PENTAGON (Predicting Clinical Trials in Gynecologic Oncology): A retrospective study assessing study design factors that affect enrollment in gynecologic cancer trials.

e13647 Background: Obstacles to attaining a diverse clinical trial population contribute to poor representation in medicine, increasing health disparities by limiting generalizability and applicability of findings. Our objective is to evaluate trial enrollment trends according to patient and trial demographics for those who have sought care at our multi-center, mixed-setting Gynecologic Oncology practice. Additionally, we aim to determine specific trial criteria that promote or impede enrollment for patients and physicians. Methods: An IRB-approved, retrospective cohort study evaluating all patients who screened positive for a clinical trial through the Gyn Onc practice’s manual screening process was performed. Screening events were new neoplasms, recurrences or progressions, and changes in treatment. Data was collected from July 2022 to December 2023. Demographic information, trials for which each patient was considered, trials patients enrolled on, and trial characteristics were recorded. Results: After adjustment, there were no significant differences between patient factors (age, marital status, race, ethnicity, and number of screening events) and enrollment status. Of trials available, 9% require biopsy and 94.7% are in person. Most studies are interventional (78.9%) and pharmaceutical trials (73.7%). There was a drastic unadjusted estimated increase in enrollment for Medicaid patients compared to other insurances (55.2% vs 32%, p=.031). There was also an increase in enrollment for cervical cancer patients (18.4%, p=.106) compared to other cancer sites (56.5% vs 32.8%, p=.036). There was a positive relationship between distance traveled to the treatment site and clinical trial enrollment. Patients who lived within 20 miles of the clinical trial site had an enrollment percentage of 30.1% (n=93), compared to 46.55% enrollment for those who lived further (n=58). There was a significant increase in enrollment likelihood without an exclusion criterion of previous history of other cancer (50% vs 33.3%, p=.046). Trials that required no history of chemotherapy had an enrollment of 27.3% (compared to 44.1%). Conclusions: Unlike prior reports, we did not demonstrate differences in trial enrollment by race, socioeconomic or insurance status. This suggests that our objective manual screening process enhances equitable clinical trial offerings. It is possible that this objective manual screening process attenuates provider bias and offers clinical trials to historically marginalized and underrepresented groups.