Race in a molecular tumor board compared to cancer registry population.

Authors

null

Jamie Randall

Inova Fairfax Hospital, Fairfax, VA

Jamie Randall, Hongkun Wang, Timothy Lewis Cannon, Arthur Winer, Raymond Couric Wadlow

Organizations

Inova Fairfax Hospital, Fairfax, VA, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, Inova Schar Cancer Institute, Fairfax, VA, Inova Dwight and Martha Schar Cancer Institute, Fairfax, VA, Inova, Fairfax, VA

Research Funding

No funding received
None.

Background: Disparities in cancer care due to race and ethnicity are prevalent in both the care patients receive and patient outcomes. The evaluation of next generation sequencing (NGS) results from patients with advanced cancer by a molecular tumor board (MTB) has become standard practice in many institutions for the identification of additional treatment options and targeted therapies. We sought to compare the racial distribution of patients evaluated by our MTB with our institutional cancer registry (CR). Methods: We tabulated the racial distribution of 560 MTB patients chosen for presentation in a bimonthly case conference based on physician request or clinical interest from more than 2,500 NGS reports of patients with advanced cancer from 2016 through 2020. Self-identified race from patients with stage 4 cancer within our institutional CR from the same time interval was compared to the MTB population from each year using the Chi-Squared test. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to analyze the relationship between race and MTB/CR after controlling for year. Race categories were defined as Asian, Black/African-American (AA), White/Caucasian, and other. Results: We identified 4,151 CR patients with stage 4 cancer from 2016 through 2020, 573 of whom identified as Black/AA (13.8%). Of the 560 MTB patients, 55 were Black/AA (9.8%). When controlling for year, Black/AA patients were less frequently included in the MTB compared to the CR (p = 0.0128). Conclusions: Black/AA patients with advanced cancer are under-represented in our MTB. Larger studies are warranted to examine underlying causes of this discrepancy including implicit bias, generalizability of this finding to other minorities and institutions, and potential remedies to ensure equitable access to state-of-the-art cancer care.

2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
MTB (n = 91)
CR (n = 827)
MTB (n = 139)
CR (n = 793)
MTB (n = 135)
CR (n = 776)
MTB (n = 123)
CR (n = 854)
MTB (n = 72)
CR (n = 901)
Asian
7 (7.69%)


96 (11.61%)
24 (17.27%)
92 (11.60%)
24 (17.78%)
87 (11.21%)
18 (14.63%)
120 (14.05)
5 (6.94%)
130 (14.43%)
Black or African American
11 (12.09%)
107 (12.94%)
15 (10.79%)
90 (11.35%)
13 (9.63%)
115 (14.82%)
10 (8.13%)
121 (14.17%)
6 (8.33%)
140 (15.547%)


White Caucasian
70 (76.92%)
562 (67.96%)
93 (66.91%)
531 (66.96%)
90 (66.67%)
522 (67.27%)
76 (61.79%)
558 (65.34%)
53 (73.61%)
557 (61.82%)
Other
3 (3.30%)
62 (7.50%)
7 (5.04%)
80 (10.09%)
8 (5.93%)
52 (6.70%)
19 (15.45%)
55 (6.44%)
8 (11.11%)
74 (8.21%)

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2022 ASCO Quality Care Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session A

Track

Cost, Value, and Policy,Health Care Access, Equity, and Disparities,Patient Experience

Sub Track

Access to Clinical Trials

Citation

J Clin Oncol 40, 2022 (suppl 28; abstr 103)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2022.40.28_suppl.103

Abstract #

103

Poster Bd #

D2

Abstract Disclosures