Skip to main content

Bias in cancer trials

For many years I served on NHS research ethics committees.  One aspect of clinical trials that always concerned us was how representative any trial was of the population.  This matters a great deal, as biased samples may give erroneous results or miss results that are of crucial importance  

Now, new research has revealed bias and stereotyping among clinical and research professionals who recruit patients to enrol in cancer clinical trials. The findings are published online in CANCER, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society (ACS).



It is important to include diverse patients in clinical trials to ensure that the results will apply to patients in the general population.

One form of bias is in the selection of those on the trail.  The proportion of racial and ethnic minorities participating in cancer clinical trials is persistently lower than the proportion of minorities in the U.S. population at large.  This has the potential for giving a false perspective.

So, does bias by healthcare and research professionals help explain why racial and ethnic minorities are not adequately represented in clinical trials? 

A team led by Dr Raegan W. Durant, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, conducted interviews of cancer centre leaders, principal investigators of clinical trials, referring clinicians, and research staff at five U.S. cancer centres. A total of 91 individuals were interviewed.

Five prominent themes emerged from the interviews:

  1. Respondents noted language barriers and other factors that made communication with potential minority clinical trial participants difficult.
  2. Several respondents stated that they did not perceive potential minority patients to be ideal study candidates after they were screened for cancer clinical trials.
  3. Some respondents described clinicians’ time constraints and negative perceptions of minority study participants as challenges.
  4. When respondents discussed clinical trials with minority patients, they often addressed misconceptions to build trust.
  5. For some respondents, race was perceived as irrelevant when screening and recruiting potential minority participants for clinical trials.

Dr Soumya Niranjan, the first author of the report states that,

“Examples of the stereotypes we observed included perceptions that African Americans were less knowledgeable about cancer research studies, less likely to participate due to altruism, or simply less likely to complete all facets of the research study,”  

These and other examples of bias based on stereotypes of potential minority participants raise concerns that non-whites may be offered fewer opportunities to participate in cancer research studies.

Dr Niranjan also noted that even when research and healthcare professionals use race-neutral stances during clinical trial recruitment, this approach may overlook some of the well-established methods of engaging and recruiting potential minority participants in a culturally tailored manner. 

The authors make clear that not all healthcare professionals and research is biased. Still, the findings do indicate that more care needs to be taken in ensuring clinical trials are sufficiently representative of the population, or whether a particular section of the community needs to be targeted. 

Only by acknowledging the bias can it bet better identified in trials. 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha