Data-driven strategies for increasing patient diversity in Bristol Myers Squibb–sponsored US oncology clinical trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Determining whether clinical trial findings are applicable to diverse, real-world patient populations can be challenging when the full demographic characteristics of enrolled patients are not consistently reported. Here, we present the results of a descriptive analysis of racial and ethnic demographic information for patients in Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS)–sponsored oncology trials in the United States (US) and describe factors associated with increased patient diversity. METHODS: BMS–sponsored oncology trials conducted at US sites with study enrollment dates between 1 January 2013 and 31 May 2021 were analyzed. Patient race/ethnicity information was self-reported in case report forms. As principal investigators (PIs) did not report their own race/ethnicity, a deep-learning algorithm (ethnicolr) was used to predict PI race/ethnicity. Trial sites were linked to counties to understand the role of county-level demographics. The impact of working with patient advocacy and community-based organizations to increase diversity in prostate cancer trials was analyzed. The magnitude of associations between patient diversity and PI diversity, US county demographics, and recruitment interventions in prostate cancer trials were assessed by bootstrapping. RESULTS: A total of 108 trials for solid tumors were analyzed, including 15,763 patients with race/ethnicity information and 834 unique PIs. Of the 15,763 patients, 13,968 (89%) self-reported as White, 956 (6%) Black, 466 (3%) Asian, and 373 (2%) Hispanic. Among 834 PIs, 607 (73%) were predicted to be White, 17 (2%) Black, 161 (19%) Asian, and 49 (6%) Hispanic. A positive concordance was observed between Hispanic patients and PIs (mean = 5.9%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.4, 8.9), a less positive concordance between Black patients and PIs (mean = 1.0%; 95% CI = −2.7, 5.5), and no concordance between Asian patients and PIs. Geographic analyses showed that more non-White patients enrolled in study sites in counties with higher proportions of non-White residents (e.g. a county population that was 5%–30% Black had 7%–14% more Black patients enrolled in study sites). Following purposeful recruitment efforts in prostate cancer trials, 11% (95% CI = 7.7, 15.3) more Black men enrolled in prostate cancer trials. CONCLUSION: Most patients in these clinical trials were White. PI diversity, geographic diversity, and recruitment efforts were related to greater patient diversity. This report constitutes an essential step in benchmarking patient diversity in BMS US oncology trials and enables BMS to understand which initiatives may increase patient diversity. While complete reporting of patient characteristics such as race/ethnicity is critical, identifying diversity improvement tactics with the highest impact is essential. Strategies with the greatest concordance to clinical trial patient diversity should be implemented to make meaningful improvements to the diversity of clinical trial populations.