Disparities in cancer genetics care by race/ethnicity among pan-cancer patients with pathogenic germline variants.
ancestry
cancer
disparities
genetic testing and counseling
race/ethnicity
Journal
Cancer
ISSN: 1097-0142
Titre abrégé: Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0374236
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2022
01 11 2022
Historique:
revised:
27
06
2022
received:
12
04
2022
accepted:
30
06
2022
pubmed:
31
8
2022
medline:
18
10
2022
entrez:
30
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Germline risk assessment is increasing as part of cancer care; however, disparities in subsequent genetic counseling are unknown. Pan-cancer patients were prospectively consented to tumor-normal sequencing via custom next generation sequencing panel (Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets) inclusive of germline analysis of ≥76 genes from January 2015 through December 2019 (97.5% research nonbillable) with protocol for genetics referral. Rates of pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PVs) and downstream counseling were compared across ancestry groups (mutually exclusive groups based on self-reported race/ethnicity and Ashkenazi Jewish [AJ] heritage) using nonparametric tests and multivariable logistic regression models. Among 15,775 patients (59.6%, non-Hispanic [NH]-White; 15.7%, AJ; 20.5%, non-White [6.9%, Asian; 6.8%, Black/African American (AA); 6.7%, Hispanic; 0.1%, Other], and 4.2%, unknown), 2663 (17%) had a PV. Non-White patients had a lower PV rate (n = 433, 13.4%) compared to NH-Whites (n = 1451, 15.4%) and AJ patients (n = 683, 27.6%), p < .01, with differences in mostly moderate and low/recessive/uncertain penetrance variants. Among 2239 patients with new PV, 1652 (73.8%) completed recommended genetic counseling. Non-White patients had lower rates of genetic counseling (67.7%) than NH-White (73.7%) and AJ patients (78.8%), p < .01, with lower rates occurring in Black/AA (63%) compared to NH-White patients, even after adjustment for confounders (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.97; p = .036). Non-White, particularly Black/AA and Asian, probands had a trend toward lower rates and numbers of at-risk family members being seen for counseling/genetic testing. Despite minimizing barriers to genetic testing, non-White patients were less likely to receive recommended cancer genetics follow-up, with potential implications for oncologic care, cancer risk reduction, and at-risk family members. Genetic testing is becoming an important part of cancer care, and we wanted to see if genetics care was different between individuals of different backgrounds. We studied 15,775 diverse patients with cancer who had genetic testing using a test called MSK-IMPACT that was covered by research funding. Clinically important genetic findings were high in all groups. However, Black patients were less likely to get recommended counseling compared to White patients. Even after removing many roadblocks, non-White and especially Black patients were less likely to get recommended genetics care, which may affect their cancer treatments and families.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Germline risk assessment is increasing as part of cancer care; however, disparities in subsequent genetic counseling are unknown.
METHODS
Pan-cancer patients were prospectively consented to tumor-normal sequencing via custom next generation sequencing panel (Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets) inclusive of germline analysis of ≥76 genes from January 2015 through December 2019 (97.5% research nonbillable) with protocol for genetics referral. Rates of pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PVs) and downstream counseling were compared across ancestry groups (mutually exclusive groups based on self-reported race/ethnicity and Ashkenazi Jewish [AJ] heritage) using nonparametric tests and multivariable logistic regression models.
RESULTS
Among 15,775 patients (59.6%, non-Hispanic [NH]-White; 15.7%, AJ; 20.5%, non-White [6.9%, Asian; 6.8%, Black/African American (AA); 6.7%, Hispanic; 0.1%, Other], and 4.2%, unknown), 2663 (17%) had a PV. Non-White patients had a lower PV rate (n = 433, 13.4%) compared to NH-Whites (n = 1451, 15.4%) and AJ patients (n = 683, 27.6%), p < .01, with differences in mostly moderate and low/recessive/uncertain penetrance variants. Among 2239 patients with new PV, 1652 (73.8%) completed recommended genetic counseling. Non-White patients had lower rates of genetic counseling (67.7%) than NH-White (73.7%) and AJ patients (78.8%), p < .01, with lower rates occurring in Black/AA (63%) compared to NH-White patients, even after adjustment for confounders (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.97; p = .036). Non-White, particularly Black/AA and Asian, probands had a trend toward lower rates and numbers of at-risk family members being seen for counseling/genetic testing.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite minimizing barriers to genetic testing, non-White patients were less likely to receive recommended cancer genetics follow-up, with potential implications for oncologic care, cancer risk reduction, and at-risk family members.
LAY SUMMARY
Genetic testing is becoming an important part of cancer care, and we wanted to see if genetics care was different between individuals of different backgrounds. We studied 15,775 diverse patients with cancer who had genetic testing using a test called MSK-IMPACT that was covered by research funding. Clinically important genetic findings were high in all groups. However, Black patients were less likely to get recommended counseling compared to White patients. Even after removing many roadblocks, non-White and especially Black patients were less likely to get recommended genetics care, which may affect their cancer treatments and families.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36041233
doi: 10.1002/cncr.34434
pmc: PMC10335605
mid: NIHMS1908800
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3870-3879Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA008748
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P50 CA221745
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR000457
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2022 American Cancer Society.
Références
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Dec 14;112(12):1213-1221
pubmed: 32427313
Am J Surg. 2009 Oct;198(4):562-5
pubmed: 19800469
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 24;8:CD012464
pubmed: 30141832
JAMA. 2005 Oct 19;294(15):1925-33
pubmed: 16234499
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jul 21;163(2):135-7
pubmed: 25961598
Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2018 Mar;178(1):68-74
pubmed: 29575517
J Am Med Womens Assoc (1972). 2001 Fall;56(4):133-6, 149-50
pubmed: 11759779
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Feb;22(1):72-8
pubmed: 19841585
J Clin Oncol. 2020 May 1;38(13):1398-1408
pubmed: 31922925
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Dec 1;3(12):1647-1653
pubmed: 28727877
Urol Oncol. 2021 Apr;39(4):233.e9-233.e14
pubmed: 33158741
J Clin Oncol. 2021 May 20;39(15):1631-1640
pubmed: 33560870
J Genet Couns. 2020 Apr;29(2):147-165
pubmed: 32144851
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2020 Aug;29(8):1131-1135
pubmed: 31794334
J Clin Oncol. 2006 May 10;24(14):2197-203
pubmed: 16682739
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016 Sep;13(9):581-8
pubmed: 27296296
BMC Med Genomics. 2017 May 19;10(1):33
pubmed: 28526081
JCO Oncol Pract. 2022 Apr;18(4):e462-e471
pubmed: 34652959
J Genet Couns. 2018 Feb;27(1):155-168
pubmed: 28791541
J Genet Couns. 2017 Oct;26(5):1090-1104
pubmed: 28289853
Cancer Cell. 2020 May 11;37(5):639-654.e6
pubmed: 32396860
Genet Med. 2009 Sep;11(9):655-62
pubmed: 19752639
J Genet Couns. 2020 Apr;29(2):166-181
pubmed: 32227553
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Dec 20;39(36):4020-4028
pubmed: 34662201
Breast J. 2009 Sep-Oct;15 Suppl 1:S56-62
pubmed: 19775331
Curr Breast Cancer Rep. 2020 Sep;12(3):125-131
pubmed: 33603954
Genet Med. 2015 Jan;17(1):70-87
pubmed: 25394175
J Clin Oncol. 2021 Aug 20;39(24):2698-2709
pubmed: 34133209
J Clin Oncol. 2020 May 1;38(13):1389-1397
pubmed: 31922918
Nat Genet. 2021 Nov;53(11):1577-1585
pubmed: 34741162
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Nov 29;16(23):
pubmed: 31795362
JAMA Oncol. 2021 Jul 01;7(7):1045-1050
pubmed: 34042955
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2019 Jan;39:e34-e44
pubmed: 31099680
Genet Med. 2015 May;17(5):405-24
pubmed: 25741868
BMC Public Health. 2017 May 25;17(1):503
pubmed: 28545429
JAMA. 2017 Sep 5;318(9):825-835
pubmed: 28873162
Cancer. 2014 May 15;120(10):1532-9
pubmed: 24863392
Contemp Clin Trials. 2021 Jul;106:106432
pubmed: 33984519
Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2013 Sep;17(9):647-8
pubmed: 24000888
Br J Cancer. 2021 Jan;124(2):315-332
pubmed: 32901135
CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 May;69(3):211-233
pubmed: 30762872
Genome Med. 2020 May 29;12(1):51
pubmed: 32471518
JAMA. 2005 Apr 13;293(14):1729-36
pubmed: 15827311
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014 Nov;11(11):632-4
pubmed: 25286975
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Oct 20;38(30):3468-3493
pubmed: 32790492
Methods Mol Biol. 2009;471:487-500
pubmed: 19109796
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Nov 1;4(11):e2132917
pubmed: 34735013
Cancer. 2021 Jul 15;127(14):2535-2544
pubmed: 33794036
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Dec 1;3(12):e2031640
pubmed: 33372974
Contemp Clin Trials. 2018 Oct;73:123-135
pubmed: 30236776
J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2019 Jun;6(3):570-583
pubmed: 30963508
J Genet Couns. 2021 Feb;30(1):98-109
pubmed: 33368789
J Community Genet. 2018 Jul;9(3):263-276
pubmed: 29197036
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Jan;36(1):35-42
pubmed: 32720237
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Oct 10;25(29):4635-41
pubmed: 17925560
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 Feb;20(2):353-361.e3
pubmed: 33359728
J Mol Diagn. 2015 May;17(3):251-64
pubmed: 25801821