Raymond U Osarogiagbon, Helmneh M Sineshaw, Joseph M Unger, Ana Acuña-Villaorduña, Sanjay Goel
{"title":"Immune-Based Cancer Treatment: Addressing Disparities in Access and Outcomes.","authors":"Raymond U Osarogiagbon, Helmneh M Sineshaw, Joseph M Unger, Ana Acuña-Villaorduña, Sanjay Goel","doi":"10.1200/EDBK_323523","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Avoidable differences in the care and outcomes of patients with cancer (i.e., cancer care disparities) emerge or worsen with discoveries of new, more effective approaches to cancer diagnosis and treatment. The rapidly expanding use of immunotherapy for many different cancers across the spectrum from late to early stages has, predictably, been followed by emerging evidence of disparities in access to these highly effective but expensive treatments. The danger that these new treatments will further widen preexisting cancer care and outcome disparities requires urgent corrective intervention. Using a multilevel etiologic framework that categorizes the targets of intervention at the individual, provider, health care system, and social policy levels, we discuss options for a comprehensive approach to prevent and, where necessary, eliminate disparities in access to the clinical trials that are defining the optimal use of immunotherapy for cancer, as well as its safe use in routine care among appropriately diverse populations. We make the case that, contrary to the traditional focus on the individual level in descriptive reports of health care disparities, there is sequentially greater leverage at the provider, health care system, and social policy levels to overcome the challenge of cancer care and outcomes disparities, including access to immunotherapy. We also cite examples of effective government-sponsored and policy-level interventions, such as the National Cancer Institute Minority-Underserved Community Oncology Research Program and the Affordable Care Act, that have expanded clinical trial access and access to high-quality cancer care in general.</p>","PeriodicalId":37969,"journal":{"name":"American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book / ASCO. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Meeting","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book / ASCO. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Meeting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/EDBK_323523","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20
Abstract
Avoidable differences in the care and outcomes of patients with cancer (i.e., cancer care disparities) emerge or worsen with discoveries of new, more effective approaches to cancer diagnosis and treatment. The rapidly expanding use of immunotherapy for many different cancers across the spectrum from late to early stages has, predictably, been followed by emerging evidence of disparities in access to these highly effective but expensive treatments. The danger that these new treatments will further widen preexisting cancer care and outcome disparities requires urgent corrective intervention. Using a multilevel etiologic framework that categorizes the targets of intervention at the individual, provider, health care system, and social policy levels, we discuss options for a comprehensive approach to prevent and, where necessary, eliminate disparities in access to the clinical trials that are defining the optimal use of immunotherapy for cancer, as well as its safe use in routine care among appropriately diverse populations. We make the case that, contrary to the traditional focus on the individual level in descriptive reports of health care disparities, there is sequentially greater leverage at the provider, health care system, and social policy levels to overcome the challenge of cancer care and outcomes disparities, including access to immunotherapy. We also cite examples of effective government-sponsored and policy-level interventions, such as the National Cancer Institute Minority-Underserved Community Oncology Research Program and the Affordable Care Act, that have expanded clinical trial access and access to high-quality cancer care in general.
期刊介绍:
The Ed Book is a National Library of Medicine–indexed collection of articles written by ASCO Annual Meeting faculty and invited leaders in oncology. Ed Book was launched in 1985 to highlight standards of care and inspire future therapeutic possibilities in oncology. Published annually, each volume highlights the most compelling research and developments across the multidisciplinary fields of oncology and serves as an enduring scholarly resource for all members of the cancer care team long after the Meeting concludes. These articles address issues in the following areas, among others: Immuno-oncology, Surgical, radiation, and medical oncology, Clinical informatics and quality of care, Global health, Survivorship.