5 Takeaways from Our Discussion on Triple Negative Breast Cancer Research and Reaching the Right Patients

As we recognize Juneteenth and reflect on the ongoing pursuit of equity, representation, and opportunity, it is also an important moment to consider where those principles intersect with healthcare and clinical research.

This week, PEP!IN hosted a special episode of Trial & Error: New Focus on Triple Negative Breast Cancer Research – Reaching the Right Patients. The conversation featured Dr. Cheryl Beal Anderson, Founder and CEO of ACE Regulatory Affairs Consulting; Dr. Melva Covington, Founder and Managing Director of AGAPE Strategic Solutions and Co-Founder of PEP!IN; and Stacey Bledsoe, Head of Clinical Patient Engagement and Inclusion at Gilead Sciences. Together, they explored the realities shaping Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) research and what it will take to improve representation, participation, and outcomes for the patients most affected.

Here are five key takeaways from the discussion.

1. Representation Is a Scientific Strategy

One of the most powerful themes from the conversation was the reminder that representation should not be treated as a recruitment initiative or a compliance exercise. When populations disproportionately impacted by disease are not adequately represented in clinical research, important questions remain unanswered. Representation is fundamental to understanding how therapies perform across the populations they are intended to serve.

2. Trust Must Be Built Before Enrollment Begins

Trust is not established through a recruitment campaign.

Meaningful participation requires sustained community engagement, transparent communication, trusted partnerships, and a willingness to listen long before a study launches. Building trust takes time, but it remains one of the most important factors influencing participation in research.

3. Patient Burden Influences Participation and Retention

Transportation challenges, time away from work, childcare responsibilities, travel requirements, and complex study procedures can create significant barriers for participants.

Reducing unnecessary burden is not simply a patient experience issue. It is a research quality issue that can directly impact enrollment, retention, and study outcomes.

4. The Evidence Must Reflect the Patients Most Affected

The discussion highlighted a difficult reality: Triple Negative Breast Cancer disproportionately impacts Black women, yet those most affected have historically been underrepresented in many areas of clinical research.

If we want to better understand disease burden, treatment effectiveness, and patient outcomes, the evidence base must reflect the populations carrying the greatest burden of disease.

5. Improving Representation Requires Shared Accountability

No single stakeholder can solve this challenge alone.

Sponsors, researchers, healthcare providers, advocacy organizations, community leaders, sites, and patients all play a role in creating a more inclusive research ecosystem. Progress requires collaboration across the entire clinical research community. One statement from the discussion captured the importance of this work:

"If the medicine is for us, then the evidence should include us."

As we continue to advance innovation in healthcare, we must also continue asking whether the evidence being generated reflects the people whose lives depend on it.

Watch the Discussion On Demand

The conversation does not end here.

Watch the full Trial & Error episode on demand to hear insights from our distinguished speakers and join us as we continue exploring the future of patient engagement, representation, and clinical research.

View it by clicking here.

The next Trial & Error discussion will continue this conversation by bringing forward the voices and lived experiences of women impacted by Triple Negative Breast Cancer.