Do Tobacco Treatment Trials Address Disparities in Smoking Outcomes Among Black and Hispanic Cancer Patients? A Systematic Review of Smoking Cessation Interventions for Black and Hispanic Patients Diagnosed with Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the representation of Black and Hispanic cancer patients in tobacco treatment trials, and to offer recommendations for future research. METHODS: We conducted two systematic searches of the literature (2018, 2021) using 5 databases (MEDLINE via EBSCO, Pubmed, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE)) to examine the prevalence of tobacco trials that included Black or Hispanic cancer patients. Two coders independently screened all articles at title, abstract, and full-text to identify eligible trials. Information about the proportion of Black and Hispanic patients included, trial design features, and whether the authors analyzed outcomes for Black and Hispanic patients were documented. RESULTS: Of 4682 identified studies, only 10 published trials included and reported on the rates of Black or Hispanic cancer patients enrolled in their tobacco trial. The proportion of enrolled Black cancer patients ranged from 2 to 55.6%. Only our studies documented enrollment rates for Hispanics, and rates were less than 6%. None of the studies offered strategies to promote or the accrual of Black or Hispanic patients. DISCUSSION: There remains a large gap in the literature regarding the reach and efficacy of tobacco treatment for Black and Hispanic cancer patients. Black and Hispanic cancer patients remain largely under-represented in tobacco cessation trials, limiting the applicability of existing, evidence-based treatments. To optimize intervention generalizability, future studies should emphasize the targeted recruitment and engagement of these patients in tobacco trials.

Secondary Use of Patient Tissue in Cancer Biobanks.

BACKGROUND: As scientific techniques evolve, historical informed consent forms may inadequately address modern research proposals, leading to ethical questions regarding research with archived biospecimens. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: We conducted focus groups among patients with cancer recruited from Massachusetts General Hospital to explore views on medical research, biobanking, and scenarios based on real biospecimen research dilemmas. Our multidisciplinary team developed a structured focus group guide, and all groups were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were coded for themes by two independent investigators using NVivo software. RESULTS: Across five focus groups with 21 participants, we found that most participants were supportive of biobanks and use of their own tissue to advance scientific knowledge. Many favor allowing research beyond the scope of the original consent to proceed if recontact is impossible. However, participants were not comfortable speaking for other patients who may oppose research beyond the original consent. This was viewed as a potential violation of participants' rights or interests. Participants were also concerned with a "slippery slope" and potential scientific abuse if research were permitted without adherence to original consent. There was strong support for recontact and reconsent when possible and for the concept of broad consent at the time of tissue collection. CONCLUSION: Our participants support use of their tissue to advance research and generally support any productive scientific approach. However, in the absence of broad initial consent, when recontact is impossible, a case-by-case decision must be made regarding a proposal's potential benefits and harms. Many participants support broad use of their tissue, but a substantial minority object to use beyond the original consent. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: For prospective studies collecting tissue for future research, investigators should consider seeking broad consent, to allow for evolution of research questions and methods. For studies using previously collected tissues, researchers should attempt recontact and reconsent for research aims or methods beyond the scope of the original consent. When reconsent is not possible, a case-by-case decision must be made, weighing the scientific value of the biobank, potential benefits of the proposed research, and the likelihood and nature of risks to participants and their welfare interests. This study's data suggest that many participants support broad use of their tissue and prefer science to move forward.