Ethnic disparities in clinical trials for FDA-approved drugs in colon cancer: A post-COVID era analysis (2020-2024).

e13816 Background: Equitable cancer treatment outcomes, as well as the generalizability of treatment application relies in part on diverse representation in the clinical trials that support the use of said treatments. However, in post covid-19 era, disparities in racial and ethnic participation continue to persist. This study evaluates the racial and ethnic composition of Industry sponsored Clinical Trials for Colon Cancer Treatments that became FDA approved post 2020, and compares to the expected distribution based on SEER incidence data. Methods: We analyzed racial demographics from five industry-sponsored colon cancer trials, from which only three (60%; NCT03785249, NCT05198934, and NCT04737187) included racial and ethnic data comprising 728 participants. The observed racial distribution was compared against SEER incidence data for colon and rectal cancer. Expected counts were derived by normalizing SEER incidence rates to the total trial enrollment. A chi-square test was performed to assess statistical significance. Results: Among trial participants, 79.4% were White, 4.6% Black, 10.4% Asian, 5.5% Hispanic, and 0.1% American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN). In contrast, SEER data suggests an expected distribution of 18.8% White, 22.1% Black, 15.0% Asian, 17.7% Hispanic, and 26.4% AI/AN. Chi-square analysis confirmed significant disparities across all racial groups (p < 0.001), with White participants overrepresented (χ² = 1748.64, p < 0.001), while Black (χ² = 126.30, p < 0.001), Asian (χ² = 11.75, p = 0.0006), Hispanic (χ² = 70.98, p < 0.001), and AI/AN individuals (χ² = 269.23, p < 0.001) were underrepresented. Some of the trials were international and domestic. Conclusions: Our findings underscore persistent racial and ethnic disparities in colon cancer clinical trials, with White participants overrepresented and Black, Hispanic, Asian, and AI/AN populations underrepresented. Additionally, two out of five trials failed to report any racial or ethnic data, reflecting a broader failure to prioritize diversity in clinical research. The lack of adequate representation threatens the generalizability of trial findings and equitable access to emerging therapies. Addressing these disparities requires urgent efforts to implement more inclusive recruitment strategies and standardized race/ethnicity reporting to ensure fair and effective treatment outcomes for all populations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2025-05-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2025.43.16_suppl.e13816
Primary Topic
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Ethnic disparities in clinical trials for FDA-approved drugs in colon cancer: A post-COVID era analysis (2020-2024).

Oleg Gligich, Ernest Balaguer, Arnold Blaustein, Mike Cusnir et al.
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
article

Ethnic disparities in clinical trials for FDA-approved drugs in colon cancer: A post-COVID era analysis (2020-2024).

Oleg Gligich, Ernest Balaguer, Arnold Blaustein, Mike Cusnir, Bruno R. Bastos, Jacqueline C. Barrientos, Michael A. Schwartz, Fernando Poli, Yelida Brauchle
article en

Abstract

e13816 Background: Equitable cancer treatment outcomes, as well as the generalizability of treatment application relies in part on diverse representation in the clinical trials that support the use of said treatments. However, in post covid-19 era, disparities in racial and ethnic participation continue to persist. This study evaluates the racial and ethnic composition of Industry sponsored Clinical Trials for Colon Cancer Treatments that became FDA approved post 2020, and compares to the expected distribution based on SEER incidence data. Methods: We analyzed racial demographics from five industry-sponsored colon cancer trials, from which only three (60%; NCT03785249, NCT05198934, and NCT04737187) included racial and ethnic data comprising 728 participants. The observed racial distribution was compared against SEER incidence data for colon and rectal cancer. Expected counts were derived by normalizing SEER incidence rates to the total trial enrollment. A chi-square test was performed to assess statistical significance. Results: Among trial participants, 79.4% were White, 4.6% Black, 10.4% Asian, 5.5% Hispanic, and 0.1% American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN). In contrast, SEER data suggests an expected distribution of 18.8% White, 22.1% Black, 15.0% Asian, 17.7% Hispanic, and 26.4% AI/AN. Chi-square analysis confirmed significant disparities across all racial groups (p < 0.001), with White participants overrepresented (χ² = 1748.64, p < 0.001), while Black (χ² = 126.30, p < 0.001), Asian (χ² = 11.75, p = 0.0006), Hispanic (χ² = 70.98, p < 0.001), and AI/AN individuals (χ² = 269.23, p < 0.001) were underrepresented. Some of the trials were international and domestic. Conclusions: Our findings underscore persistent racial and ethnic disparities in colon cancer clinical trials, with White participants overrepresented and Black, Hispanic, Asian, and AI/AN populations underrepresented. Additionally, two out of five trials failed to report any racial or ethnic data, reflecting a broader failure to prioritize diversity in clinical research. The lack of adequate representation threatens the generalizability of trial findings and equitable access to emerging therapies. Addressing these disparities requires urgent efforts to implement more inclusive recruitment strategies and standardized race/ethnicity reporting to ensure fair and effective treatment outcomes for all populations.

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 43(16_suppl)
Mount Sinai Medical Center (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 83%
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.