Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Progress and Priorities
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Informing Public Health Policy
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Editorial

Yes, Minority and Underserved Populations Will Participate in Biospecimen Collection

Edward E. Partridge
Edward E. Partridge
Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0018 Published June 2014
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Declines in cancer mortality rates have been greater for college graduates than high school graduates and no decline has occurred among those with less than a high school education (1). If every person in the United States had the same cancer mortality rate as those with a college education, there would be approximately 216,000 (37.4%) fewer deaths from cancer each year. The low mortality rates in college-educated individuals are because they are less likely to use tobacco, more likely to get age-appropriate cancer screening, eat relatively healthy foods, get some physical activity, and if they develop cancer, are more likely to get the highest quality care available. In other words, they have access to and use scientific discoveries to prevent, detect early, and effectively treat cancer. As a nation, we have failed to deliver what we know to all our citizens, and thus, disparities in outcomes persist.

One approach to reducing disparities in low education, low income, mostly minority communities involves engaging in a community-based participatory process (CBPR) that leads to “community efficacy,” a willingness on the part of the community to help for the common good (2). The concept of community-based participatory research/education led the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to issue a request for applications (RFA) in 2004 for the creation of Community Network Partnerships and a reissuance in 2009 for Community Network Partnership Centers (CNPC). The overall purpose of the CNPC was, through a CBPR, to increase knowledge of, access to, and utilization of beneficial biomedical and behavioral procedures related to reducing cancer disparities ranging from prevention through early detection, diagnosis, treatment and survivorship in racial/ethnic minorities, and other underserved populations. The RFA in 2009 emphasized high-quality research involving properly controlled and rigorous intervention studies aimed at reducing cancer disparities. Twenty-three CNPCs were funded in 2009, and a number of these centers have reported on their success using a CBPR approach to evaluate minority and traditionally underserved communities' willingness to participate in providing biospecimens for biorepositories and to participate in research programs.

This is a particularly important undertaking because technological innovations are often expensive to deliver and underresourced individuals are less likely to be offered these innovations, and thus disparities persist or may even be exacerbated (3). Certainly, the “omics”—genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and epigenomics—all have the potential to create significant advances in our knowledge and understanding of cancer. This will likely lead to new ways to prevent and detect cancer and to treat cancer through risk stratification in a more targeted or personalized fashion. Advancement of the “omics” is highly dependent upon biospecimen collection in research trials. To not exacerbate disparities, it is important that minorities and underresourced groups participate in these trials and have equal access to advancements uncovered by these trials. The studies from various CNPCs provide reassurance that minority and traditionally underserved populations are likely to participate in provision of biospecimens for research purposes and, therefore, should be included in research programs collecting biospecimens for analysis.

Dr. Kristen Wells (4) and her colleagues from the Tampa Bay Community Cancer Network have recognized this important issue. They used a CBPR to develop, refine, and validate a multi-item scale to evaluate knowledge and attitudes toward biospecimen donation and biobanking. The Biobanking Attitudes and Knowledge Survey (BANKS) instrument includes three scales, which measure biobanking attitudes, biobanking knowledge, and self-efficacy for donating a biospecimen. It also has three single item measures of intention to donate a specimen and receptivity to learning more about biospecimen donation and biobanking. The participants in the development of this instrument came from underserved areas of Tampa Bay and included non-Hispanic White, African American, and Hispanic, but all English speaking. This well-validated instrument can and should be used by other groups.

In parallel to this effort, Tong and colleagues (5) with the Asian American Network for Cancer Awareness Research and Training at the University of California Davis conducted a randomized controlled trial that developed and evaluated the impact of an educational seminar on biospecimen collection compared with a cancer prevention control seminar among Cantonese-speaking Chinese Americans in a community setting in collaboration with the Chinatown Public Health Center, San Francisco. The findings indicated that Cantonese-speaking Chinese Americans are highly receptive to education and participation in biospecimen collection, and behavioral intent may be enhanced with a culturally tailored educational seminar. The theme of benefiting future generations seemed to be resonant with participants who attended the biospecimen collection educational seminar.

Gao and colleagues (6) with the Asian Community Cancer Network evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of a culturally and linguistically appropriate education on hepatitis B virus (HBV) biospecimen research participation among a Chinese American population living in Philadelphia. In a quasi-experimental two-armed design, four Chinese community-based organizations were assigned to the intervention arm (culturally and linguistically appropriate education on HBV biospecimen research and the opportunity to provide blood onsite) and four others to a general health education design that included only written material about biospecimen research and opportunities to participate at an offsite location. Participant knowledge about biospecimen research increased from pre- to posteducation in the intervention but not the control arm. Of major significance, 83.4% (146 of 175) of intervention participants donated one tube of blood for future HBV biospecimen research and 50.9% (89 of 175) donated another tube of blood for HBV testing. This compared with only 1.1% of participants in the control group donating a blood sample. The impact of this educational program on actual donation of a biospecimen is astonishing. The common thread in these three studies was the development of the tools (survey and educational programs) through a community-based participatory process leading to a successful program.

Lopez and colleagues (7) took a different approach in evaluating Hispanic communities' willingness to participate in provision of biospecimens for biobanking. This group evaluated the influence of acculturation (the process by which groups of individuals integrate the social and cultural values, ideas, belief, and behavioral patterns of their culture of origin with those of a different culture) on willingness to provide blood, urine, or saliva for biobanking. Participants in the study were 19,912 adults of Mexican descent enrolled in an ongoing population-based cohort in Houston, Texas. All of the participants were offered the opportunity to provide blood, urine, or saliva. Somewhat surprising was the finding that those who were “bicultural” were more likely to participate in biobanking than individuals who were “highly acculturated” (i.e., high integration of social and cultural values, ideas, beliefs, and behavioral patterns of the culture of origin with those of a different culture), but the difference in rates of participation between “low acculturation,” “bicultural,” and “highly acculturated” was small. What was truly impressive is that 94% of participants (18,107) provided a biospecimen of some type—blood (57%), saliva (63%), or urine (42%).

Dang and colleagues (8) from three different CNPCs collaborated with local community partners to conduct independent formative research studies with diverse participants to explore their knowledge, attitudes, beliefs about biobanking, and their experience with the donation of biospecimens. Although knowledge and understanding about the process and use of biospecimens was low in all groups, exacerbated by non-English speakers, and factors contributing to lack of participation differed by diverse groups, participants uniformly reported their general intent and willingness to participate in biobanking for altruistic purposes, particularly to benefit future generations.

Kaur and colleagues (9) took a different approach but still used biospecimens to analyze biomarkers in breast cancer. This group, representing The American Indian/Alaska Native Initiative on Cancer, addressed the almost 3-fold difference in incidence and mortality in breast cancer among American Indians and Alaska Native women with the lowest rates in Arizona and the highest in Alaska. This group hypothesized that the differences might be due to varying levels of biologic tumor aggressiveness in the two groups. They found significant differences in p53 with cases from Alaska having the highest levels but lower levels of EGFR and HER2 compared with those from Arizona. No differences in triple-negative breast cancer were observed.

It is difficult to reconcile a 3-fold increase in incidence and mortality on the basis of molecular differences between the two groups. Staging data for the two groups were similar except more of the Southwestern women were “unstaged.” Treatment information for these women was not provided. More investigation is needed to understand the reason for such a striking difference in mortality. The molecular differences are intriguing but are unlikely to explain the significant difference in incidence and mortality.

Taken together, these studies strongly suggest that minority populations, given the right circumstances and education, are very willing to provide biospecimens for research purposes.

Ma and colleagues (10) from the Asian Community Cancer Network developed and evaluated a culturally and linguistically appropriate community-based educational intervention to increase knowledge of and intent to participate in cancer clinical trials. This intervention focused on underrepresented Chinese Americans. The educational sessions were led by Community Health Educators who were volunteers from the community who themselves completed a training program in collaboration with the Education Network to Advance Cancer Clinical Trials. Two hundred forty-seven Chinese Americans participated in the educational session and completed both a pre- and posttest with results indicating significant increase in knowledge of and intent to participate in clinical trials.

Greiner and colleagues (11) describe the relatively rapid recruitment of minority participants into various research programs from three different CNPCs. These studies all met recruitment goals with generally high ratios of those enrolled to those approached. A common thread throughout the development of the research projects and recruitment was community-based participation building on community trust and infrastructure. These studies suggest that involvement of the community in all phases of research, from concept development, planning, recruitment, delivery, analysis, and dissemination leads to improved recruitment. A weakness of these particular projects is that the CBPR for recruitment strategies is not compared with “standard” recruitment practices in a controlled way. However, the recruitment of minorities into these projects is impressive given the historic difficulties in doing so in the past. This certainly suggests that a CBPR enhances opportunities for minority recruitment.

As noted previously, the overall goal of the CNPCs is to eliminate cancer disparity, which at first glance might seem a daunting task. However, the knowledge and technical advances to be delivered are not so complex. These include tobacco control, age-appropriate cancer screening, healthy eating, and physical activity. In addition, populations most at risk for poorer outcomes are, for the most part, in defined geographic locations. Finally, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 will eventually eliminate lack of insurance as a barrier to high quality access.

The CNPCs have already demonstrated success in developing community-based infrastructure, promoting awareness, and change in behavior related to cancer screening (12–18). As we move into a new era of personalized or precision medicine in cancer care, it is encouraging to find that at least with a community-based participatory approach, minority populations are willing to provide biospecimens for research and to participate in clinical trials. These community-based participatory programs will continue to be critical to assure minority participation in biospecimen-associated research programs and clinical trials. We must then assure that personalized or precision medicine is delivered to all groups equally; otherwise, we are likely to exacerbate existing disparities.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Grant Support

This study was supported by NIH/NCI - U54 CA153719 (to E.E. Partridge).

Footnotes

  • Note: See the March 2014 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention for the CEBP Focus section, “Community Network Program Centers.”

  • Received January 6, 2014.
  • Revision received April 4, 2014.
  • Accepted April 14, 2014.
  • ©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Kinsey T,
    2. Jemal A,
    3. Liff J,
    4. Ward E,
    5. Thun M
    . Secular trends in mortality from common cancers in the United States by educational attainment, 1993–2001. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:1003–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Lurie N,
    2. Dubowitz T
    . Health disparities and access to health. JAMA 2007;297:1118–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Glied S,
    2. Lleras-Muney A
    . Technological innovation and inequality in health. Demography 2008;45:741–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.
    1. Wells KJ,
    2. Arevalo M,
    3. Meade CD,
    4. Gwede CK,
    5. Quinn GP,
    6. Luque JS,
    7. et al.
    Development and validation of the biobanking attitudes and knowledge survey (BANKS). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:374–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.
    1. Tong EK,
    2. Fung LC,
    3. Stewart SL,
    4. Paterniti DA,
    5. Dang JH,
    6. Chen MS Jr
    . Impact of a biospecimen collection seminar on willingness to donate biospecimens among Chinese Americans: results from a randomized, controlled community-based trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:392–401.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.
    1. Gao W,
    2. Ma GX,
    3. Tan Y,
    4. Fang C,
    5. Weaver J,
    6. Jin M,
    7. et al.
    Culturally appropriate education intervention on biospecimen research participation among Chinese Americans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:383–91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.
    1. Lopez DS,
    2. Fernandez ME,
    3. Cano MA,
    4. Mendez C,
    5. Tsai CL,
    6. Wetter DW,
    7. et al.
    Association of acculturation, nativity, and years living in the United States with biobanking among individuals of Mexican descent. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:402–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.
    1. Dang JH,
    2. Rodriguez EM,
    3. Luque JS,
    4. Erwin DO,
    5. Meade CD,
    6. Chen MS Jr
    . Engaging diverse populations about biospecimen donation for cancer research. J Community Genet 2014 Mar 25 [Epub ahead of print].
  9. 9.
    1. Kaur JS,
    2. Vierkant RA,
    3. Hobday T,
    4. Visscher D
    . Regional differences in breast cancer biomarkers in American Indian and Alaska Native women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:409–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.
    1. Ma GX,
    2. Tan Y,
    3. Blakeney NC,
    4. Seals BF,
    5. Ma XS,
    6. Zhai S,
    7. et al.
    The impact of a community-based clinical trial educational intervention among underrepresented Chinese Americans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:424–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.
    1. Greiner KA,
    2. Friedman DB,
    3. Adams SA,
    4. Gwede CK,
    5. Cupertino P,
    6. Engelman KK,
    7. et al.
    Effective recruitment strategies and community-based participatory research: community networks program centers' recruitment in cancer prevention studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:416–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Lisovicz N,
    2. Wynn T,
    3. Fouad M,
    4. Partridge EE
    . Cancer health disparities: what we have done. Am J Med Sci 2008;335:254–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Livaudais JC,
    2. Coronado GD,
    3. Espinoza N,
    4. Islas I,
    5. Ibarra G,
    6. Thompson B
    . Educating hispanic women about breast cancer prevention: evaluation of a home-based promotora-led intervention. J Womens Health 2010;19:2049–56.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Nguyen TT,
    2. Le G,
    3. Nguyen T,
    4. Le K,
    5. Lai K,
    6. Gildengorin G,
    7. et al.
    SJ. Breast cancer screening among Vietnamese Americans a randomized controlled trial of lay health worker outreach. Am J Prev Med 2009;37:306–13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Chen MS,
    2. Fang DM,
    3. Stewart SL,
    4. Ly MY,
    5. Lee S,
    6. Dang JHT,
    7. et al.
    Increasing hepatitis B screening in Hmong adults: results from a randomized controlled community-based study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2013;22:782–91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Walsh JME,
    2. Salazar R,
    3. Nguyen TT,
    4. Kaplan C,
    5. Nguyen L,
    6. Hwang J,
    7. et al.
    Healthy colon, healthy life a novel colorectal cancer screening intervention. Am J Prev Med 2010;39:1–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Lo P,
    2. Fang DM,
    3. Ly MY,
    4. Stewart S,
    5. Lee S,
    6. Chen MS
    . Access to adequate healthcare for Hmong women: a patient navigation program to increase Pap test screening. Hmong Stud J 2010;11:1–29.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Sur R,
    2. Peters R,
    3. Beck LL,
    4. Fifita M,
    5. Gonzalez M,
    6. Guevara L,
    7. et al.
    A Pacific Islander organization's approach towards increasing colorectal cancer knowledge and beliefs. Californian J Health Promot 2013;11:12–20.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 23 (6)
June 2014
Volume 23, Issue 6
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Yes, Minority and Underserved Populations Will Participate in Biospecimen Collection
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Yes, Minority and Underserved Populations Will Participate in Biospecimen Collection
Edward E. Partridge
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev June 1 2014 (23) (6) 895-897; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0018

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Yes, Minority and Underserved Populations Will Participate in Biospecimen Collection
Edward E. Partridge
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev June 1 2014 (23) (6) 895-897; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0018
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Grant Support
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • An Update from the Editor-in-Chief
  • A Message from the New Editor-in-Chief
  • Thyroid-Stimulating Hormone Levels and Thyroid Cancer
Show more Editorial
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement