Racial Disparities in United States Clinical Trial Enrollment for Mycosis Fungoides and Sézary Syndrome

February 2026 | Volume 25 | Issue 2 | 9300 | Copyright © February 2026


Published online January 16, 2026

Richard Rookwood BSa*, Nicole Schiraldi BSa,b*, Janet Choi BSa, Sarah Romanelli BSa, Megan Darrell BAa, Rachel Santana Felipes BSa, Shaynie Segal BAa, David Ciocon MDa

aDivision of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY
bCollege of Medicine, Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, NY

*These authors contributed equally to this work.

Abstract
Background: Racial disparities in clinical trial enrollment can limit the generalizability of therapeutic data, which is particularly damaging for conditions that disproportionately impact minority patients, such as mycosis fungoides and Sézary syndrome.
Objective: To characterize the racial demographics of mycosis fungoides/Sezary syndrome (MF/SS) clinical trials and explore potential barriers to enrollment for Black patients in the United States (US).
Methods: We searched the terms "mycosis fungoides," "Sezary syndrome," "CTCL," and "Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma" on ClinicalTrials.gov. Interventional trials that were completed with results posted and had at least one site within the US were included. We assessed racial demographics, trial enrollment proportions relative to 2023 US Census data, geographic access, exclusion criteria, and race-based reporting practices.
Results: A total of 1483 participants across 27 trials were characterized, 154 (10.4%) of whom identified as Black. Compared to population data from the 2023 US Census, Black patients were significantly underrepresented (P<0.001) in MF/SS trials overall, overrepresented in Phase 1 trials (P=0.013), and underrepresented in Phase 3 trials (P<0.001). Most trial sites (69%) were in areas with moderate (12.6-49.9%) to high (≥50%) Black populations. There were no significant differences in exclusion criteria between low- and high-Black-enrolling trials. Of 36 trial-related publications identified, only 14 (39%) reported participant race.
Conclusions: The findings of this study reveal significant racial disparities in MF/SS clinical trial enrollment. Identifying these disparities and investigating barriers to enrollment ensures that MF/SS patients of all racial backgrounds are appropriately represented at each phase of the experimental process.

 

INTRODUCTION

Retrospective analyses of clinical trial research over the last two decades have revealed that minority enrollment is lacking across all medical specialties, and efforts to increase representation have historically been limited.1,2 Moreover, prior studies have suggested that Black patients are disproportionately over-enrolled in early-phase clinical trials assessing safety and underenrolled in later-phase trials that evaluate efficacy, limiting their access to potentially life-saving treatments and contributing to persistent disparities in clinical outcomes.2

A lack of equitable inclusion of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trial research is particularly relevant for conditions like mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS), where significant racial disparities exist in disease incidence, presentation, and outcome. According to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data from 2000 to 2018, the incidence ratios of MF and SS are higher in Black individuals compared to their White counterparts (6.50 and 4.92 vs 0.45 and 0.17, respectively).3 Black patients are also diagnosed at an earlier age and more advanced stage, experience greater total body surface area involvement, face a higher risk of secondary complications, and have significantly poorer survival outcomes, even after adjusting for disease characteristics, socioeconomic factors, and treatment modalities.4-8

Previous studies have sought to characterize racial and ethnic participation in CTCL clinical trial research, however they utilized median percentages across trials to evaluate representation, did not analyze potential barriers to enrollment, or excluded Phase 1 clinical trials from their analyses.9,10 The aim of our study was