• Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. · Jan 1998

    Comparative Study

    Sociodemographic analysis of patients in radiation therapy oncology group clinical trials.

    • R M Chamberlain, K A Winter, S Vijayakumar, A T Porter, M Roach, O Streeter, J D Cox, and M L Bondy.
    • Department of Epidemiology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston 77030, USA.
    • Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1998 Jan 1; 40 (1): 9-15.

    PurposeTo assess the degree to which the sociodemographic characteristics of patients enrolled in Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) clinical trails are representative of the general population.Methods And MaterialsSociodemographic data were collected on 4016 patients entered in 33 open RTOG studies between July 1991 and June 1994. The data analyzed included educational attainment, age, gender, and race. For comparison, we obtained similar data from the U.S. Department of Census. We also compared our RTOG data with Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data for patients who received radiation therapy, to determine how RTOG patients compared with cancer patients in general, and with patients with cancers at sites typically treated with radiotherapy.ResultsOverall, the sociodemographic characteristics of patients entered in RTOG trials were similar to those of the Census data. We found that, in every age group of African-American men and at nearly every level of educational attainment, the proportion of RTOG trial participants mirrored the proportion in the census data. Significant differences were noted only in the youngest category of African-American men, where the RTOG accrues more in the lower educational categories and fewer with college experience. For African-American women, we found a similar pattern in every age group and at each level of educational attainment. As with men, RTOG trials accrued a considerably larger proportion of younger, less educated African-American women than the census reported. Using SEER for comparison, the RTOG enrolled proportionately more African-American men to trials all cancer sites combined, and for prostate and head and neck cancer. In head and neck trials, the RTOG enrolled nearly twice as many African-American men than would be predicted by SEER data. In lung cancer trials, RTOG underrepresented African-American men significantly; however, there was no difference for brain cancer trials. There were no racial differences in RTOG accrual and SEER incidence data for women on trials in brain, lung, and head and neck cancer. However, the RTOG trials accrued nearly twice the proportion of African-American women in cervical cancer trials and in all sites combined, compared to the SEER data.ConclusionsComparisons with the U.S. Census and SEER show that African-Americans are proportionally well represented in cancer clinical trials conducted by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. The comparative analysis indicates that all educational levels in each age group of African-Americans generally mirror the U.S. Census, with one exception. The exception is a significant overrepresentation of less-educated African-Americans in the youngest age category. This exception is counter to the expectation that better-educated patients are more likely to enroll in trials. When compared with SEER data, the RTOG trials either parallel or overrepresent African-American men and women, with the only exception being in lung cancer, where men are underrepresented. These results show that, in comparison to the Census and SEER data, the RTOG has fulfilled its commitment to enroll African-American patients in its clinical trials.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…