Prostate cancer remains the leading diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of death among American men. Despite improvements in screening modalities, diagnostics, and treatment, disparities exists among Black men in this country. This primary objective of this systematic review is to describe the reported disparities in screening, diagnostics and treatments as well as efforts to alleviate these disparities though community and educational outreach efforts. Critical review took place of retrospective, prospective, and socially descriptive data of English language publications in the PubMed database. Despite more advanced presentation, lower rates of screening and diagnostic procedures, and low rates of trial inclusion, sub-analyses have shown that various modalities of therapy are quite effective in Black populations. Moreover, patients treated on prospective clinical trials and within equal access care environments have shown similar outcomes. Additional prospective studies and enhanced participation in screening, diagnostic and genetic testing, clinical trials and community-based educational endeavors are important to ensure equitable progress in prostate cancer for all patients. The Oncologist 2021;9999:• • Implications for Practice: Notable progress has been made with therapeutic advances for prostate cancer, but racial disparities continue to exist. Differing rates in screening and utility in diagnostic procedures play a role in these disparities. Black patients often present with more advanced disease, higher PSA, and other adverse factors, but outcomes can be attenuated in trials or in equal access care environments. Recent data has shown that multiple modalities of therapy are quite effective in Black populations. Novel and bold hypotheses to increase inclusion in clinical trial, enhance decentralized trial efforts and enact successful models of patient navigation and community partnership are vital to ensure continued progress in prostate cancer disparities. BACKGROUND Despite notable progress over the years, prostate cancer remains the leading cancer among men in the United States, with 191,000 cases and 33,000 deaths anticipated in 2020 1. Advances in screening rates, genomic testing, imaging, and treatment have led to an almost 98% five-year survival among affected men 2. Black men, however, have traditionally had higher incidence and decreased rates of survival in prostate cancer for all stages. Statistically, 1 in 9 men overall and 1 in 7 Black men will be affected 3. Moreover, Black men are more likely to be diagnosed at an earlier age, have advanced disease at that time of diagnosis and have significantly elevated PSA levels compared to White men 3-6. They also have a higher risk of regional and metastatic disease at presentation 7,8. Several factors could possibly account for this higher relative incidence and poorer outcomes for Black men with prostate cancer. Patients with lower socioeconomic status and less education have been shown to have worse overall survival from prostate and other ...

Background It is critical patients understand the terms used to describe oncology treatments; however, even basic chemotherapy terminology can be misunderstood. Rural communities tend to have especially low levels of health literacy compared with nonrural communities. To address low health literacy in rural communities, this study tested rural participants' understanding of previously developed educational chemotherapy videos that were designed for an underserved urban population. Participants were also asked for feedback to determine if the videos could be improved. Methods Fifty English‐speaking patients who reside in counties classified as rural according to the Rural‐Urban Continuum Code designations (RUCC 4‐9) participated in the study. Participants were asked to define 6 chemotherapy terms before and after viewing a short, animated video explaining the term in English. Rates of correct and incorrect definitions provided by participants were also compared with previously published results from an urban cohort. Results All participants had statistically significantly higher rates of correct definitions for all 6 terms following the video intervention. Palliative chemotherapy understanding improved the most (10% correct prevideo and 76% postvideo intervention). For each video, the majority of participants (77%‐92%) suggested no changes to the videos. Conclusion Given the prevalence of low health literacy in rural communities, it is important to have effective educational interventions to improve the understanding of basic oncology‐treatment terminology. This study found that short, educational videos, originally designed for an underserved urban population, can significantly improve understanding of commonly misunderstood chemotherapy terminology in a rural setting as well. Lay Summary Chemotherapy terminology can be confusing to patients. Understanding can be especially difficult in areas with low health literacy, such as underserved urban and rural communities. To address this concern, previously developed short, animated videos describing basic chemotherapy terminology were found to improve patient understanding in an underserved urban setting. In this study, the videos were tested in a rural population and their effectiveness was established. Participants in the rural setting were significantly more likely to correctly define all 6 tested terms after watching the videos. Educational tools for high‐need populations are essential to ensure patients can understand the treatment they receive.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic misconception (TM) refers to research subjects' failure to distinguish the goals of clinical research from standard personal care. TM has traditionally been determined by questioning the patient about the research study's purpose. Recent research, however, has questioned whether TM is as prevalent as reported due to discrepancies between patient/researcher interpretations of TM questions. The authors have created an interview tool receptive to these advancements to more accurately determine the prevalence of TM. METHODS: Patients were questioned about the trial's purpose as follows: 1) "Is the trial mostly intending to help research and gain knowledge?," 2) "Is it mostly intending to help you as a person?," or 3) "Don't know." Participants were then asked what they thought this question was asking: A) "What my own intentions are for participating," B) "What the official purpose of the research study is," or C) "Not sure." A patient exhibited TM by answering that the official trial purpose was to help him or her. RESULTS: Patients (n = 98) had a mean age of 60 years, were mostly White (64%), had a combined family annual income ≥$60,000 (61%), and 49% had a college degree. Twelve of 98 patients (12%) definitely exhibited TM. This was much lower than the author's original finding of 68% in a similar cohort. Twenty-four of 98 patients (24.5%) were unclear about what one or both questions were asking and could not be categorized. CONCLUSIONS: Previously, a patient was thought to have TM if they answered that the purpose of the trial was to benefit to him or her. An additional query about how patients interpreted that question revealed only 12% definitely had TM.

1562 Background: Although patient advocates have created templates for standard consent forms, assessing patient preferences for First in Human (FIH) and Window of Opportunity (WO) trials consents is important given their unique risks. FIH trials are the first time a drug is tested in humans. In WO trials, treatment naïve patients receive a therapeutic agent in the window of time between diagnosis and standard of care (SOC) surgery. Our goal was to determine patient-preferred presentation of important information in FIH and WO consent forms. Methods: The study consisted of two phases: (1) analysis of consents for FIH and WO oncology trials open at a cancer center between 2019 and 2022; (2) interview patients who had reviewed consents for FIH or WO trials during the consent process. FIH consents were analyzed for the location(s) of information stating that the study drug has not been tested in humans (FIH info). The WO consents were analyzed for the location(s) of information stating the risk that trial may delay SOC surgery (WO info). Participants were asked about their preferred placement of the information in their own trial’s consent form and whether the consent was clear. Interviews were audio-recorded and double coded. Consent form analysis was compared to patients’ preferences. Results: 25 consents [20 FIH; 5 WO] were analyzed. 19/20 FIH consent forms included FIH info, and 4/5 WO consent forms included WO info. 42 patients were approached [19 FIH; 23 WO]; 34 [17 FIH; 17 WO] participated. 12/17 (71%) WO participants thought that the trial explanation in the consent form was clear. Conversely, only 9/17 (53%) FIH participants found it clear. Conclusions: Patients preferred that the important FIH and WO information be placed early in the consent, though exactly where varied. 82% of FIH participants wanted FIH information in the purpose, while only 19% of WO participants clearly preferred that WO information be in the purpose, and 41% preferred WO information to remain in the risks section. Using consent templates that reflect patient preferences accurately is essential for ethical informed consent; however, a one-size fits all approach may not accurately capture patient preferences, so multiple templates may be necessary. [Table: see text]

Background Although patient advocates have developed templates for standard consent forms, evaluating patient preferences for first in human (FIH) and window of opportunity (Window) trial consent forms is critical due to their unique risks. FIH trials are the initial use of a novel compound in study participants. In contrast, Window trials give an investigational agent over a fixed duration to treatment naïve patients in the time between diagnosis and standard of care (SOC) surgery. Our goal was to determine the patient-preferred presentation of important information in consent forms for these trials. Methods The study consisted of two phases: (1) analyses of oncology FIH and Window consents; (2) interviews of trial participants. FIH consent forms were analyzed for the location(s) of information stating that the study drug has not been tested in humans (FIH information); Window consents were analyzed for the location(s) of information stating the trial may delay SOC surgery (delay information). Participants were asked about their preferred placement of the information in their own trial’s consent form. The location of information in the consent forms was compared to the participants’ suggestions for placement. Results 34 [17 FIH; 17 Window] of 42(81%) cancer patients approached participated. 25 consents [20 FIH; 5 Window] were analyzed. 19/20 FIH consent forms included FIH information, and 4/5 Window consent forms included delay information. 19/20(95%) FIH consent forms contained FIH information in the risks section 12/17(71%) patients preferred the same. Fourteen (82%) patients wanted FIH information in the purpose, but only 5(25%) consents mentioned it there. 9/17(53%) Window patients preferred delay information to be located early in the consent, before the “Risks” section.  3/5(60%) consents did this. Conclusions Designing consents that reflect patient preferences more accurately is essential for ethical informed consent; however, a one-size fits all approach will not accurately capture patient preferences. We found that preferences differed for FIH and Window trial consents, though for both, patients preferred key risk information early in the consent. Next steps include determining if FIH and Window consent templates improve understanding.