable access to novel treatments, cancer trial participants should represent as far as possible those that will receive the treatment in practice. We can identify groups who rarely participate in cancer trials by collecting demographic data from participants. In the UK, there is no standardised practice around demographic data capture, leading to inconsistent collection across trials. A lack of systematically collected and published quantitative data from participants in UK cancer trials may limit our ability to identify underrepresented groups.

methodsWe reviewed availability and completeness of demographic data recorded from 2235 participants in six bladder and six head and neck cancer trials conducted by the Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit at the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR-CTSU) between 2001 and 2023. To assess the representativeness of trial populations, demographic data from trial participants were compared with published data (NHS Digital) from 260,350 people who were treated for these cancers between 2013 and 2022 in England, using chi-squared goodness-of-fit tests and one-sample tests of proportion. A survey was distributed to 12 clinical trials units conducting similar trials to establish which demographic data are routinely collected across the UK.

resultsData on ethnicity, postcode, smoking status, and co-morbidity burden were inconsistently captured across ICR-CTSU trials, with missing data. Amongst the overall trial population, people older than 80 (n = 486/2235, 22%), females (n = 466/2235, 21%), people living in the most deprived areas (n = 390/1447, 27%), and ethnic minority groups (n = 5/275, 2%) were underrepresented, with some differences by treatment modality. Responses from UK trial teams showed that aside from age and sex (routinely captured), smoking status was the most consistently captured (13/17 trials).

conclusionsThis study provides quantitative data on cancer trial participants examining several demographic factors and indicates potentially underrepresented groups in trials of the disease subtypes investigated. Missing data were likely observed as a result of data cleaning being focused on items directly addressing the research question. Collecting and analysing a broad range of demographic data with a focus on inclusivity can inform researchers of groups who may benefit from tailored interventions to increase accessibility to cancer trials in the future.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicHead and Neck NeoplasmsMinority GroupsPatient SelectionResearch SubjectsUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsAdultAgedAge FactorsEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedDemographic dataDiversityEqualityInclusivityOncology clinical trials

Identifiers

PMID42177546
PMCPMC13377768

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.