Disparities in cancer genetics care by race/ethnicity among pan-cancer patients with pathogenic germline variants Journal Article


Authors: Liu, Y. L.; Maio, A.; Kemel, Y.; Salo-Mullen, E. E.; Sheehan, M.; Tejada, P. R.; Trottier, M.; Arnold, A. G.; Fleischut, M. H.; Latham, A.; Carlo, M. I.; Murciano-Goroff, Y. R.; Walsh, M. F.; Mandelker, D.; Mehta, N.; Bandlamudi, C.; Arora, K.; Zehir, A.; Berger, M. F.; Solit, D. B.; Aghajanian, C.; Diaz, L. A. Jr; Robson, M. E.; Brown, C. L.; Offit, K.; Hamilton, J. G.; Stadler, Z. K.
Article Title: Disparities in cancer genetics care by race/ethnicity among pan-cancer patients with pathogenic germline variants
Abstract: 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. © 2022 American Cancer Society.
Keywords: adult; controlled study; human cell; major clinical study; genetics; cancer risk; cancer patient; follow up; prospective study; neoplasm; neoplasms; germ cell; cancer therapy; germ cells; cancer genetics; germ line; risk reduction; genetic screening; funding; ethnicity; african american; patient referral; caucasian; genetic counseling; penetrance; hispanic; nonparametric test; confounding variable; inheritance; disparities; ancestry group; blacks; race/ethnicity; high throughput sequencing; cancer; humans; human; male; female; article; black person; ancestry; protein fingerprinting; hispanic or latino; genetic testing and counseling
Journal Title: Cancer
Volume: 128
Issue: 21
ISSN: 0008-543X
Publisher: Wiley Blackwell  
Date Published: 2022-11-01
Start Page: 3870
End Page: 3879
Language: English
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34434
PUBMED: 36041233
PROVIDER: scopus
PMCID: PMC10335605
DOI/URL:
Notes: Article -- Export Date: 1 November 2022 -- Source: Scopus
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. Kenneth Offit
    788 Offit
  2. Carol Brown
    167 Brown
  3. Mark E Robson
    676 Robson
  4. David Solit
    779 Solit
  5. Zsofia Kinga Stadler
    389 Stadler
  6. Ahmet Zehir
    343 Zehir
  7. Michael Forman Berger
    765 Berger
  8. Angela Arnold
    42 Arnold
  9. Yelena Kemel
    103 Kemel
  10. Maria Isabel Carlo
    162 Carlo
  11. Jada Gabrielle Hamilton
    111 Hamilton
  12. Margaret Rebecca Graham Sheehan
    45 Sheehan
  13. Michael Francis Walsh
    156 Walsh
  14. Diana Lauren Mandelker
    178 Mandelker
  15. Luis Alberto Diaz
    148 Diaz
  16. Ying Liu
    105 Liu
  17. Alicia Latham
    58 Latham
  18. Anna Maio
    35 Maio
  19. Nikita Navinchandra Mehta
    16 Mehta
  20. Prince Rainier Tejada
    8 Tejada
  21. Kanika Suresh Arora
    27 Arora