11019 Background: Studies show that <10% of patients with cancer participate in clinical trials. Pragmatica – Lung (SWOG S2302) utilizes a pragmatic approach for a registrational (FDA) trial that allows less data collection and broader eligibility, thus decreasing barriers to diverse enrollment. S2302 aims to improve overall and diverse accrual by using a novel trial design and multilevel community engagement. Methods: S2302 is a real-world randomized phase III registrational study comparing pembrolizumab + ramucirumab vs investigator-chosen standard therapy in 2nd line advanced/metastatic NSCLC. A multi-stakeholder recruitment plan was developed to improve diverse accrual (with initial focus on recruiting Black patients). The plan was vetted through SWOG communications and SWOG Lung Committee’s Working Group, DEI champion, patient advocate, and community engagement subcommittee. The DEI champion identified sites in the Southeast with high minority accrual in prior trials and completed directed informational visits. An external firm created culturally and linguistically appropriate patient education material, engaged sites with historically high accrual of Black and/or LatinX patients, leveraged advocacy partners to improve community awareness, and monitored enrollment by site. A monthly accrual report with demographic summaries (including age, sex, race, ethnicity) and site enrollment information is generated from SWOG Statistics and Data Management Center to monitor accrual rate and diversity. Results: From March through December 2023 (Table), the study accrued 37% of its goal and is enrolling above its target rate of 25 pts/mo averaging 36/mo over the last 5 months. Of enrolled pts, 58% are male, 13% are Black, and 3% are LatinX; from 59 academic, 67 community (13% rural), and 2 VA sites. Comparatively, LungMAP S1800A (the phase II precursor to S2302) accrued 7% Black and 1.5% LatinX pts with an average accrual of 9.2 pts/mo. Through November, the external firm contacted 24 site PIs (63% community-based), whose sites had collectively enrolled 16 pts, for a normalized pre-call rate of 0.1340 pts/mo. After contact and through November, these sites enrolled 23 pts, a rate of 0.3835 pts/mo – a 186% increase. Conclusions: The intentional, multi-pronged recruitment plan has exceeded historical overall, Black, and LatinX patient accrual rates. The data highlight novel approaches to trial design, recruitment strategies, and increased internal and external collaboration resulting in improved diversity of clinical trial enrollment and may be a potential toolkit for future trials. Support: NIH/NCI grants U10CA180888 and U10CA180819; and in part by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and Eli Lilly and Company. Clinical trial information: NCT05633602 . [Table: see text]

e18529 Background: Improving diversity and representativeness in SWOG Cancer Research Network (SWOG) clinical trials is critical for addressing disparities in prevention, detection, treatment, supportive care, and mortality among patients with cancer diagnosis. Understanding the needs of underrepresented groups (URGs) and building relationships and trust between these populations and researchers can help overcome barriers to study recruitment. SWOG developed a formal organization structure to provide evidence-based guidance for increasing diverse representation in SWOG research. Methods: Funded through a grant from Genentech and the Hope Foundation, SWOG developed a methodology and field guide to improve representativeness in clinical trials. This methodology includes analyzing the current clinical trial portfolio, reviewing study sites and inclusion/exclusion criteria, refining protocol and accrual plans to be more inclusive, implementing changes, and sharing findings with study teams and communities. Five DEI Champions were selected to work with 5 research committees including Gastrointestinal, Lung, Breast, and Genitourinary Cancers and Multiple Myeloma to identify action plans. The Champions provided tools, evidence, and strategies to implement SWOG’s DEI methodology, provided countermeasures for studies not meeting prespecified enrollment benchmarks, and analyzed and reported participation across the SWOG clinical trial portfolio. Champions, study teams, and committees all implemented strategies and structure for research program modifications and policies. Results: Four of the 5 research committees showed significant improvements in infrastructure and implementation of DEI. Factors that improved DEI within SWOG research committees included a willingness of the committee to engage in DEI work; the infrastructure in place to support the implementation of DEI; the tumor sites being studied, and cross-committee collaborations on research protocols (Veterans, Patient Advocacy, Recruitment & Retention, and Palliative & Support Care). Conclusions: The DEI Champion role is an important strategy that engages cancer researchers and staff in DEI improvement activities and improves infrastructure and recruitment of URGs to clinical trials. Further research is needed to determine the impact of DEI champions on cancer clinical trial participation.

e13599 Background: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is recognized as fundamental in the development of generalizable clinical trials. Both ASCO and the FDA have released statements regarding the importance of representativeness in clinical trials. A paucity of research exists regarding the knowledge and beliefs of the people who lead the development of trials within the NCTN. Methods: An electronic survey on knowledge and beliefs regarding DEI was administered to SWOG leadership from 12.14.2021 to 01.13.2022. Questions were divided into 4 categories including: general beliefs regarding DEI, SWOG’s current status regarding DEI efforts, perception of SWOG’s values and readiness in executing DEI. Twenty questions were asked and answers were recorded using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: A total of 53% (N=47/88) respondents completed the survey (Table 1). The majority of SWOG leadership strongly agree that diversity is an asset (68%) and that they have a role to champion DEI (72%). Less than a quarter of SWOG leadership strongly agree that there are sufficient opportunities for committee members to provide DEI input across the clinical trial life cycle (21%). When evaluating SWOGs current role in DEI efforts, 64% of respondents had a neutral or negative response for each of the 4 questions. When evaluating respondents’ perception of SWOG values regarding DEI, 64% of respondents had a positive or very positive response on average for each of the 6 questions. When evaluating SWOG’s readiness to promote DEI, 57% of respondents had a positive or very positive response for each question. Some of the barriers experienced include technological issues with construction and delivery of the survey to protected email addresses as well as lack of dedicated staff at SWOG to assist. Conclusions: This survey provides insight into SWOG leader’s beliefs and knowledge regarding DEI as well as their perception of SWOG’s current efforts and ability to promote DEI in clinical trials. While respondents tended to value DEI positively personally and through SWOG, their perception of SWOG’s role in promoting DEI was neutral or negative. Perception of SWOGs readiness to promote DEI was positive to a lesser degree. These findings emphasize the importance of capturing baseline beliefs to promote DEI efforts with clinical trial leadership. [Table: see text]

Background American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend that patients >= 65 years of age starting chemotherapy undergo a geriatric assessment (GA) to inform and guide management; however, little is known about resources available in community oncology practices to implement these guidelines and to facilitate geriatric oncology research. Materials and Methods Oncology practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were electronically surveyed in 2017 regarding the availability of specialty providers, supportive services, and practice characteristics, as part of a larger survey of cancer care delivery research capacity. Results Of the 943 NCORP practices, 504 (54%) responded to the survey, representing 210 practice groups. The median new cancer cases per year >= 65 years of age was 457 (interquartile range 227-939). Of respondents, only 2.0% of practices had a fellowship-trained geriatric oncologist on staff. Geriatricians were available for consultation or comanagement at 37% of sites, and of those, only 13% had availability within the oncology clinic (5% of overall). Practice size of >= 1,000 new adult cancer cases (ages >= 18) per year was associated with higher odds (1.81, confidence interval 1.02-3.23) of geriatrician availability. Other multidisciplinary care professionals that could support GA were variably available onsite: social worker (84%), nurse navigator (81%), pharmacist (77%), dietician (71%), rehabilitative medicine (57%), psychologist (42%), and psychiatrist (37%). Conclusion Only a third of community oncology practices have access to a geriatrician within their group and only 5% of community sites have access within the oncology clinic. Use of primarily self-administered GA tools that direct referrals to available services may be an effective implementation strategy for guideline-based care. Implications for Practice Only a minority of community oncology practices in the U.S. have access to geriatric specialty care. Developing models of care that use patient-reported measures and/or other geriatric screening tools to assess and guide interventions in older adults, rather than geriatric consultations, are likely the most practical methods to improve the care of this vulnerable population.

Background Current clinical guidelines recommend that hormone receptor–positive breast cancer survivors take adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT) for 5 to 10 years, following the end of definitive treatment. However, fewer than half of patients adhere to the guidelines, and suboptimal adherence to AHT is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer mortality. Research has extensively documented sociodemographic and disease-specific factors associated with adherence to AHT, but very little evidence exists on behavioral factors (eg, knowledge, patient-provider communication) that can be modified and targeted by interventions. Objective The goal of this study is to develop and test a theory-based, multilevel intervention to improve adherence to AHT among breast cancer survivors from racially and socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds (eg, Medicaid-insured). The specific aims are to (1) explore multilevel (eg, patient, health care system) factors that influence adherence to AHT; (2) develop a theory-based, multilevel intervention to improve adherence to AHT; and (3) pilot test and evaluate the intervention developed in Aim 2. Methods For Aim 1, we will recruit breast cancer survivors and health care professionals to participate in semistructured interviews to gain their perspectives about barriers and facilitators to AHT use. We will conduct a directed content analysis of the Aim 1 qualitative interview data. For Aim 2, we will integrate Aim 1 findings and current literature into the design of a multilevel intervention using an Intervention Mapping approach. For Aim 3, we will recruit Medicaid-insured breast cancer survivors to assess the feasibility of the pilot intervention. Results From May 2016 to July 2018, we completed interviews with 19 breast cancer survivors and 23 health care professionals in South Carolina. We will conduct a directed content analysis of the qualitative interview data. Results from this analysis will be used, in combination with current literature, to design (Aim 2) and pilot test a theory-based multilevel intervention (Aim 3) in Summer 2021. Results of the pilot are expected for Fall 2021. Conclusions This study will provide a deeper understanding of how to improve adherence to AHT, using a novel and multilevel approach, among socioeconomically disadvantaged breast cancer survivors who often experience disproportionate breast cancer mortality. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/17742

6539 Background: American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend that patients ≥65 years of age starting chemotherapy undergo a geriatric assessment (GA) to inform and guide management; however, little is known about resources available in community oncology practices to facilitate geriatric specialty care and implement these guidelines. Methods: Community oncology practices were electronically surveyed in 2017 regarding the availability of various providers, supportive services, and practice characteristics, as part of a larger survey of cancer care delivery research (CCDR) capacity at NCORP sites. Designated CCDR leads provided information about their site. Descriptive statistics were used to report prevalence of resources available at each community practice. Results: Of the 925 NCORP practice locations, 504 (54%) responded to the survey, representing 227 practice groups. Of respondents, 58% included a free-standing clinic or private/group practice and 82% included inpatient services. The median number of new cancer cases per year ≥65 years of age was 443 (Interquartile range [IQR] 220-903). The median number of medical oncology providers was 5 (IQR 3-11). Only 1.8% of practices had a dual fellowship trained geriatric oncologist on staff. Geriatricians were available for consultation or co-management for 34% of sites, but only 13% of those had availability within the oncology clinic. Among those with access to geriatricians, consultations were primarily outpatient (90%) versus inpatient (54%). Ancillary services that could support GA were variably available onsite: social work (83%), nurse navigators (78%), pharmacist (77%), dietician (69%), supportive caregiver services (62%), rehabilitative medicine (57%), psychologist (41%), and psychiatrist (39%). Most sites utilized electronic health record systems (84%) and patient portals (89%). Conclusions: Availability of geriatric-trained providers is limited in community oncology practices. Use of primarily self-administered GA tools that direct referrals to available ancillary services may be an effective implementation strategy for guideline-based care.

African American prostate cancer survivors experience post-treatment decisional regret more often than European Americans, which can lead to negative long-term effects on quality of life. A prominent driver of health-related decision-making is emotion, yet little work has examined the impact emotions may have on decisional regret. The goal of this study was to explore experiences, perceptions, and emotions of prostate cancer survivors in relation to their diagnostic and treatment decision-making processes, prostate cancer treatment, and outcomes. Additionally, we sought to identify factors that might explain differences in prostate cancer outcomes between African and European Americans. Design This mixed-methods study utilized a convergent parallel design, in which quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously and then integrated to more robustly explain relationships between variables. Survivors were eligible for the study if they had been previously diagnosed with localized prostate cancer and were no more than six months post-treatment. The study was guided by the Risk as Feelings Model, which predicts the relationship between emotion and cognition in high-risk decision-making. Results No men experienced decisional regret following treatment, even if they experienced side effects. While all men reported being surprised about their prostate cancer diagnosis, strong negative emotions were more common among men under 65. Family support and spirituality appeared to mitigate negative emotions. Perceived authenticity of provider communication was the most influential mediator in men's decision-making and positive perceptions of their outcomes. Conclusions To mitigate the impact emotional responses have on decision-making and post-treatment regret, providers should explore alternate therapies (e.g. counseling for men diagnosed with prostate cancer at a young age) and include family members in prostate cancer treatment discussions. Most importantly, providers should be aware of the importance of quality communication on men's cognitive and emotional processes and their perceptions of treatment outcomes.

PURPOSE:Annual low-dose CT (LDCT) for lung screening in high-risk individuals decreases both lung cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. Community oncology practice networks constituting the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) conduct clinical trials across the cancer spectrum. The authors report access to and characteristics of LDCT screening for lung cancer in these community oncology practices.METHODS:A landscape capacity assessment was conducted in 2017 across the NCORP network. The primary outcome was the proportion of adult oncology practice groups offering LDCT lung screening on site. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of those screening services (1) with radiologist participation in service management and (2) offered at ACR Designated Lung Cancer Screening Centers.RESULTS:Fifty-two percent of components and subcomponents responded to at least some portion of the assessment, representing 217 practice groups. Analyzing the 211 adult oncology practice groups responding to the primary question, 73% offered lung screening services on site. Radiologists participated in managing 69% of these services. Forty-seven percent were offered in ACR Designated Lung Cancer Screening Centers. Minority and underserved practice groups were less likely to offer lung screening; however, this association dissipated when analyses focused on practices within the United States. Safety net and Critical Access Hospital designation increased the likelihood of screening availability.CONCLUSIONS:The majority of community oncology practice groups within the NCORP offered lung screening on site, although radiologist participation in service management and ACR Lung Cancer Screening Center designation, markers of service quality, were more variable.

114 Background: Despite national guidelines recommending early palliative care (EPC) for individuals newly-diagnosed with metastatic cancer, it is rarely available in rural community cancer centers serving underserved populations. We conducted the first implementation trial of EPC in rural cancer centers using the evidence-based ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends) model of early, concurrent oncology palliative care. Methods: Mixed methods case study of a 4-year American Cancer Society-funded 4-site, implementation trial using a virtual learning collaborative in AL and SC. Guided by the RE-AIM (Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance) framework, we gathered qualitative and quantitative data via monthly reports and yearly in-person site visits using: 1) a RE-AIM Self-Assessment Tool completed by site staff to measure reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance; 2) EPC General Organizational Index (GOI) to measure capacity for EPC services and implementation progress; and 3) field notes from site interviews and final reports. Results: Across the 4 sites, 62 patients (range: 4–31; mean: 15) and 46 caregivers (range: 2–22; mean: 12) participated. Baseline patient characteristics included: mean age of 58, 70% female, 17% Black or minority, 57% some college or college, 49% rural dwelling, and 57% non-gynecologic cancer. Sites enrolled at least 58% of the patients they planned to enroll (range: 58%–100%; average: 84%), of which 44% received 100% of ENABLE content and nearly 60% received two-thirds. Reasons for not completing all six sessions included death, unrecorded contacts, or lost to follow up. Longitudinal GOI scores indicated a trend of improved capacity for EPC services at three of the four sites. Qualitative data from site lead interviews revealed administrative (presence or lack of palliative ‘champions’), clinical (having adequate training), and economic (reimbursement) implementation barriers and facilitators. Conclusions: This pilot implementation study demonstrated feasibility and areas to enhance implementation in a larger comparative effectiveness trial to enhance scaling and spreading EPC in community practices.

Purpose: Patient navigation, support and guidance provided by trained culturally sensitive health care workers, has been promoted as a strategy to improve care quality and reduce cancer health disparities. Yet, the availability and extent of navigation in community oncology practices is unclear. The purpose of this analysis was to assess: 1) availability of navigation services across diverse community oncology practices and 2) characteristics of oncology practices that do and do not offer navigation. Methods: Community oncology practices were surveyed regarding availability of cancer navigation services, cancer types served, and presence of lay and nurse navigators, as part of a larger survey of cancer care delivery research (CCDR) capacity of NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) sites. CCDR leads at practices reported navigation data, along with other information about the site. Results: We collected data from 350 of 401 CCDR-designated NCORP oncology sites, representing 201 adult practices. The majority of the practices included a hospital-based outpatient clinic (73.6%) and were multi-specialty (76.6%). 15.9% were designated by NCORP as minority and underserved community sites and 14.4% self-identified as a safety net hospital. Navigation services were not available to cancer patients at 20.0% of practices; 45.2% of practices provided navigation to all patients and 34.8% provided it to some oncology patients. Larger practices were more likely to provide navigation to some or all patients (vs none); ORs for 5-9, 10-17, and 18+ providers (vs 1-4 providers), respectively, were 6.1, 8.9, and 3.3 (all p Conclusions: Navigation is available in some capacity in a majority of community oncology practices, but variation exists in cancer types covered and integration in the care continuum. Details regarding what specific navigation activities were provided and impact on cancer disparities are not known. Practices designated as serving a larger proportion of minority and underserved patients were more likely to provide navigation to all patients, if they offered it. The widespread availability of navigation in NCORP community sites provides opportunities for observational and intervention studies to assess the impact of navigation on cancer outcomes. Citation Format: Kathryn E. Weaver, Lucy Gansauer, Nicholas M. Pajewski, Kathleen Castro, Ruth Carlos, Irene Prabhu Das, Marvella E. Ford, Ann M. Geiger. Availability of Patient Navigation Services at NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) Community Sites. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Ninth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2016 Sep 25-28; Fort Lauderdale, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(2 Suppl):Abstract nr PR13.

ABSTRACT Objective: Despite national guidelines recommending early concurrent palliative care for individuals newly diagnosed with metastatic cancer, few community cancer centers, especially those in underserved rural areas do so. We are implementing an early concurrent palliative care model, ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends) in four, rural-serving community cancer centers. Our objective was to develop a “toolkit” to assist community cancer centers that wish to integrate early palliative care for patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer and their family caregivers. Method: Guided by the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness–Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework, we undertook an instrument-development process based on the literature, expert and site stakeholder review and feedback, and pilot testing during site visits. Results: We developed four instruments to measure ENABLE implementation: (1) the ENABLE RE-AIM Self-Assessment Tool to assess reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance; (2) the ENABLE General Organizational Index to assess institutional implementation; (3) an Implementation Costs Tool; and (4) an Oncology Clinicians' Perceptions of Early Concurrent Oncology Palliative Care survey. Significance of results: We developed four measures to determine early palliative care implementation. These measures have been pilot-tested, and will be integrated into a comprehensive “toolkit” to assist community cancer centers to measure implementation outcomes. We describe the lessons learned and recommend strategies for promoting long-term program sustainability.

BACKGROUND:Colorectal cancer (CRC) survival rates are increasing. Effective strategies to recruit CRC survivors to surveillance studies are needed. OBJECTIVE:We analyzed the barriers encountered while recruiting CRC survivors to a study assessing their surveillance care experiences. METHODS:The study included three phases: (I) focus groups/key informant interviews; (II) cognitive interviews; and (III) a statewide population-based telephone survey. PARTICIPANTS:In Phases I-II, clinic-based data and cancer center registries were used to identify CRC survivors who had received CRC resection within the past 18 months. In Phase III, survivors who had received CRC resection within the past two years were identified via a statewide, population-based cancer registry. RESULTS:In Phase I, 16 survivors participated in focus groups at two National Cancer Center-affiliated sites (response rate=29.6%). Eighteen additional survivors participated in individual interviews (response rate=50%). In Phase II, 11 survivors participated in cognitive interviews (response rate=81.8%). In Phase III, 150 survivors participated in the statewide survey (response rate=62.2%). CONCLUSIONS:Group-based/in-person recruitment efforts were unsuccessful due to scheduling barriers, lack of transportation, and remaining discomfort from previous resection surgery. Telephone-based data collection strategies produced higher response rates. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS:To enhance CRC surveillance research, future studies could incorporate CRC survivor-centered recruitment strategies.

Engaging partners in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of cancer education programs is critical for improving the health of our communities. A 2-year pilot education intervention on prostate cancer decision making and participation in medical research was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The partnership involving community members and clinical staff at a cancer center was used to develop recruitment strategies and plan for the implementation of the intervention with African-American middle-age and older men and female family members. We assessed partners’ perceptions of this community–academic–clinical research collaboration. In year 2, eight project advisory council members were selected among existing partners and year 1 participants to serve as a formal committee. Council members were required to participate in telephone and in person meetings and actively support recruitment/implementation efforts. At the conclusion of the project, 20 individuals (all clinical and community partners, including the eight advisory council members) were invited to complete a survey to assess their perceived impact of the collaboration on the community and provide suggestions for future collaborations. Most partners agreed that their organization benefitted from the collaboration and that various aspects of the advisory council process (e.g., both formal and informal communication) worked well. The most noted accomplishment of the partnership related to leveraging the collaboration to make men more knowledgeable about prostate cancer decision making. Suggested improvements for future collaborations included distributing more frequent updates regarding project successes. Evaluating partners’ perceptions of this collaboration provided important recommendations for future planning, implementation, and evaluation of community-based cancer education programs.

6512 Background: ASCO described minimum standards and exemplary attributes for CT sites to improve research quality (Zon et al JCO 2008, JOP 2011; Baer et al JOP 2010). Based on these attributes, the NCI Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed and piloted the CT AIM Tool to facilitate research program improvements through self-assessment and benchmarking. The tool identified 9 attributes (see Table) each with 3 progressive levels for research sites to “score” their program from less (Level 1) to more (Level 3) exemplary CT infrastructure (e.g. Level 1- only phase 3 treatment trials open vs. Level 3 – Phase 1/2/3, cancer control and prevention trials open). Methods: From 2011-13, 21 NCCCP sites self assessed their CT programs annually using the tool. Results: See Table. Conclusions: Statistically significant increases (p < 0.0001) occurred in Level 3 (more exemplary) infrastructure ratings from 2011 to 2013 across all 9 attribute categories assessed at the 21 sites. Statistically significant gains were seen in two attributes: CT Portfolio – increases in site early phase and cancer control trial implementation; CT Communication /Awareness - shifts observed from institutionally focused CT education to broader community outreach/engagement. The tool showed utility across the sites for promoting quality improvement, benchmarking research performance, progress reporting and providing metrics for communicating infrastructure needs. Use in research beyond oncology and outside the community setting is plausible. NCI Contract HHSN261200800001E. Attribute and year Level (1-3) and No. of sites (n=21) 1 2 3 CT communication/awareness* p 0.0281 2011 6 11 4 2012 2 10 9 2013 1 10 10 Accrual 2011 5 10 6 2012 4 6 11 2013 4 5 12 Education standards 2011 3 12 6 2012 3 7 11 2013 3 5 13 Multidisc. involvement 2011 2 8 11 2012 3 3 15 2013 2 4 15 Participation in CT process 2011 1 11 9 2012 2 6 13 2013 2 6 13 Physician CT engagement 2011 1 10 10 2012 1 5 15 2013 1 3 17 CT portfolio * p 0.0228 2011 1 12 8 2012 1 6 14 2013 1 3 17 QA 2011 4 11 6 2012 3 8 10 2013 3 4 14 Community outreach/underserved accrual 2011 8 6 7 2012 6 6 9 2013 4 7 10 Level 3 scores for ALL attribute categories from 2011 to 2013* p < 0.0001 67 107 121 * Significant p value for change over time.

Prostate cancer (PrCA) is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer among men. PrCA mortality in African-American (AA) men in South Carolina is ~50% higher than for AAs in the U.S as a whole. AA men also have low rates of participation in cancer research. This paper describes partnership development and recruitment efforts of a Community-Academic-Clinical research team for a PrCA education intervention with AA men and women that was designed to address the discordance between high rates of PrCA mortality and limited participation in cancer research. Guided by Vesey's framework on recruitment and retention of minority groups in research, recruitment strategies were selected and implemented following multiple brainstorming sessions with partners having established community relationships. Based on findings from these sessions culturally appropriate strategies are recommended for recruiting AA men and women for PrCA education research. Community-based research recruitment challenges and lessons learned are presented.