Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Clinical Trials and Breast Cancer Disparities

  • Clinical Trials (J Lang, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Data generated from well-designed clinical trials represent a powerful strategy for advancing cancer care. African Americans carry a disproportionately high breast cancer mortality burden and have been under-represented in clinical trial research. This review summarizes accrual patterns for clinical trials studying prevention, medical oncology, surgical oncology and radiation oncology in breast cancer.

Recent Findings

Strengthening the diversity of breast cancer clinical trial participants can improve understanding of the multifactorial etiology of breast cancer disparities. Strategies to achieve this goal include optimizing utilization of patient navigation services, addressing the financial toxicity of clinical trial participation and educating both patients and providers regarding the importance of accrual diversity.

Summary

Clinical trialists should work in partnership with disparity researchers and advocates to ensure that protocols are designed to address disparity questions, to reach diverse population subsets and to overcome financial barriers to participation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Eggly S, Hamel LM, Heath E, Manning MA, Albrecht TL, Barton E, et al. Partnering around cancer clinical trials (PACCT): study protocol for a randomized trial of a patient and physician communication intervention to increase minority accrual to prostate cancer clinical trials. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:807.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Diehl KM, Green EM, Weinberg A, Frederick WA, Holmes DR, Green B, et al. Features associated with successful recruitment of diverse patients onto cancer clinical trials: report from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3544–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Newman LA, Roff NK, Weinberg AD. Cancer clinical trials accrual: missed opportunities to address disparities and missed opportunities to improve outcomes for all. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:1818–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Freedman LS, Simon R, Foulkes MA, et al. Inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials and the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993—the perspective of NIH clinical trialists. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16:277–85 discussion 86-9, 93-309.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Newman LA, Kaljee LM. Health disparities and triple-negative breast cancer in African American women: a review. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:485–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S, Bryant J, Fisher ER, Wolmark N. Twenty-five-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing radical mastectomy, total mastectomy, and total mastectomy followed by irradiation. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:567–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dignam JJ. Differences in breast cancer prognosis among African-American and Caucasian women. CA Cancer J Clin. 2000;50:50–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1233–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fisher ER, Redmond C, Fisher B. Prognostic factors in NSABP studies of women with node-negative breast cancer. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1992;11:151–8.

  10. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, Brown AM, Harlow SP, Costantino JP, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:927–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Land SR, Kopec JA, Julian TB, Brown AM, Anderson SJ, Krag DN, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in sentinel node-negative adjuvant breast cancer patients receiving sentinel-node biopsy or axillary dissection: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project phase III protocol B-32. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3929–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kwan ML, Darbinian J, Schmitz KH, Citron R, Partee P, Kutner SE, et al. Risk factors for lymphedema in a prospective breast cancer survivorship study: the Pathways Study. Arch Surg. 2010;145:1055–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz PW, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. Jama. 2011;305:569–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Giuliano AE, Ballman K, McCall L, Beitsch P, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz P, et al. Locoregional recurrence after sentinel lymph node dissection with or without axillary dissection in patients with sentinel lymph node metastases: long-term follow-up from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (Alliance) ACOSOG Z0011 Randomized Trial. Ann Surg. 2016;264:413–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, Ahrendt GM, Wilke LG, Taback B, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. Jama. 2013;310:1455–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Boughey JC, Ballman KV, Le-Petross HT, et al. Identification and resection of clipped node decreases the false-negative rate of sentinel lymph node surgery in patients presenting with node-positive breast cancer (T0-T4, N1-N2) who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance). Ann Surg. 2016;263:802–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fisher ER, Anderson S, Tan-Chiu E, Fisher B, Eaton L, Wolmark N. Fifteen-year prognostic discriminants for invasive breast carcinoma: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol-06. Cancer. 2001;91:1679–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Leitch AM, Beitsch PD, McCall LM, et al. Patterns of participation and successful patient recruitment to American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0010, a phase II trial for patients with early-stage breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2005;190:539–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hunt KK, Ballman KV, McCall LM, et al. Factors associated with local-regional recurrence after a negative sentinel node dissection: results of the ACOSOG Z0010 trial. Ann Surg. 2012;256:428–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Newman LA, Hurd T, Leitch M, Kuerer HM, Diehl K, Lucci A, et al. A report on accrual rates for elderly and minority-ethnicity cancer patients to clinical trials of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;199:644–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Giuliano AE, Ballman KV, McCall L, Beitsch PD, Brennan MB, Kelemen PR, et al. Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival among women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: the ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017;318:918–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Chapman CH, Jagsi R. Postmastectomy radiotherapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a review of the evidence. Oncology. 2015;29:657–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hwang ES, Hyslop T, Lynch T, Frank E, Pinto D, Basila D, et al. The COMET (Comparison of Operative versus Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy) trial: a phase III randomised controlled clinical trial for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026797.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Dignam JJ, Redmond CK, Fisher B, Costantino JP, Edwards BK. Prognosis among African-American women and white women with lymph node negative breast carcinoma: findings from two randomized clinical trials of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP). Cancer. 1997;80:80–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Albain KS, Unger JM, Crowley JJ, Coltman CA Jr, Hershman DL. Racial disparities in cancer survival among randomized clinical trials patients of the Southwest Oncology Group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:984–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Sparano JA, Wang M, Zhao F, Stearns V, Martino S, Ligibel JA, et al. Race and hormone receptor-positive breast cancer outcomes in a randomized chemotherapy trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104:406–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Schneider BP, Shen F, Jiang G, et al. Impact of genetic ancestry on outcomes in ECOG-ACRIN-E5103. JCO Precis Oncol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.17.00059.

  28. Turner NC, Slamon DJ, Ro J, Bondarenko I, Im SA, Masuda N, et al. Overall survival with palbociclib and fulvestrant in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1926–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schmid P, Adams S, Rugo HS, et al. Atezolizumab and Nab-paclitaxel in advanced triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2108–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Albain KS, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Race, ethnicity and clinical outcomes in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer in the randomized TAILORx trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113:390–399.

  31. Hortobagyi GN, Stemmer SM, Burris HA, Yap YS, Sonke GS, Paluch-Shimon S, et al. Ribociclib as first-line therapy for HR-Positive, advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1738–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Im SA, Lu YS, Bardia A, Harbeck N, Colleoni M, Franke F, et al. Overall survival with ribociclib plus endocrine therapy in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:307–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tichy JR, Deal AM, Anders CK, Reeder-Hayes K, Carey LA. Race, response to chemotherapy, and outcome within clinical breast cancer subtypes. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;150:667–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Killelea BK, Yang VQ, Wang SY, Hayse B, Mougalian S, Horowitz NR, et al. Racial differences in the use and outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: results from the National Cancer Data Base. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:4267–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:778–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, Bryant J, Fisher B. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2001;2001:96–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mamounas EP, Anderson SJ, Dignam JJ, Bear HD, Julian TB, Geyer CE Jr, et al. Predictors of locoregional recurrence after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from combined analysis of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3960–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Bear HD, Anderson S, Brown A, Smith R, Mamounas EP, Fisher B, et al. The effect on tumor response of adding sequential preoperative docetaxel to preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: preliminary results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:4165–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Chiba A, Hoskin TL, Heins CN, Hunt KK, Habermann EB, Boughey JC. Trends in neoadjuvant endocrine therapy use and impact on rates of breast conservation in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: a national cancer data base study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:418–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ellis MJ, Suman VJ, Hoog J, Lin L, Snider J, Prat A, et al. Randomized phase II neoadjuvant comparison between letrozole, anastrozole, and exemestane for postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-rich stage 2 to 3 breast cancer: clinical and biomarker outcomes and predictive value of the baseline PAM50-based intrinsic subtype--ACOSOG Z1031. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2342–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Jones T, McCarthy AM, Kim Y, Armstrong K. Predictors of BRCA1/2 genetic testing among Black women with breast cancer: a population-based study. Cancer Med. 2017;6:1787–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Robson M, Im SA, Senkus E, Xu B, Domchek SM, Masuda N, et al. Olaparib for metastatic breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:523–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Litton JK, Rugo HS, Ettl J, Hurvitz SA, Gonçalves A, Lee KH, et al. Talazoparib in patients with advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:753–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Litton JK, Hurvitz SA, Mina LA, Rugo HS, Lee KH, Gonçalves A, et al. Talazoparib versus chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: final overall survival results from the EMBRACA trial. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1526–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rugo HS, Ettl J, Hurvitz SA, et al. Outcomes in clinically relevant patient subgroups from the EMBRACA study: talazoparib vs physician's choice standard-of-care chemotherapy. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2020;4:pkz085.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Schmid P, Cortes J, Pusztai L, McArthur H, Kümmel S, Bergh J, et al. Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:810–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Loree JM, Anand S, Dasari A, et al. Disparity of race reporting and representation in clinical trials leading to cancer drug approvals from 2008 to 2018. JAMA Oncol. 2019:e191870. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1870.

  48. Duma N, Vera Aguilera J, Paludo J, Haddox CL, Gonzalez Velez M, Wang Y, et al. Representation of minorities and women in oncology clinical trials: review of the past 14 years. J Oncol Pract. 2018;14:e1–e10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Winkfield KM, Phillips JK, Joffe S, Halpern MT, Wollins DS, Moy B. Addressing financial barriers to patient participation in clinical trials: ASCO policy statement. J Clin Oncol. 2018:JCO1801132. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.01132.

  50. Whelan TJ, Pignol JP, Levine MN, Julian JA, MacKenzie R, Parpia S, et al. Long-term results of hypofractionated radiation therapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:513–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Khan AJ, Poppe MM, Goyal S, Kokeny KE, Kearney T, Kirstein L, et al. Hypofractionated postmastectomy radiation therapy is safe and effective: first results from a prospective phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2037–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Vicini FA, Cecchini RS, White JR, et al. Long-term primary results of accelerated partial breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer: a randomised, phase 3, equivalence trial. Lancet. 2019;394:2155–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Murray Brunt A, Haviland JS, Wheatley DA, et al. Hypofractionated breast radiotherapy for 1 week versus 3 weeks (FAST-Forward): 5-year efficacy and late normal tissue effects results from a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2020;395:1613–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. McCaskill-Stevens W, Wilson JW, Cook ED, Edwards CL, Gibson RV, McElwain DL, et al. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene trial: advancing the science of recruitment and breast cancer risk assessment in minority communities. Clin trials. 2013;10:280–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Cecchini RS, Cronin WM, Robidoux A, et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1652–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial. JAMA. 2006;295:2727–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Goss PE, Ingle JN, Ales-Martinez JE, et al. Exemestane for breast-cancer prevention in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2381–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Wapnir IL, Dignam JJ, Fisher B, et al. Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:478–88.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Margolese RG, Cecchini RS, Julian TB, Ganz PA, Costantino JP, Vallow LA, et al. Anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet. 2016;387:849–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. DeSantis CE, Ma J, Gaudet MM, et al. Breast cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69:438–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Bondy ML, Newman LA. Breast cancer risk assessment models: applicability to African-American women. Cancer. 2003;97:230–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Kohler BA, Sherman RL, Howlader N, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2011, featuring incidence of breast cancer subtypes by race/ethnicity, poverty, and state. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:djv048.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Keenan CR, White RH. The effects of race/ethnicity and sex on the risk of venous thromboembolism. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2007;13:377–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. White RH, Keenan CR. Effects of race and ethnicity on the incidence of venous thromboembolism. Thromb Res. 2009;123 Suppl 4:S11–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Cauley JA, Palermo L, Vogt M, Ensrud KE, Ewing S, Hochberg M, et al. Prevalent vertebral fractures in black women and white women. J Bone Miner Res. 2008;23:1458–67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Newman LA, Stark A, Chitale D, Pepe M, Longton G, Worsham MJ, et al. Association between benign breast disease in African American and White American women and subsequent triple-negative breast cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1102–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Liu Y, West R, Weber JD, Colditz GA. Race and risk of subsequent aggressive breast cancer following ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer. 2019;125:3225–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Bondy ML, Newman LA. Assessing breast cancer risk: evolution of the Gail Model. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1172–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Gail MH, Costantino JP, Pee D, Bondy M, Newman L, Selvan M, et al. Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1782–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Boggs DA, Rosenberg L, Adams-Campbell LL, Palmer JR. Prospective approach to breast cancer risk prediction in African American women: the Black Women's Health Study Model. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:1038–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Enhancing the diversity of clinical trial populations—Eligibility criteria, enrollment practices, and trial designs guidance for industry. 2020. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/enhancing-diversity-clinical-trial-populations-eligibility-criteria-enrollment-practices-and-trial. Accessed April 25, 2021.

  72. Ghebre RG, Jones LA, Wenzel JA, Martin MY, Durant RW, Ford JG. State-of-the-science of patient navigation as a strategy for enhancing minority clinical trial accrual. Cancer. 2014;120(Suppl 7):1122–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Arnaout A, Kuchuk I, Bouganim N, Pond G, Verma S, Segal R, et al. Can the referring surgeon enhance accrual of breast cancer patients to medical and radiation oncology trials? The ENHANCE study. Curr Oncol. 2016;23:e276–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Swain-Cabriales S, Bourdeanu L, Niland J, Stiller T, Somlo G. Enrollment onto breast cancer therapeutic clinical trials: a tertiary cancer center experience. Appl Nurs Res. 2013;26:133–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Niranjan SJ, Durant RW, Wenzel JA, et al. Training needs of clinical and research professionals to optimize minority recruitment and retention in cancer clinical trials. J Cancer Educ. 2019;34:26–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Niranjan SJ, Martin MY, Fouad MN, Vickers SM, Wenzel JA, Cook ED, et al. Bias and stereotyping among research and clinical professionals: perspectives on minority recruitment for oncology clinical trials. Cancer. 2020;126:1958–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Unger JM, Cook E, Tai E, Bleyer A. The role of clinical trial participation in cancer research: barriers, evidence, and strategies. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016;35:185–98.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Cooper LA, Roter DL, Johnson RL, Ford DE, Steinwachs DM, Powe NR. Patient-centered communication, ratings of care, and concordance of patient and physician race. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:907–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Albrecht TL, Blanchard C, Ruckdeschel JC, Coovert M, Strongbow R. Strategic physician communication and oncology clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:3324–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Brooks SE, Muller CY, Robinson W, Walker EM, Yeager K, Cook ED, et al. Increasing minority enrollment onto clinical trials: practical strategies and challenges emerge from the NRG Oncology Accrual Workshop. J Oncol Pract. 2015;11:486–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Newman LA, Lee CT, Parekh LP, Stewart AK, Thomas CR Jr, Beltran RA, et al. Use of the National Cancer Data Base to develop clinical trials accrual targets that are appropriate for minority ethnicity patients. Cancer. 2006;106:188–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa A. Newman.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Clinical Trials

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bea, V.J., Taiwo, E., Balogun, O.D. et al. Clinical Trials and Breast Cancer Disparities. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 13, 186–196 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-021-00422-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-021-00422-2

Keywords

Navigation