Abstract B120: Identifying cancer disparities research gaps in NCORP: A pilot portfolio analysis

Background/Purpose: Clinical trials offer an underutilized platform to address health disparities. Most disparities-related work in clinical trials has focused on improving patient diversity, rather than on the research questions to reduce disparities. Within the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), a large community-based clinical trials network, cancer disparities research incorporates the needs of diverse populations across its scientific portfolio of cancer control, symptom science, prevention, and care delivery studies. The objective of this portfolio analysis was to pilot a process to identify disparities-focused studies and related research gaps. Methods: We identified NCORP studies approved between August 2014-April 2021 with a focus on NIH health disparity and NCORP populations of interest (e.g., racial/ethnic minorities, rural residents, older adults, adolescent/young adults). After screening study titles and aims, studies were included if they focused exclusively on cancer disparities (primary aim) or had a disparities-related aim in studies with a broader focus (secondary aim). Coders abstracted study protocols across NCORP research areas, study-, cancer- and disparities-related characteristics. Coding disagreements were discussed until agreement. Descriptive statistics are reported. Results: The search identified 101 NCORP approved studies, of which 31% (n=31) were deemed disparities-focused. Most disparities-focused studies had primary disparities aims (n=26); fewer had secondary disparities aims (n=5). Sixty-five percent focused on populations underrepresented in clinical trials (9 older adults, 8 AYAs, and 3 other underserved), and 35% focused on health disparity populations (7 racial/ethnic minorities, 2 rural, and 2 socioeconomically disadvantaged). Most studies were available to English-speaking patients only (n=17), with Spanish the most common language accommodation (n=9). By NCORP scientific scope, 20 studies assessed patients’ quality of life, cancer-related or treatment-related symptoms; fewer addressed care delivery (n=8), prevention (n=1), or other topics (n=2). The most common outcome was adverse events or toxicity (n=6) and studies mostly included patients in active (n=19) versus post-treatment (n=10). Study designs were observational (n=15) or interventional (n=16) and examined individual (n=14), interpersonal (n=15) or multiple domains of influence (n=2). Conclusion: Through this pilot we defined a process to ident