PURPOSE: Patients with cancer living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas have worse cancer outcomes. The association between socioeconomic deprivation and outcomes among patients with cancer participating in clinical trials has not been systematically examined.METHODS: We examined survival outcomes for patients enrolled in phase III and large phase II clinical trials for major cancers conducted by the SWOG Cancer Research Network from 1985 to 2012. Socioeconomic deprivation was measured using trial participants' residential zip codes linked to the Area Deprivation Index (ADI). Five-year overall survival, progression-free survival, and cancer-specific survival were examined using Cox regression frailty models, adjusting for age, sex, and race, and separately for insurance status, prognostic risk, and rural or urban residency.RESULTS: We examined 41,109 patients from 55 trials comprising 24 cancer histology and stage-specific cohorts. Compared with trial participants in the most affluent areas (ADI, 0%-20%), trial participants from areas with the highest socioeconomic deprivation (ADI, 80%-100%) had worse overall (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.28, 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.37, P < .001), progression-free (HR = 1.20, 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.28, P < .001), and cancer-specific survival (HR = 1.27, 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.37, P < .001). The results were similar after adjusting for insurance status, prognostic risk, and rural or urban residency. There was a continuous increase in risk of all outcomes as the ADI quintile increased.CONCLUSION: In patients with cancer with access to protocol-directed care in clinical trials, high area-level socioeconomic deprivation was associated with worse survival. Future research should examine whether the etiology of this residual disparity is related to reduced access to supportive care or postprotocol therapy and/or to differences in health status not reflected by protocol selection criteria.

Background: Adolescent and young adult cancer patients (AYAs) who are sexual and gender minorities (SGM) are a rapidly increasing population that experiences unmet cancer‐related needs. Despite emerging awareness, little is known about cancer care and outcomes for this vulnerable population. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore current knowledge and gaps in the literature on cancer care and outcomes for AYAs who identify as SGM.Methods: We reviewed empirical knowledge on SGM AYAs by identifying, describing, and critically appraising the literature to date. We conducted a comprehensive search on OVID MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL in February 2022. Additionally, we developed and piloted a conceptual framework for appraising SGM AYA research.Results: A total of 37 articles were included in the final review. Most studies focused exclusively on SGM‐related outcomes as the primary aim of the study (81.1%, n = 30), whereas others included some focus on SGM‐related outcomes (18.9%, n = 7). The majority of studies included AYAs as part of a broader age range (86.0%, n = 32), and only a few studies examined exclusively AYA samples (14.0%, n = 5). Gaps in scientific evidence on SGM AYAs were seen across the cancer care continuum.Conclusion: Numerous gaps in knowledge of cancer care and outcomes exist for SGM AYAs diagnosed with cancer. Future efforts should fill this void with high‐quality empirical studies that reveal unknown disparities in care and outcomes and are inclusive of the intersectionality of SGM AYAs with other minoritized experiences, thereby advancing health equity in meaningful ways.

Amidst the concurrent global crises of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), uprisings against Anti-Black racism and police brutality, as well as anti-Asian racism and violence, the field of medicin...

The relatively small number of cancers in the adolescent and young adult (AYA) age group, those aged 15-39 years, does not appropriately reflect the personal and societal costs of cancer in this population, as reflected in the potential years of life lost or saved, the decreased productivity and health-related quality of life due to the impact of the disease during formative years, and long-term complications or disabilities. Improvements in care and outcomes for AYAs with cancer require collaboration among different stakeholders at different levels (patients, caregivers, health-care professionals, researchers, industry, and policymakers). Development of a Core Outcome Set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured globally in research and routine clinical practice—specifically for AYAs with cancer—with outcomes that are well defined based on the perspective of those who are affected and assessed with validated measures, is urgently required. A globally implemented COS for AYAs with cancer will facilitate better pooling of research data and the implementation of high-quality health-care registries, which by benchmarking not only nationally but also internationally, may ultimately improve the value of the care given to these underserved young cancer patients. We reflect on the need to develop a COS for AYAs with cancer, the arenas of application, and the challenges of implementing an age-specific COS in research and clinical practice.