Brigette A Davis1, Jenerius A Aminawung1,2, Maysa M Abu-Khalaf1,3, Suzanne B Evans1,3, Kevin Su1, Rajni Mehta4, Shi-Yi Wang1,5, Cary P Gross1,2. 1. Cancer Outcomes Public Policy Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 2. Section of General Internal Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 3. Smilow Cancer Hospital, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut 4. Yale Cancer Center Rapid Case Ascertainment Center, New Haven, Connecticut 5. Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
Abstract
Background: Racial disparities have been reported in breast cancer care, yet little is known about disparities in access to gene expression profiling (GEP) tests. Given the impact of GEP test results, such as those of Oncotype DX (ODx), on treatment decision-making for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer, it is particularly important to assess disparities in its use. Methods: We conducted a retrospective population-based study of 8,784 patients diagnosed with breast cancer in Connecticut during 2011 through 2013. We assessed the association between race, ethnicity, and ODx receipt among women with HR+ breast cancer for whom NCCN does and does not recommend ODx testing, using bivariate and multivariate logistic analyses. Results: We identified 5,294 women who met study inclusion criteria: 83.8% were white, 6.3% black, and 7.4% Hispanic. Overall, 50.9% (n=4,131) of women in the guideline-recommended group received ODx testing compared with 18.5% (n=1,163) in the nonrecommended group. More white women received the ODx test compared with black and Hispanic women in the recommended and nonrecommended groups (51.4% vs 44.6% and 47.7%; and 21.2% vs 9.0% and 9.7%, respectively). After adjusting for tumor and clinical characteristics, we observed significantly lower ODx use among black (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.88) and Hispanic women (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77) compared with white women in the recommended group and in the guideline-discordant group (blacks: OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.20-0.78, and Hispanics: OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85). Conclusions: In this population-based study, we identified racial disparities in ODx testing. Disparities in access to innovative cancer care technologies may further exacerbate existing disparities in breast cancer outcomes.
Background: Racial disparities have been reported in breast cancer care, yet little is known about disparities in access to gene expression profiling (GEP) tests. Given the impact of GEP test results, such as those of Oncotype DX (ODx), on treatment decision-making for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer, it is particularly important to assess disparities in its use. Methods: We conducted a retrospective population-based study of 8,784 patients diagnosed with breast cancer in Connecticut during 2011 through 2013. We assessed the association between race, ethnicity, and ODx receipt among women with HR+ breast cancer for whom NCCN does and does not recommend ODx testing, using bivariate and multivariate logistic analyses. Results: We identified 5,294 women who met study inclusion criteria: 83.8% were white, 6.3% black, and 7.4% Hispanic. Overall, 50.9% (n=4,131) of women in the guideline-recommended group received ODx testing compared with 18.5% (n=1,163) in the nonrecommended group. More white women received the ODx test compared with black and Hispanic women in the recommended and nonrecommended groups (51.4% vs 44.6% and 47.7%; and 21.2% vs 9.0% and 9.7%, respectively). After adjusting for tumor and clinical characteristics, we observed significantly lower ODx use among black (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.88) and Hispanic women (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77) compared with white women in the recommended group and in the guideline-discordant group (blacks: OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.20-0.78, and Hispanics: OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85). Conclusions: In this population-based study, we identified racial disparities in ODx testing. Disparities in access to innovative cancer care technologies may further exacerbate existing disparities in breast cancer outcomes.
Authors: Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Sophie E Mayer; Andrew F Olshan; Stephanie B Wheeler; Lisa A Carey; Chiu-Kit Tse; Mary Elizabeth Bell; Melissa A Troester Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andreana N Holowatyj; Michele L Cote; Julie J Ruterbusch; Kristina Ghanem; Ann G Schwartz; Fawn D Vigneau; David H Gorski; Kristen S Purrington Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C van Dooijeweert; I O Baas; I A G Deckers; S Siesling; P J van Diest; E van der Wall Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-01-30 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Nicholas Acuna; Jesse J Plascak; Jennifer Tsui; Antoinette M Stroup; Adana A M Llanos Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lindsay J Collin; Ming Yan; Renjian Jiang; Kevin C Ward; Brittany Crawford; Mylin A Torres; Keerthi Gogineni; Preeti D Subhedar; Samantha Puvanesarajah; Mia M Gaudet; Lauren E McCullough Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2019-09-26