Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 25, 2025

Author Spotlight: Advancing Prostate Cancer Research Through Improved Tissue Sampling and Biobanking
Published on: November 17, 2023
Broadening Eligibility Criteria and Diversity among Patients for Cancer Clinical Trials
Maneet Kaur1, Filip Frahm1, Yichen Lu1
1Flatiron Health, New York.
Background:
Certain populations have been historically underrepresented in clinical trials. Broadening eligibility criteria is one approach to inclusive clinical research and achieving enrollment goals. How broadened trial eligibility criteria affect the diversity of eligible participants is unknown.
Methods:
Using a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database, we identified a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with 22 cancer types between April 1, 2013 and December 31, 2022 who received systemic therapy (N=235,234) for cancer. We evaluated strict versus broadened eligibility criteria using performance status and liver, kidney, and hematologic function around first line of therapy. We performed logistic regression to estimate odds ratios for exclusion by strict criteria and their association with measures of patient diversity, including sex, age, race or ethnicity, and area-level socioeconomic status (SES); estimated the impact of broadening criteria on the number and distribution of eligible patients; and performed Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios for real-world overall survival (rwOS) comparing patients meeting strict versus broadened criteria.
Results:
When applying common strict cutoffs for eligibility criteria to patients with complete data and weighting each cancer type equally, 48% of patients were eligible for clinical trials. Female (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25 to 1.35), older (age 75+ vs. 18 to 49 years old: odds ratio, 3.04; 95% CI, 2.85 to 3.24), Latinx (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.39 to 1.54), non-Latinx Black (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.16), and lower-SES patients were more likely to be excluded using strict eligibility criteria. Broadening criteria increased the number of eligible patients by 78%, with the strongest impact for older, female, non-Latinx Black, and lower-SES patients. Patients who met only broadened criteria had worse rwOS versus those with strict criteria (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.34).
Conclusions:
Data-driven evaluation of clinical trial eligibility criteria may optimize the eligibility of certain historically underrepresented groups and promote access to more inclusive trials. (Sponsored by Flatiron Health.).
Insights
Broadening clinical trial eligibility criteria significantly increases patient access, especially for underrepresented groups. However, patients meeting only broadened criteria showed worse real-world survival, highlighting a need for careful evaluation.
Area of Science:
- Clinical research methodology
- Health equity in clinical trials
- Oncology clinical trial design
Background:
- Historically, specific populations have been underrepresented in clinical trials.
- Broadening eligibility criteria is a strategy to enhance inclusivity and meet enrollment targets.
- The impact of broadened criteria on participant diversity remains largely unknown.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate how broadening clinical trial eligibility criteria affects patient diversity.
- To assess the impact of strict versus broadened eligibility criteria on patient inclusion.
- To examine the association between eligibility criteria and real-world overall survival (rwOS).
Main Methods:
- Retrospective cohort study of 235,234 patients with 22 cancer types (2013-2022).
- Evaluation of strict vs. broadened eligibility criteria based on performance status and organ function.
- Logistic regression for diversity analysis; Cox regression for rwOS comparison.
Main Results:
- Strict criteria excluded 52% of patients; broadening criteria increased eligibility by 78%.
- Strict criteria disproportionately excluded female, older, Latinx, Black, and lower-SES patients.
- Patients meeting only broadened criteria had a 31% higher risk of mortality (HR, 1.31).
Conclusions:
- Data-driven evaluation of eligibility criteria can improve diversity in clinical trials.
- Broadened criteria enhance access for underrepresented groups but require careful survival analysis.
- Optimizing criteria is key to achieving more inclusive and representative cancer research.
More Related Videos
10:27Testing Targeted Therapies in Cancer using Structural DNA Alteration Analysis and Patient-Derived Xenografts
Published on: July 25, 2020
11:34Building Up a High-throughput Screening Platform to Assess the Heterogeneity of HER2 Gene Amplification in Breast Cancers
Published on: December 5, 2017
Related Concept Videos
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Cancer Survival Analysis
Nursing Ethical Principles II
Consider the following scenario, which illustrates how these principles are applied in the care of Mr. John, a fifty-year-old teacher diagnosed with metastatic liver cancer.
Initially, Mr. John's...
Combination Therapies and Personalized Medicine
The combination of the drug acetazolamide and sulforaphane is a good example of combination therapy to treat cancer. The cells in the interior of a large tumor often die due to the hypoxic and...
Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are several types of targeted therapies against...
Cancer Vaccines
Cancer vaccines come in two categories: preventive (prophylactic) and treatment (active). Preventive vaccines, such as the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, protect against viruses that cause certain...