Racial and socioeconomic disparities in NSCLC molecular diagnostics uptake.

Stephanie Tuminello,Wiley M Turner,Matthew Untalan,Tara Ivic-Pavlicic,Raja Flores,Emanuela Taioli
{"title":"Racial and socioeconomic disparities in NSCLC molecular diagnostics uptake.","authors":"Stephanie Tuminello,Wiley M Turner,Matthew Untalan,Tara Ivic-Pavlicic,Raja Flores,Emanuela Taioli","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djae225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nPrecision therapies, such as targeted and immunotherapies, have substantially changed the landscape of late-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Yet utilization of these therapies is disproportionate across strata defined by race and socioeconomic status (SES), possibly due to disparities in molecular diagnostic testing (or \"biomarker testing\"), which is a prerequisite to treatment.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nWe extracted a cohort of NSCLC patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data. The primary outcome was receipt of a molecular diagnostic test, based on claims data. The primary predictors were race and SES. Likelihood of receiving a molecular diagnostic test, and overall survival (OS), were investigated using logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for sex, age, residence, histology, marital status, and comorbidity.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nOf the 28,511 NSCLC patients, 11,209 (39.3%) received molecular diagnostic testing. Compared to White patients, fewer Black patients received a molecular diagnostic test (40.4% vs 27.9%; p < .001). After adjustment, Black patients (ORadj [odds ratio]: 0.64; 95% CI [confidence interval]: 0.58-0.71) and those living in areas with greater poverty (ORadj: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.80-0.89) had statistically significant decreased likelihood of molecular diagnostic testing. Patients who did receive testing had a statistically significant decreased risk of death (HRadj [hazards ratio]: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.72-0.76). These results held in the stratified analysis of stage IV NSCLC patients.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nDisparities exist in comprehensive molecular diagnostics, which is critical for clinical decision making. Addressing barriers to molecular testing could help close gaps in cancer care and improve patient outcomes.","PeriodicalId":501635,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Precision therapies, such as targeted and immunotherapies, have substantially changed the landscape of late-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Yet utilization of these therapies is disproportionate across strata defined by race and socioeconomic status (SES), possibly due to disparities in molecular diagnostic testing (or "biomarker testing"), which is a prerequisite to treatment. METHODS We extracted a cohort of NSCLC patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data. The primary outcome was receipt of a molecular diagnostic test, based on claims data. The primary predictors were race and SES. Likelihood of receiving a molecular diagnostic test, and overall survival (OS), were investigated using logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for sex, age, residence, histology, marital status, and comorbidity. RESULTS Of the 28,511 NSCLC patients, 11,209 (39.3%) received molecular diagnostic testing. Compared to White patients, fewer Black patients received a molecular diagnostic test (40.4% vs 27.9%; p < .001). After adjustment, Black patients (ORadj [odds ratio]: 0.64; 95% CI [confidence interval]: 0.58-0.71) and those living in areas with greater poverty (ORadj: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.80-0.89) had statistically significant decreased likelihood of molecular diagnostic testing. Patients who did receive testing had a statistically significant decreased risk of death (HRadj [hazards ratio]: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.72-0.76). These results held in the stratified analysis of stage IV NSCLC patients. CONCLUSION Disparities exist in comprehensive molecular diagnostics, which is critical for clinical decision making. Addressing barriers to molecular testing could help close gaps in cancer care and improve patient outcomes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非小细胞肺癌分子诊断使用率的种族和社会经济差异。
背景靶向疗法和免疫疗法等精准疗法大大改变了晚期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)的治疗现状。方法我们从监测、流行病学和最终结果(SEER)-医疗保险(Medicare)关联数据中提取了一组 NSCLC 患者。主要结果是根据理赔数据接受分子诊断检测。主要预测因素是种族和社会经济地位。结果 在 28,511 名 NSCLC 患者中,11,209 人(39.3%)接受了分子诊断检测。与白人患者相比,接受分子诊断检测的黑人患者较少(40.4% vs 27.9%; p < .001)。经调整后,黑人患者(ORadj[几率比]:0.64;95% CI[置信区间]:0.58-0.71)和生活在较贫困地区的患者(ORadj:0.85;95% CI:0.80-0.89)接受分子诊断检测的可能性在统计学上显著降低。接受检测的患者的死亡风险在统计学上显著降低(HRadj [危险比]:0.74;95% CI:0.72-0.76)。这些结果在对 IV 期 NSCLC 患者进行分层分析时也得到了证实。解决分子检测的障碍有助于缩小癌症治疗的差距并改善患者的预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Elevated risk of lung cancer among asian American females who have never smoked: an emerging cancer disparity First Cycle Toxicity and Survival in Patients with Rare Cancers Treated with Checkpoint Inhibitors The Association of Where Patients with Prostate Cancer Live and Receive Care on Racial Treatment Inequities Projected Outcomes of Reduced-Biopsy Management of Grade Group 1 Prostate Cancer: Implications for Relabeling Proinflammatory Dietary Pattern and Risk of Total and Subtypes of Breast Cancer Among U.S. Women
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1