Hala T Borno1, Anobel Y Odisho2, Christine M Gunn3, Magdalena Pankowska4, Jennifer R Rider5. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA. Electronic address: Hala.borno@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, CA; Center for Digital Health Innovation, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 3. Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston, MA; Department of Health Law, Boston University School of Public Health, Policy, and Management, Boston, MA. 4. Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston, MA. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study sought to examine whether germline genetic counseling and testing were employed differentially among men with prostate cancer by race and/or ethnicity and other social factors. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, all patients with prostate cancer listed as a visit diagnosis during the study period (April 2011 to August 2020) were identified from electronic health records. Patient characteristics were collected along with genetic counselor visits and germline genetic testing results in electronic health records. Multivariable analyses were performed with the primary outcome defined as the receipt of a genetic counseling visit and receipt of genetic testing. RESULTS: A total of 14,610 patients with a prostate cancer diagnosis code were identified. The majority of patients were White (72%), aged >=65 years (62.7%), English-speaking (95%), married (71.4%), and publicly insured (58.7%). A total of 667 patients completed an appointment with a genetic counselor. A total of 439 patients received germline genetic test result, of whom 403 (91.8%) had also completed an appointment with a genetic counselor. Patients that were 65 years or older (adjusted odds ratio 0.53, 95%CI 0.44-0.65) and non-English proficient (adjusted odds ratio 0.71, 95%CI 0.42-1.21) were less likely to receive genetic counseling. Receiving genetic counseling was the strongest independent predictor of receipt of genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study highlight that the role of social factors in contributing to disparities in genetic counseling and testing among men with prostate cancer. These results underscore the importance of developing novel strategies to tackle contributors of observed disparities including language, age, and insurance status.
INTRODUCTION: This study sought to examine whether germline genetic counseling and testing were employed differentially among men with prostate cancer by race and/or ethnicity and other social factors. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, all patients with prostate cancer listed as a visit diagnosis during the study period (April 2011 to August 2020) were identified from electronic health records. Patient characteristics were collected along with genetic counselor visits and germline genetic testing results in electronic health records. Multivariable analyses were performed with the primary outcome defined as the receipt of a genetic counseling visit and receipt of genetic testing. RESULTS: A total of 14,610 patients with a prostate cancer diagnosis code were identified. The majority of patients were White (72%), aged >=65 years (62.7%), English-speaking (95%), married (71.4%), and publicly insured (58.7%). A total of 667 patients completed an appointment with a genetic counselor. A total of 439 patients received germline genetic test result, of whom 403 (91.8%) had also completed an appointment with a genetic counselor. Patients that were 65 years or older (adjusted odds ratio 0.53, 95%CI 0.44-0.65) and non-English proficient (adjusted odds ratio 0.71, 95%CI 0.42-1.21) were less likely to receive genetic counseling. Receiving genetic counseling was the strongest independent predictor of receipt of genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study highlight that the role of social factors in contributing to disparities in genetic counseling and testing among men with prostate cancer. These results underscore the importance of developing novel strategies to tackle contributors of observed disparities including language, age, and insurance status.
Authors: Jennifer M Matro; Karen J Ruth; Yu-Ning Wong; Katen C McCully; Christina M Rybak; Neal J Meropol; Michael J Hall Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2014-05-06 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: K Viswanath; Nancy Breen; Helen Meissner; Richard P Moser; Bradford Hesse; Whitney Randolph Steele; William Rakowski Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2006
Authors: Daniel Hyuck-Min Kwon; Hala T Borno; Heather H Cheng; Alicia Yiran Zhou; Eric Jay Small Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Colin C Pritchard; Joaquin Mateo; Michael F Walsh; Navonil De Sarkar; Wassim Abida; Himisha Beltran; Andrea Garofalo; Roman Gulati; Suzanne Carreira; Rosalind Eeles; Olivier Elemento; Mark A Rubin; Dan Robinson; Robert Lonigro; Maha Hussain; Arul Chinnaiyan; Jake Vinson; Julie Filipenko; Levi Garraway; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Saud AlDubayan; G Celine Han; Mallory Beightol; Colm Morrissey; Belinda Nghiem; Heather H Cheng; Bruce Montgomery; Tom Walsh; Silvia Casadei; Michael Berger; Liying Zhang; Ahmet Zehir; Joseph Vijai; Howard I Scher; Charles Sawyers; Nikolaus Schultz; Philip W Kantoff; David Solit; Mark Robson; Eliezer M Van Allen; Kenneth Offit; Johann de Bono; Peter S Nelson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Shamini Selvarajah; Kasmintan A Schrader; Michael P Kolinsky; Ricardo A Rendon; Soufiane El Hallani; Neil E Fleshner; Sebastien J Hotte; Justin Lorentz; Karen Panabaker; Renée Perrier; Frédéric Pouliot; Alan Spatz; Stephen Yip; Kim N Chi Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-10 Impact factor: 2.052
Authors: Nikki A Martin; Joel E Tepper; Veda N Giri; Thomas E Stinchcombe; Heather H Cheng; Milind M Javle; Eric Q Konnick Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2021-10-06