American Association for Cancer Research
Browse
TABLE_1.xls (13.5 kB)

TABLE 1 from Real-world Trends, Rural-urban Differences, and Socioeconomic Disparities in Utilization of Narrow versus Broad Next-generation Sequencing Panels

Download (13.5 kB)
dataset
posted on 2024-02-05, 14:20 authored by Yiqing Zhao, Anastasios Dimou, Zachary C. Fogarty, Jun Jiang, Hongfang Liu, William B. Wong, Chen Wang

Demographic characteristics of patients

Funding

n/a

History

ARTICLE ABSTRACT

Advances in genetic technology have led to the increasing use of genomic panels in precision oncology practice, with panels ranging from a couple to hundreds of genes. However, the clinical utilization and utility of oncology genomic panels, especially among vulnerable populations, is unclear. We examined the association of panel size with socioeconomic status and clinical trial matching. We retrospectively identified 9,886 eligible adult subjects in the Mayo Clinic Health System who underwent genomic testing between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2020. Patient data were retrieved from structured and unstructured data sources of institutional collections, including cancer registries, clinical data warehouses, and clinical notes. Socioeconomic surrogates were approximated using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) corresponding to primary residence addresses. Logistic regression was performed to analyze relationships between ADI or rural/urban status and (i) use of genomic test by panel size; (ii) clinical trial matching status. Compared with patients from the most affluent areas, patients had a lower odds of receiving a panel test (vs. a single-gene test) if from areas of higher socioeconomic deprivation [OR (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71 (0.61–0.83), P < 0.01] or a rural area [OR (95% CI): 0.85 (0.76–0.96), P < 0.01]. Patients in areas of higher socioeconomic deprivation were less likely to be matched to clinical trials if receiving medium panel tests [(OR) (95% CI): 0.69 (0.49–0.97), P = 0.03]; however, there was no difference among patients receiving large panel tests (P > 0.05) and rural patients were almost 2x greater odds of being matched if receiving a large panel test [(OR) (95% CI): 1.76 (1.21–2.55), P < 0.01]. We identified socioeconomic and rurality disparities in the use of genomic tests and trial matching by panel size, which may have implications for equal access to targeted therapies. The lack of association between large panel tests and clinical trial matching by socioeconomic status, suggests a potential health equity impact, while removing barriers in access to large panels for rural patients may improve access to trials. However, further research is needed.

Usage metrics

    Cancer Research Communications

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC