Anne Marie McCarthy1, Mirar Bristol2, Susan M Domchek2, Peter W Groeneveld2, Younji Kim2, U Nkiru Motanya2, Judy A Shea2, Katrina Armstrong2. 1. Anne Marie McCarthy, Mirar Bristol, Younji Kim, and Katrina Armstrong, Massachusetts General Hospital; Anne Marie McCarthy and Katrina Armstrong, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Susan M. Domchek, Peter W. Groeneveld, U. Nkiru Motanya, and Judy A. Shea, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA amccarthy8@partners.org. 2. Anne Marie McCarthy, Mirar Bristol, Younji Kim, and Katrina Armstrong, Massachusetts General Hospital; Anne Marie McCarthy and Katrina Armstrong, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Susan M. Domchek, Peter W. Groeneveld, U. Nkiru Motanya, and Judy A. Shea, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Racial disparities in BRCA1/2 testing have been documented, but causes of these disparities are poorly understood. The study objective was to investigate whether the distribution of black and white patients across cancer providers contributes to disparities in BRCA1/2 testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a population-based study of women in Pennsylvania and Florida who were 18 to 64 years old and diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2007 and 2009, linking cancer registry data, the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, and patient and physician surveys. The study included 3,016 women (69% white, 31% black), 808 medical oncologists, and 732 surgeons. RESULTS: Black women were less likely to undergo BRCA1/2 testing than white women (odds ratio [OR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.48; P < .001). This difference was attenuated but not eliminated by adjustment for mutation risk, clinical factors, sociodemographic characteristics, and attitudes about testing (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P < .001). The care of black and white women was highly segregated across surgeons and oncologists (index of dissimilarity 64.1 and 61.9, respectively), but adjusting for clustering within physician or physician characteristics did not change the size of the testing disparity. Black women were less likely to report that they had received physician recommendation for BRCA1/2 testing even after adjusting for mutation risk (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; P < .001). Adjusting for physician recommendation further attenuated the testing disparity (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.02; P = .06). CONCLUSION: Although black and white patients with breast cancer tend to see different surgeons and oncologists, this distribution does not contribute to disparities in BRCA1/2 testing. Instead, residual racial differences in testing after accounting for patient and physician characteristics are largely attributable to differences in physician recommendations. Efforts to address these disparities should focus on ensuring equity in testing recommendations.
PURPOSE: Racial disparities in BRCA1/2 testing have been documented, but causes of these disparities are poorly understood. The study objective was to investigate whether the distribution of black and white patients across cancer providers contributes to disparities in BRCA1/2 testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a population-based study of women in Pennsylvania and Florida who were 18 to 64 years old and diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2007 and 2009, linking cancer registry data, the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, and patient and physician surveys. The study included 3,016 women (69% white, 31% black), 808 medical oncologists, and 732 surgeons. RESULTS: Black women were less likely to undergo BRCA1/2 testing than white women (odds ratio [OR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.48; P < .001). This difference was attenuated but not eliminated by adjustment for mutation risk, clinical factors, sociodemographic characteristics, and attitudes about testing (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P < .001). The care of black and white women was highly segregated across surgeons and oncologists (index of dissimilarity 64.1 and 61.9, respectively), but adjusting for clustering within physician or physician characteristics did not change the size of the testing disparity. Black women were less likely to report that they had received physician recommendation for BRCA1/2 testing even after adjusting for mutation risk (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82; P < .001). Adjusting for physician recommendation further attenuated the testing disparity (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.02; P = .06). CONCLUSION: Although black and white patients with breast cancer tend to see different surgeons and oncologists, this distribution does not contribute to disparities in BRCA1/2 testing. Instead, residual racial differences in testing after accounting for patient and physician characteristics are largely attributable to differences in physician recommendations. Efforts to address these disparities should focus on ensuring equity in testing recommendations.
Authors: J M Eggington; K R Bowles; K Moyes; S Manley; L Esterling; S Sizemore; E Rosenthal; A Theisen; J Saam; C Arnell; D Pruss; J Bennett; L A Burbidge; B Roa; R J Wenstrup Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2013-12-20 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Windy Olaya; Pamela Esquivel; Jan H Wong; John W Morgan; Adam Freeberg; Sharmila Roy-Chowdhury; Sharon S Lum Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Allison W Kurian; Kevin C Ward; Nadia Howlader; Dennis Deapen; Ann S Hamilton; Angela Mariotto; Daniel Miller; Lynne S Penberthy; Steven J Katz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Erica M Bednar; Holly D Oakley; Charlotte C Sun; Catherine C Burke; Mark F Munsell; Shannon N Westin; Karen H Lu Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-06-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Anita Y Kinney; Rachel Howell; Rachel Ruckman; Jean A McDougall; Tawny W Boyce; Belinda Vicuña; Ji-Hyun Lee; Dolores D Guest; Randi Rycroft; Patricia A Valverde; Kristina M Gallegos; Angela Meisner; Charles L Wiggins; Antoinette Stroup; Lisa E Paddock; Scott T Walters Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Deborah Cragun; Anne Weidner; Courtney Lewis; Devon Bonner; Jongphil Kim; Susan T Vadaparampil; Tuya Pal Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Claire C Conley; Dana Ketcher; Maija Reblin; Monica L Kasting; Deborah Cragun; Jongphil Kim; Kimlin Tam Ashing; Cheryl L Knott; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Tuya Pal; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Pei-Jung Lin; Joanna Emerson; Jessica D Faul; Joshua T Cohen; Peter J Neumann; Howard M Fillit; Allan T Daly; Nikoletta Margaretos; Karen M Freund Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-04-13 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Kristen S Purrington; Ann G Schwartz; Julie J Ruterbusch; Mark A Manning; Mrudula Nair; Angela S Wenzlaff; Stephanie S Pandolfi; Michael S Simon; Jennifer Beebe-Dimmer Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-08-04 Impact factor: 6.860