Inequity in Cancer and Cancer Care Delivery in the United States.

Inequity exists along the continuum of cancer and cancer care delivery in the United States. Marginalized populations have later stage cancer at diagnosis, decreased likelihood of receiving cancer-directed care, and worse outcomes from treatment. These inequities are driven by historical, structural, systemic, interpersonal, and internalized factors that influence cancer across the pathologic and clinical continuum. To ensure equity in cancer care, interventions are needed at the level of policy, care delivery, interpersonal communication, diversity within the clinical workforce, and clinical trial accessibility and design.

Overlooked and Damaging Impact of Structural Racism and Implicit Bias on US Health Care: Overarching Policy Implications.

ABSTRACT: Marginalized populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, have historically faced significant barriers to accessing quality health care because of structural racism and implicit bias. A brief review and analysis of past and historic and current policies demonstrate that structural racism and implicit bias continue to underscore a health system characterized by unequal access and distribution of health care resources. Although advances in cancer care have led to decreased incidence and mortality, not all populations benefit. New policies must explicitly seek to eliminate disparities and drive equity for historically marginalized populations to improve access and outcomes.

An Assessment of the Feasibility and Utility of an ACCC-ASCO Implicit Bias Training Program to Enhance Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Cancer trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity in the population of people with cancer in the United States. As a result of multiple system-, patient-, and provider-level factors, including implicit bias, cancer clinical trials are not consistently offered to all potentially eligible patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ASCO and ACCC evaluated the utility (pre- and post-test knowledge changes) and feasibility (completion rates, curriculum satisfaction metrics, survey questions, and interviews) of a customized online training program combined with facilitated peer-to-peer discussion designed to help research teams identify their own implicit biases and develop strategies to mitigate them. Discussion focused on (1) specific elements of the training modules; (2) how to apply lessons learned; and (3) key considerations for developing a facilitation guide to support peer-to-peer discussions in cancer clinical research settings. We evaluated discussion via a qualitative assessment. RESULTS: Participant completion rate was high: 49 of 50 participating cancer programs completed training; 126 of 129 participating individuals completed the training (98% response rate); and 119 completed the training and evaluations (92% response rate). Training increased the mean percentage change in knowledge scores by 19%-45% across key concepts (eg, causes of health disparities) and increased the mean percentage change in knowledge scores by 10%-31% about strategies/actions to address implicit bias and diversity concerns in cancer clinical trials. Knowledge increases were sustained at 6 weeks. Qualitative evaluation validated the utility and feasibility of facilitated peer-to-peer discussion. CONCLUSION: The pilot implementation of the training program demonstrated excellent utility and feasibility. Our evaluation affirms that an online training designed to raise awareness about implicit bias and develop strategies to mitigate biases among cancer research teams is feasible and can be readily implemented in cancer research settings.

Dónde Están? Latinx/Hispanic Representation in the Oncology Workforce: Present and Future.

This manuscript reviews the status of Hispanic/Latinx physicians in oncology, the benefits and challenges to achieving equitable representation, and potential solutions and actions to increase diversity in the oncology workforce. Persons of Hispanic/Latinx origin comprise 18.7% of the population and 16.8% of the adult population in the United States but are only 4.7% of practicing oncologists. The reasons for the lack of representation of Hispanic/Latinx individuals in medicine are multifaceted and include discrimination and biases, exclusionary practices, financial barriers, and lack of role modeling. As a result, patients are deprived the benefits of a representative workforce, such as improved access, enhanced culturally and linguistically competent care, and minimization of health disparities. Solutions included in the manuscript include a description of efforts by ASCO to improve the representativeness of the oncology workforce through its awards programs and educational efforts, especially for Hispanic/Latinx clinicians. The manuscript also outlines individual actions that attending physicians, senior oncologists, oncology leaders, and hospital/cancer center leadership can take to improve the diversity of the oncology workforce and support our Latinx/Hispanic trainees and colleagues. Improving the representativeness of the oncology workforce will require collective action by institutions, medical societies, and individuals. Nevertheless, widespread commitment to creating an inclusive and supported workforce is necessary to ensure the quality of care for minority patients, reduce existing cancer care disparities, and advance innovation in oncology.

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials: An American Society of Clinical Oncology and Association of Community Cancer Centers Joint Research Statement.

A concerted commitment across research stakeholders is necessary to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and address barriers to cancer clinical trial recruitment and participation. Racial and ethnic diversity among trial participants is key to understanding intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may affect patient response to cancer treatments. This ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Research Statement presents specific recommendations and strategies for the research community to improve EDI in cancer clinical trials. There are six overarching recommendations: (1) clinical trials are an integral component of high-quality cancer care, and every person with cancer should have the opportunity to participate; (2) trial sponsors and investigators should design and implement trials with a focus on reducing barriers and enhancing EDI, and work with sites to conduct trials in ways that increase participation of under-represented populations; (3) trial sponsors, researchers, and sites should form long-standing partnerships with patients, patient advocacy groups, and community leaders and groups; (4) anyone designing or conducting trials should complete recurring education, training, and evaluation to demonstrate and maintain cross-cultural competencies, mitigation of bias, effective communication, and a commitment to achieving EDI; (5) research stakeholders should invest in programs and policies that increase EDI in trials and in the research workforce; and (6) research stakeholders should collect and publish aggregate data on racial and ethnic diversity of trial participants when reporting results of trials, programs, and interventions to increase EDI. The recommendations are intended to serve as a guide for the research community to improve participation rates among people from racial and ethnic minority populations historically under-represented in cancer clinical trials. ASCO and ACCC will work at all levels to advance the recommendations in this publication.

Updates to the ASCO Patient-Centered Oncology Payment Model.

The past decade has seen considerable innovation in the delivery of care and payment in oncology. Key initiatives have included the development of oncology medical home care delivery standards, the Medicare Oncology Care Model, and multiple commercial payer initiatives. Looking forward, our next challenge is to reflect on lessons learned from these limited-scale demonstration projects and work toward models that are scalable and sustainable and reflect true collaboration between payers and providers sharing common objectives and methods to advance cancer care delivery. To this end, ASCO continues its work on care delivery standards, quality measurement, and alternative payment models. Over the past year, ASCO has received input from physicians, administrators, payers, and employers to update its Patient-Centered Oncology Payment (PCOP) model. PCOP incorporates current work on provider-payer collaboration, the oncology medical home, and the value of clinical pathways and recognizes the need for common quality measurement, performance methodology, and payment structure across multiple sources of payment. The following represents a summary of the entire model. The model includes chapters on PCOP communities, clinical practice transformation, payment methodology, consolidated payments for oncology care, performance methodology, and implementation considerations. In future work, ASCO will continue its support of the PCOP model, including further development of care delivery standards, quality measures, and technology solutions (eg, CancerLinQ).

American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: Biosimilars in Oncology.

As many biosimilars come to market in the next several years, their use in oncology will play an important role in the future care of patients with cancer. ASCO is committed to providing education and guidance to the oncology community on the use of biosimilars in the cancer setting; therefore, ASCO has developed this statement to offer guidance in the following areas: (1) naming, labeling, and other regulatory considerations, (2) safety and efficacy of biosimilars, (3) interchangeability, switching, and substitution, (4) value of biosimilars, and (5) prescriber and patient education.