Diversity in Medicine

The United States has often been described as a “melting pot,” defined as diverse cultures and ethnicities coming together to form the rich fabric of our nation. These days, it seems that our fabric is a bit frayed.

NY Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine

DEIB (diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging) is dawning as a significant conversation. Each and every one of us is unique by age, gender, culture/ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, geographical location, race, and sexual identity – to name just a few aspects of our identity. Keeping these differences in mind, it is evident that none of us fits a “one size fits all” mold.

Some of these differences, such as cross-cultural cuisine and holidays, are enjoyed and celebrated as wonderful opportunities to learn from others, embrace our distinctions, and have them beneficially contribute to our lives. Other differences, however, are not understood or embraced and are, in fact, belittled and stigmatized. Sexual identity falls into this category. It behooves us as a country to become more aware and educated about this category in our identities, in order to understand it, quell our unfounded fear, learn to support one another, and improve our collective mental health.

Recent reports have shown that exposing students and teachers to sexual identity diversity education has sparked some backlash from parents and communities alike. Those opposed are citing concerns over introducing children to LGBTQ+ information, either embedded in the school curriculum or made available in school library reading materials. “Children should remain innocent” seems to be the message. Perhaps parents prefer to discuss this topic privately, at home. Either way, teaching about diversity does not damage one’s innocence or deprive parents of private conversations. In fact, it educates children by improving their awareness, tolerance, and acceptance of others’ differences, and can serve as a catalyst to further parental conversation.

There are kids everywhere who are starting to develop and understand their identities. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for them to know that whichever way they identify is okay, that they are not ‘weird’ or ‘different,’ but that in fact we are all different? Wouldn’t it be great for them to be able to explore and discuss their identities and journeys openly, and not have to hide for fear of retribution or bullying?

It is important for these children to know that they are not alone, that they have options, and that they don’t need to contemplate suicide because they believe that their identity makes them not worthy of being in this world.

Talking more openly about LGBTQ+ is an educational opportunity to improve understanding, tolerance, and acceptance. Starting the conversation early on in life can empower our youth by planting the seed that people are not “one size fits all,” which is the element responsible for our being unique and human. Diversity can be woven into the rich fabric that defines our nation, rather than be a factor that unravels it.

April was National Diversity Awareness Month and we took time to celebrate our country’s cultural melting pot. By embracing our differences, we can show our children and ourselves how to better navigate diversity, which can help us all fit in.

Dr. Jarkon is a psychiatrist and director of the Center for Behavioral Health at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, N.Y.

The United States has often been described as a “melting pot,” defined as diverse cultures and ethnicities coming together to form the rich fabric of our nation. These days, it seems that our fabric is a bit frayed.

NY Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine

DEIB (diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging) is dawning as a significant conversation. Each and every one of us is unique by age, gender, culture/ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, geographical location, race, and sexual identity – to name just a few aspects of our identity. Keeping these differences in mind, it is evident that none of us fits a “one size fits all” mold.

Some of these differences, such as cross-cultural cuisine and holidays, are enjoyed and celebrated as wonderful opportunities to learn from others, embrace our distinctions, and have them beneficially contribute to our lives. Other differences, however, are not understood or embraced and are, in fact, belittled and stigmatized. Sexual identity falls into this category. It behooves us as a country to become more aware and educated about this category in our identities, in order to understand it, quell our unfounded fear, learn to support one another, and improve our collective mental health.

Recent reports have shown that exposing students and teachers to sexual identity diversity education has sparked some backlash from parents and communities alike. Those opposed are citing concerns over introducing children to LGBTQ+ information, either embedded in the school curriculum or made available in school library reading materials. “Children should remain innocent” seems to be the message. Perhaps parents prefer to discuss this topic privately, at home. Either way, teaching about diversity does not damage one’s innocence or deprive parents of private conversations. In fact, it educates children by improving their awareness, tolerance, and acceptance of others’ differences, and can serve as a catalyst to further parental conversation.

There are kids everywhere who are starting to develop and understand their identities. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for them to know that whichever way they identify is okay, that they are not ‘weird’ or ‘different,’ but that in fact we are all different? Wouldn’t it be great for them to be able to explore and discuss their identities and journeys openly, and not have to hide for fear of retribution or bullying?

It is important for these children to know that they are not alone, that they have options, and that they don’t need to contemplate suicide because they believe that their identity makes them not worthy of being in this world.

Talking more openly about LGBTQ+ is an educational opportunity to improve understanding, tolerance, and acceptance. Starting the conversation early on in life can empower our youth by planting the seed that people are not “one size fits all,” which is the element responsible for our being unique and human. Diversity can be woven into the rich fabric that defines our nation, rather than be a factor that unravels it.

April was National Diversity Awareness Month and we took time to celebrate our country’s cultural melting pot. By embracing our differences, we can show our children and ourselves how to better navigate diversity, which can help us all fit in.

Dr. Jarkon is a psychiatrist and director of the Center for Behavioral Health at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, N.Y.

The United States has often been described as a “melting pot,” defined as diverse cultures and ethnicities coming together to form the rich fabric of our nation. These days, it seems that our fabric is a bit frayed.

NY Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine

DEIB (diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging) is dawning as a significant conversation. Each and every one of us is unique by age, gender, culture/ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, geographical location, race, and sexual identity – to name just a few aspects of our identity. Keeping these differences in mind, it is evident that none of us fits a “one size fits all” mold.

Some of these differences, such as cross-cultural cuisine and holidays, are enjoyed and celebrated as wonderful opportunities to learn from others, embrace our distinctions, and have them beneficially contribute to our lives. Other differences, however, are not understood or embraced and are, in fact, belittled and stigmatized. Sexual identity falls into this category. It behooves us as a country to become more aware and educated about this category in our identities, in order to understand it, quell our unfounded fear, learn to support one another, and improve our collective mental health.

Recent reports have shown that exposing students and teachers to sexual identity diversity education has sparked some backlash from parents and communities alike. Those opposed are citing concerns over introducing children to LGBTQ+ information, either embedded in the school curriculum or made available in school library reading materials. “Children should remain innocent” seems to be the message. Perhaps parents prefer to discuss this topic privately, at home. Either way, teaching about diversity does not damage one’s innocence or deprive parents of private conversations. In fact, it educates children by improving their awareness, tolerance, and acceptance of others’ differences, and can serve as a catalyst to further parental conversation.

There are kids everywhere who are starting to develop and understand their identities. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for them to know that whichever way they identify is okay, that they are not ‘weird’ or ‘different,’ but that in fact we are all different? Wouldn’t it be great for them to be able to explore and discuss their identities and journeys openly, and not have to hide for fear of retribution or bullying?

It is important for these children to know that they are not alone, that they have options, and that they don’t need to contemplate suicide because they believe that their identity makes them not worthy of being in this world.

Talking more openly about LGBTQ+ is an educational opportunity to improve understanding, tolerance, and acceptance. Starting the conversation early on in life can empower our youth by planting the seed that people are not “one size fits all,” which is the element responsible for our being unique and human. Diversity can be woven into the rich fabric that defines our nation, rather than be a factor that unravels it.

April was National Diversity Awareness Month and we took time to celebrate our country’s cultural melting pot. By embracing our differences, we can show our children and ourselves how to better navigate diversity, which can help us all fit in.

Dr. Jarkon is a psychiatrist and director of the Center for Behavioral Health at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, N.Y.

While they’re much less likely to develop chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) than are White patients, African-American patients with this blood cancer are detected later and die sooner from the disease, a new study shows.

The findings, published in the American Journal of Hematology, hint that the racial disparity has shrunk over time, especially within the first few years of the targeted-therapy era. Still, “Black patients had a shorter median overall survival of 7 years compared to 9 years for White patients,” study coauthor Deborah Stephens, DO, of the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, said in an interview. “Clearly, more research is needed to tease out the biologic or economic barriers to achieving prolonged survival.”

As the researchers noted, CLL is far more common among White patients (5.1 cases per 100,000) than other races (Black patients: 3.2 cases per 100,000; Hispanic patients: 2.1 cases per 100,000; Asian American patients: 1.1 per 100,000). In total, non-White patients make up just 11%-13% of CLL cases in the United States.

According to Dr. Stephens, “little is known or published” about Black patients with CLL, “and it is still a mystery why fewer patients that are Black develop CLL and why this group would have shorter survival.”

Dr. Stephens and colleagues launched the new study – the largest of its kind to date – to understand disparities between White and Black patients over most of the past 20 years. The researchers especially wanted to analyze trends during the last decade, when targeted therapies revolutionized treatment of the disease.

The study authors analyzed data in the National Cancer Database for 97,804 patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 (90.7% White, 7.6% Black, 0.6% Asian, 1.1% other). Of patients who reported ethnicity (n = 93,555), 2.6% were Hispanic.

Black patients were more likely to have begun CLL therapy at diagnosis (35.9%) than were White patients (23.6%), a sign that Black patients had more advanced disease. Black patients also had shorter overall survival (7.0 years, 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7–7.3 years) vs. White patients (9.1 years, 95% CI, 9.0–9.3 years, P < .001).

“This finding could be due to underlying biologic differences in the pathology of CLL, when comparing patients across racial groups,” Dr. Stephens said. “Additionally, there could be differences in access to care. Notably, there are fewer racial minorities enrolled in clinical trials, and perhaps we are not individualizing therapy for unique biologic factors seen in CLL affecting racial minorities.”

Other factors also could be at play. Black patients were more likely than were White patients to have one or more comorbidities (27.9% vs. 21.3%, P < .001), lack insurance (6.6% vs. 2.1%, P < .001) and live in lower-income neighborhoods (47.7% vs. 13.1%, P < .001).

What explains the gap in outcomes? In an interview, study lead author Victoria Vardell, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that researchers often attribute worse medical outcomes in Black patients to economic and social disparities.

“However, when we adjusted for a number of surrogate markers of health care access, including income, comorbidities, and location, among others, this disparity remained. That indicates that this may be a more complex problem in CLL in particular. Certainly, we cannot adjust for all the socioeconomic strain placed on Black Americans, including those with CLL, but there may be molecular features related to ancestry or environmental exposures that also play a role,” Dr. Vardell said.

She added that “the high cost and difficulty obtaining many novel therapies, particularly in the clinical trial setting, places significantly higher burdens on already disadvantaged populations.”

There is some good news in the new report. “Promisingly, our data suggest that the survival disparity between White and Black patients with CLL may be improving, particularly within the last 5 years, though longer follow-up is needed to confirm significance,” the researchers reported.

Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, of M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who has studied racial disparities in CLL, praised the study in an interview. As she noted, it examines an impressively large population.

The explanations for the disparities are still elusive, she said, although it seems clear there are multiple factors at play. “We don’t know if the disease has the same characteristics in African-Americans as in Whites,” Dr. Ferrajoli said. However, she noted, there’s “no indication that the response to treatment is different according to race.”

Moving forward, she said, the study findings “reinforce the fact that we need to pay attention to this population and be quite attentive to their characteristics.”

No study funding was reported. The authors and Dr. Ferrajoli have no disclosures.

While they’re much less likely to develop chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) than are White patients, African-American patients with this blood cancer are detected later and die sooner from the disease, a new study shows.

The findings, published in the American Journal of Hematology, hint that the racial disparity has shrunk over time, especially within the first few years of the targeted-therapy era. Still, “Black patients had a shorter median overall survival of 7 years compared to 9 years for White patients,” study coauthor Deborah Stephens, DO, of the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, said in an interview. “Clearly, more research is needed to tease out the biologic or economic barriers to achieving prolonged survival.”

As the researchers noted, CLL is far more common among White patients (5.1 cases per 100,000) than other races (Black patients: 3.2 cases per 100,000; Hispanic patients: 2.1 cases per 100,000; Asian American patients: 1.1 per 100,000). In total, non-White patients make up just 11%-13% of CLL cases in the United States.

According to Dr. Stephens, “little is known or published” about Black patients with CLL, “and it is still a mystery why fewer patients that are Black develop CLL and why this group would have shorter survival.”

Dr. Stephens and colleagues launched the new study – the largest of its kind to date – to understand disparities between White and Black patients over most of the past 20 years. The researchers especially wanted to analyze trends during the last decade, when targeted therapies revolutionized treatment of the disease.

The study authors analyzed data in the National Cancer Database for 97,804 patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 (90.7% White, 7.6% Black, 0.6% Asian, 1.1% other). Of patients who reported ethnicity (n = 93,555), 2.6% were Hispanic.

Black patients were more likely to have begun CLL therapy at diagnosis (35.9%) than were White patients (23.6%), a sign that Black patients had more advanced disease. Black patients also had shorter overall survival (7.0 years, 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7–7.3 years) vs. White patients (9.1 years, 95% CI, 9.0–9.3 years, P < .001).

“This finding could be due to underlying biologic differences in the pathology of CLL, when comparing patients across racial groups,” Dr. Stephens said. “Additionally, there could be differences in access to care. Notably, there are fewer racial minorities enrolled in clinical trials, and perhaps we are not individualizing therapy for unique biologic factors seen in CLL affecting racial minorities.”

Other factors also could be at play. Black patients were more likely than were White patients to have one or more comorbidities (27.9% vs. 21.3%, P < .001), lack insurance (6.6% vs. 2.1%, P < .001) and live in lower-income neighborhoods (47.7% vs. 13.1%, P < .001).

What explains the gap in outcomes? In an interview, study lead author Victoria Vardell, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that researchers often attribute worse medical outcomes in Black patients to economic and social disparities.

“However, when we adjusted for a number of surrogate markers of health care access, including income, comorbidities, and location, among others, this disparity remained. That indicates that this may be a more complex problem in CLL in particular. Certainly, we cannot adjust for all the socioeconomic strain placed on Black Americans, including those with CLL, but there may be molecular features related to ancestry or environmental exposures that also play a role,” Dr. Vardell said.

She added that “the high cost and difficulty obtaining many novel therapies, particularly in the clinical trial setting, places significantly higher burdens on already disadvantaged populations.”

There is some good news in the new report. “Promisingly, our data suggest that the survival disparity between White and Black patients with CLL may be improving, particularly within the last 5 years, though longer follow-up is needed to confirm significance,” the researchers reported.

Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, of M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who has studied racial disparities in CLL, praised the study in an interview. As she noted, it examines an impressively large population.

The explanations for the disparities are still elusive, she said, although it seems clear there are multiple factors at play. “We don’t know if the disease has the same characteristics in African-Americans as in Whites,” Dr. Ferrajoli said. However, she noted, there’s “no indication that the response to treatment is different according to race.”

Moving forward, she said, the study findings “reinforce the fact that we need to pay attention to this population and be quite attentive to their characteristics.”

No study funding was reported. The authors and Dr. Ferrajoli have no disclosures.

While they’re much less likely to develop chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) than are White patients, African-American patients with this blood cancer are detected later and die sooner from the disease, a new study shows.

The findings, published in the American Journal of Hematology, hint that the racial disparity has shrunk over time, especially within the first few years of the targeted-therapy era. Still, “Black patients had a shorter median overall survival of 7 years compared to 9 years for White patients,” study coauthor Deborah Stephens, DO, of the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute, said in an interview. “Clearly, more research is needed to tease out the biologic or economic barriers to achieving prolonged survival.”

As the researchers noted, CLL is far more common among White patients (5.1 cases per 100,000) than other races (Black patients: 3.2 cases per 100,000; Hispanic patients: 2.1 cases per 100,000; Asian American patients: 1.1 per 100,000). In total, non-White patients make up just 11%-13% of CLL cases in the United States.

According to Dr. Stephens, “little is known or published” about Black patients with CLL, “and it is still a mystery why fewer patients that are Black develop CLL and why this group would have shorter survival.”

Dr. Stephens and colleagues launched the new study – the largest of its kind to date – to understand disparities between White and Black patients over most of the past 20 years. The researchers especially wanted to analyze trends during the last decade, when targeted therapies revolutionized treatment of the disease.

The study authors analyzed data in the National Cancer Database for 97,804 patients diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 (90.7% White, 7.6% Black, 0.6% Asian, 1.1% other). Of patients who reported ethnicity (n = 93,555), 2.6% were Hispanic.

Black patients were more likely to have begun CLL therapy at diagnosis (35.9%) than were White patients (23.6%), a sign that Black patients had more advanced disease. Black patients also had shorter overall survival (7.0 years, 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7–7.3 years) vs. White patients (9.1 years, 95% CI, 9.0–9.3 years, P < .001).

“This finding could be due to underlying biologic differences in the pathology of CLL, when comparing patients across racial groups,” Dr. Stephens said. “Additionally, there could be differences in access to care. Notably, there are fewer racial minorities enrolled in clinical trials, and perhaps we are not individualizing therapy for unique biologic factors seen in CLL affecting racial minorities.”

Other factors also could be at play. Black patients were more likely than were White patients to have one or more comorbidities (27.9% vs. 21.3%, P < .001), lack insurance (6.6% vs. 2.1%, P < .001) and live in lower-income neighborhoods (47.7% vs. 13.1%, P < .001).

What explains the gap in outcomes? In an interview, study lead author Victoria Vardell, MD, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that researchers often attribute worse medical outcomes in Black patients to economic and social disparities.

“However, when we adjusted for a number of surrogate markers of health care access, including income, comorbidities, and location, among others, this disparity remained. That indicates that this may be a more complex problem in CLL in particular. Certainly, we cannot adjust for all the socioeconomic strain placed on Black Americans, including those with CLL, but there may be molecular features related to ancestry or environmental exposures that also play a role,” Dr. Vardell said.

She added that “the high cost and difficulty obtaining many novel therapies, particularly in the clinical trial setting, places significantly higher burdens on already disadvantaged populations.”

There is some good news in the new report. “Promisingly, our data suggest that the survival disparity between White and Black patients with CLL may be improving, particularly within the last 5 years, though longer follow-up is needed to confirm significance,” the researchers reported.

Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, of M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who has studied racial disparities in CLL, praised the study in an interview. As she noted, it examines an impressively large population.

The explanations for the disparities are still elusive, she said, although it seems clear there are multiple factors at play. “We don’t know if the disease has the same characteristics in African-Americans as in Whites,” Dr. Ferrajoli said. However, she noted, there’s “no indication that the response to treatment is different according to race.”

Moving forward, she said, the study findings “reinforce the fact that we need to pay attention to this population and be quite attentive to their characteristics.”

No study funding was reported. The authors and Dr. Ferrajoli have no disclosures.

To the Editor:

Melanoma is an aggressive form of skin cancer with a high rate of metastasis and poor prognosis.¹ Historically, Hispanic and/or Latino patients have presented with more advanced-stage melanomas and have lower survival rates compared with non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients.² In this study, we evaluated recent data from the last decade to investigate if disparities in melanoma tumor stage at diagnosis and risk for metastases continue to exist in the Hispanic and/or Latino population.

We conducted a retrospective review of melanoma patients at 2 major medical centers in Los Angeles, California—Keck Medicine of USC and Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center—from January 2010 to January 2020. The data collected from electronic medical records included age at melanoma diagnosis, sex, race and ethnicity, insurance type, Breslow depth of lesion, presence of ulceration, and presence of lymph node or distant metastases. Melanoma tumor stage was determined using the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification. Patients who self-reported their ethnicity as not Hispanic and/or Latino were designated to this group regardless of their reported race. Those patients who reported their ethnicity as not Hispanic and/or Latino and reported their race as White were designated as non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White. This study was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Southern California (Los Angeles). Data analysis was performed using the Pearson χ² test, Fisher exact test, and Wilcoxon rank sum test. Statistical significance was determined at P<.05.

The final cohort of patients included 79 Hispanic and/or Latino patients and 402 non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients. The median age for the Hispanic and/or Latino group was 54 years and 64 years for the non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White group (P<.001). There was a greater percentage of females in the Hispanic and/or Latino group compared with the non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White group (53.2% vs 34.6%)(P=.002). Hispanic and/or Latino patients presented with more advanced tumor stage melanomas (T3: 15.2%; T4: 21.5%) compared with non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients (T3: 8.0%; T4: 10.7%)(P=.004). Furthermore, Hispanic and/or Latino patients had higher rates of lymph node metastases compared with non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients (20.3% vs 7.7% [P<.001]) and higher rates of distant metastases (12.7% vs 5.2% [P=.014])(Table 1). The majority of Hispanic and/or Latino patients had Medicaid (39.2%), while most non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients had a preferred provider organization insurance plan (37.3%) or Medicare (34.3%)(P<.001)(Table 2).

This retrospective study analyzing nearly 10 years of recent melanoma data found that disparities in melanoma diagnosis and treatment continue to exist among Hispanic and/or Latino patients. Compared to non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients, Hispanic and/or Latino patients were diagnosed with melanoma at a younger age and the proportion of females with melanoma was higher. Cormier et al² also reported that Hispanic patients were younger at melanoma diagnosis, and females represented a larger majority of patients in the Hispanic population compared with the White population. Hispanic and/or Latino patients in our study had more advanced melanoma tumor stage at diagnosis and a higher risk of lymph node and distant metastases, similar to findings reported by Koblinksi et al.³

Our retrospective cohort study demonstrated that the demographics of Hispanic and/or Latino patients with melanoma differ from non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients, specifically with a greater proportion of younger and female patients in the Hispanic and/or Latino population. We also found that Hispanic and/or Latino patients continue to experience worse melanoma outcomes compared with non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients. Further studies are needed to investigate the etiologies behind these health care disparities and potential interventions to address them. In addition, there needs to be increased awareness of the risk for melanoma in Hispanic and/or Latino patients among both health care providers and patients.

Limitations of this study included a smaller sample size of patients from one geographic region. The retrospective design of this study also increased the risk for selection bias, as some of the patients may have had incomplete records or were lost to follow-up. Therefore, the study cohort may not be representative of the general population. Additionally, patients’ skin types could not be determined using standardized tools such as the Fitzpatrick scale, thus we could not assess how patient skin type may have affected melanoma outcomes.

To the Editor:

Melanoma is an aggressive form of skin cancer with a high rate of metastasis and poor prognosis.¹ Historically, Hispanic and/or Latino patients have presented with more advanced-stage melanomas and have lower survival rates compared with non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients.² In this study, we evaluated recent data from the last decade to investigate if disparities in melanoma tumor stage at diagnosis and risk for metastases continue to exist in the Hispanic and/or Latino population.

We conducted a retrospective review of melanoma patients at 2 major medical centers in Los Angeles, California—Keck Medicine of USC and Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center—from January 2010 to January 2020. The data collected from electronic medical records included age at melanoma diagnosis, sex, race and ethnicity, insurance type, Breslow depth of lesion, presence of ulceration, and presence of lymph node or distant metastases. Melanoma tumor stage was determined using the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification. Patients who self-reported their ethnicity as not Hispanic and/or Latino were designated to this group regardless of their reported race. Those patients who reported their ethnicity as not Hispanic and/or Latino and reported their race as White were designated as non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White. This study was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Southern California (Los Angeles). Data analysis was performed using the Pearson χ² test, Fisher exact test, and Wilcoxon rank sum test. Statistical significance was determined at P<.05.

The final cohort of patients included 79 Hispanic and/or Latino patients and 402 non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients. The median age for the Hispanic and/or Latino group was 54 years and 64 years for the non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White group (P<.001). There was a greater percentage of females in the Hispanic and/or Latino group compared with the non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White group (53.2% vs 34.6%)(P=.002). Hispanic and/or Latino patients presented with more advanced tumor stage melanomas (T3: 15.2%; T4: 21.5%) compared with non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients (T3: 8.0%; T4: 10.7%)(P=.004). Furthermore, Hispanic and/or Latino patients had higher rates of lymph node metastases compared with non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients (20.3% vs 7.7% [P<.001]) and higher rates of distant metastases (12.7% vs 5.2% [P=.014])(Table 1). The majority of Hispanic and/or Latino patients had Medicaid (39.2%), while most non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients had a preferred provider organization insurance plan (37.3%) or Medicare (34.3%)(P<.001)(Table 2).

This retrospective study analyzing nearly 10 years of recent melanoma data found that disparities in melanoma diagnosis and treatment continue to exist among Hispanic and/or Latino patients. Compared to non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients, Hispanic and/or Latino patients were diagnosed with melanoma at a younger age and the proportion of females with melanoma was higher. Cormier et al² also reported that Hispanic patients were younger at melanoma diagnosis, and females represented a larger majority of patients in the Hispanic population compared with the White population. Hispanic and/or Latino patients in our study had more advanced melanoma tumor stage at diagnosis and a higher risk of lymph node and distant metastases, similar to findings reported by Koblinksi et al.³

Our retrospective cohort study demonstrated that the demographics of Hispanic and/or Latino patients with melanoma differ from non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients, specifically with a greater proportion of younger and female patients in the Hispanic and/or Latino population. We also found that Hispanic and/or Latino patients continue to experience worse melanoma outcomes compared with non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients. Further studies are needed to investigate the etiologies behind these health care disparities and potential interventions to address them. In addition, there needs to be increased awareness of the risk for melanoma in Hispanic and/or Latino patients among both health care providers and patients.

Limitations of this study included a smaller sample size of patients from one geographic region. The retrospective design of this study also increased the risk for selection bias, as some of the patients may have had incomplete records or were lost to follow-up. Therefore, the study cohort may not be representative of the general population. Additionally, patients’ skin types could not be determined using standardized tools such as the Fitzpatrick scale, thus we could not assess how patient skin type may have affected melanoma outcomes.

To the Editor:

Melanoma is an aggressive form of skin cancer with a high rate of metastasis and poor prognosis.¹ Historically, Hispanic and/or Latino patients have presented with more advanced-stage melanomas and have lower survival rates compared with non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients.² In this study, we evaluated recent data from the last decade to investigate if disparities in melanoma tumor stage at diagnosis and risk for metastases continue to exist in the Hispanic and/or Latino population.

We conducted a retrospective review of melanoma patients at 2 major medical centers in Los Angeles, California—Keck Medicine of USC and Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center—from January 2010 to January 2020. The data collected from electronic medical records included age at melanoma diagnosis, sex, race and ethnicity, insurance type, Breslow depth of lesion, presence of ulceration, and presence of lymph node or distant metastases. Melanoma tumor stage was determined using the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification. Patients who self-reported their ethnicity as not Hispanic and/or Latino were designated to this group regardless of their reported race. Those patients who reported their ethnicity as not Hispanic and/or Latino and reported their race as White were designated as non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White. This study was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Southern California (Los Angeles). Data analysis was performed using the Pearson χ² test, Fisher exact test, and Wilcoxon rank sum test. Statistical significance was determined at P<.05.

The final cohort of patients included 79 Hispanic and/or Latino patients and 402 non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients. The median age for the Hispanic and/or Latino group was 54 years and 64 years for the non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White group (P<.001). There was a greater percentage of females in the Hispanic and/or Latino group compared with the non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White group (53.2% vs 34.6%)(P=.002). Hispanic and/or Latino patients presented with more advanced tumor stage melanomas (T3: 15.2%; T4: 21.5%) compared with non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients (T3: 8.0%; T4: 10.7%)(P=.004). Furthermore, Hispanic and/or Latino patients had higher rates of lymph node metastases compared with non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients (20.3% vs 7.7% [P<.001]) and higher rates of distant metastases (12.7% vs 5.2% [P=.014])(Table 1). The majority of Hispanic and/or Latino patients had Medicaid (39.2%), while most non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients had a preferred provider organization insurance plan (37.3%) or Medicare (34.3%)(P<.001)(Table 2).

This retrospective study analyzing nearly 10 years of recent melanoma data found that disparities in melanoma diagnosis and treatment continue to exist among Hispanic and/or Latino patients. Compared to non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients, Hispanic and/or Latino patients were diagnosed with melanoma at a younger age and the proportion of females with melanoma was higher. Cormier et al² also reported that Hispanic patients were younger at melanoma diagnosis, and females represented a larger majority of patients in the Hispanic population compared with the White population. Hispanic and/or Latino patients in our study had more advanced melanoma tumor stage at diagnosis and a higher risk of lymph node and distant metastases, similar to findings reported by Koblinksi et al.³

Our retrospective cohort study demonstrated that the demographics of Hispanic and/or Latino patients with melanoma differ from non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients, specifically with a greater proportion of younger and female patients in the Hispanic and/or Latino population. We also found that Hispanic and/or Latino patients continue to experience worse melanoma outcomes compared with non-Hispanic and/or non-Latino White patients. Further studies are needed to investigate the etiologies behind these health care disparities and potential interventions to address them. In addition, there needs to be increased awareness of the risk for melanoma in Hispanic and/or Latino patients among both health care providers and patients.

Limitations of this study included a smaller sample size of patients from one geographic region. The retrospective design of this study also increased the risk for selection bias, as some of the patients may have had incomplete records or were lost to follow-up. Therefore, the study cohort may not be representative of the general population. Additionally, patients’ skin types could not be determined using standardized tools such as the Fitzpatrick scale, thus we could not assess how patient skin type may have affected melanoma outcomes.

Treating patients who are transgender or gender diverse (TGGD) requires an understanding of the social and psychological factors that have a unique impact on this population. As clinicians, it is our responsibility to understand the social, cultural, and political issues our patients face, both historically and currently. In this article, we provide information about the nature of gender and gender identity as separate from biological sex and informed by a person’s perception of self as male, female, nonbinary, or other variation.

Psychiatrists must be aware of how individuals who are TGGD have been perceived, classified, and treated by the medical profession, as this history is often a source of mistrust and a barrier to treatment for patients who need psychiatric care. This includes awareness of the “gatekeeping” role that persists in medical institutions today: applying strict eligibility criteria to determine the “fitness” of individuals who are transgender to pursue medical transition, as compared to the informed-consent model that is widely applied to other medical interventions. Our review of minority stress theory, as applicable to this patient population, provides a context and framework for empathic approaches to care for patients who are TGGD. Recognizing barriers to care and ways in which we can create a supportive environment for treatment will allow for tailored approaches that better fit the unique needs of this patient population.

The gender binary

In Western societies, gender has often been viewed as “binary,” oppositional, and directly correlated with physical sex or presumed anatomy.¹ The theory of gender essentialism insists that sex and gender are indistinguishable from one another and provide 2 “natural” and distinct categories: women and men. The “gender/sex” binary refers to the belief that individuals born with 2 X chromosomes will inherently develop into and fulfill the social roles of women, and those born with an X and a Y chromosome will develop into and fulfill the social roles of men.¹ In this context, “sex” refers to biological characteristics of individuals, including combinations of sex chromosomes, anatomy, and the development of sex characteristics during puberty. The term “gender” refers to the social, cultural, and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, both, or neither, and “gender identity” refers to one’s internal, individual sense of self and experience of gender (Figure 1²). Many Western cultures are now facing destabilization of the gender/sex binary in social, political, and interpersonal contexts.¹ This is perhaps most clearly seen in the battle for self-determination and protection by laws affecting individuals who are transgender as well as the determination of other groups to maintain traditional sex and gender roles, often through political action. Historically, individuals who are TGGD have been present in a variety of cultures. For example, most Native American cultures have revered other-gendered individuals, more recently referred to as “two-spirited.” Similarly, the Bugis people of South Sulawesi, Indonesia, recognize 5 genders that exist on a non­binary spectrum.³

Despite its prevalence in Western society, scientific evidence for the gender/sex binary is lacking. The gender similarities hypothesis states that males and females are similar in most, but not all, psychological variables and is supported by multiple meta-analyses examining psychological gender differences.⁴ In a 2005 review of 46 meta-analyses of gender-differences, studied through behavior analysis, effect sizes for gender differences were trivial or small in almost 75% of examined variables.⁵ Analyzing for internal consistency among studies showing large gender/sex differences, Joel et al⁶ found that, on measures of personality traits, attitudes, interests, and behaviors were rarely homogenous in the brains of males or females. In fact, <1% of study participants showed only masculine or feminine traits, whereas 55% showed a combination, or mosaic, of these traits.⁶ These findings were supported by further research in behavioral neuroendocrinology that demonstrated a lack of hormonal evidence for 2 distinct sexes. Both estrogen (the “female” hormone) and testosterone (the “male” hormone) are produced by both biological males and females. Further, levels of estradiol do not significantly differ between males and females, and, in fact, in nonpregnant females, estradiol levels are more similar to those of males than to those of pregnant females.¹ In the last decade, imaging studies of the human brain have shown that brain structure and connectivity in individuals who are transgender are more similar to those of their experienced gender than of their natal sex.⁷ In social analyses of intersex individuals (individuals born with ambiguous physical sex characteristics), surgical assignment into the binary gender system did not improve—and often worsened—feelings of isolation and shame.¹

The National Institutes of Health defines gender as “socially constructed and enacted roles and behaviors which occur in a historical and cultural context and vary across societies and time.”⁸ The World Health Organization (WHO) provides a similar definition, and the evidence to support this exists in social-role theory, social-identity theory, and the stereotype-content model. However, despite evidence disputing a gender/sex binary, this method of classifying individuals into a dyad persists in many areas of modern culture, from gender-specific physical spaces (bathrooms, classrooms, store brands), language (pronouns), and laws. This desire for categorization helps fulfill social and psychological needs of groups and individuals by providing group identities and giving structure to the complexity of modern-day life. Identity and group membership provide a sense of belonging, source of self-esteem, and avoidance of ambiguity. Binary gender stereo­types provide expectations that allow anticipation and prediction of our social environments.⁹ However, the harm of perpetuating the false gender/sex binary is well documented and includes social and economic penalties, extreme violence, and even death. The field of medicine has not been immune from practices that implicitly endorse the gender/sex connection, as seen in the erroneous use of gender in biomedical writings at the highest levels and evidenced in research examining “gender” differences in disease incidence.

Gender diversity as a pathology

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has been a source of pathologizing gender diversity since the 1960s, with the introduction of “transsexualism” in DSM-II¹⁰ and “gender identity disorder of childhood” in DSM-III.¹¹ These diagnoses were listed under the headings of “sexual deviations” and “psychosexual disorders” in the respective DSM editions. This illustrates how gender diversity was viewed as a mental illness/defect. As the DSM developed through various revisions, so have these diagnoses. DSM-IV used the diagnosis “gender identity disorder.”¹² Psychiatry has evolved away from this line of thinking by focusing on the distress from biological sex characteristics that are “incongruent” with an individual’s gender identity, leading to the development of the gender dysphoria diagnosis.¹³ While this has been a positive step in psychiatry’s efforts to de-pathologize individuals who are gender-diverse, it raises the question: should such diagnoses be included in the DSM at all?

The gender dysphoria diagnosis continues to be needed by many individuals who are TGGD in order to access gender-affirming health care services. Mental health professionals are placed in a gatekeeping role by the expectation that they provide letters of “support” to indicate an individual is of sound mind and consistent gender identity to have services covered by insurance providers. In this way, the insurance industry and the field of medicine continue to believe that individuals who are TGGD need psychiatric permission and/or counsel regarding their gender identity. This can place psychiatry in a role of controlling access to necessary care while also creating a possible distrust in our ability to provide care to patients who are gender-diverse. This is particularly problematic given the high rates of depression, anxiety, trauma, and substance use within these communities.¹⁴ In the WHO’s ICD-11, gender dysphoria was changed to gender incongruence and is contained in the category of “Conditions related to sexual health.”¹⁵ This indicates continued evolution of how medicine views individuals who are TGGD, and offers hope that psychiatry and the DSM will follow suit.

Continue to: Minority stress theory

Ilan Meyer’s minority stress theory explores how cultural and social factors impact mental health functioning (Figure 2¹⁶). Minority stress theory, which was originally developed for what at the time was described as the lesbian, gay, and bisexual communities, purports that the higher prevalence of mental health disorders among such individuals is likely due to social stigma, discrimination, and stressors associated with minority status. More recently, minority stress theory has been expanded to provide framework for individuals who are TGGD. Hendricks et al¹⁷ explain how distal, proximal, and resilience factors contribute to mental health outcomes among these individuals. Distal factors, such as gender-related discrimination, harassment, violence, and rejection, explain how systemic, cultural, and environmental events lead to overt stress. Proximal factors consist of an individual’s expectation and anticipation of negative and stressful events and the internalization of negative attitudes and prejudice (ie, internalized transphobia). Resilience factors consist of community connectedness and within-group identification and can help mediate the negative effects of distal and proximal factors.

As clinicians, understanding our patients’ experiences and expectations can help us better engage with them and create an environment of safety and healing. Minority stress theory framework suggests that patients may start treatment with distrust or suspicion in light of previous negative experiences. They may also be likely to expect clinicians to be judgmental or to lack understanding of them. The 2015 US Transgender Survey found that 33% of individuals who are TGGD who sought medical treatment in the past year had at least 1 negative experience related to their gender identity (Table 1¹⁸). Twenty-four percent reported having to educate their clinician about people who are TGGD, while 15% reported the health care professional asked invasive or unnecessary questions about their gender status that were unrelated to their visit. While psychiatry is often distinct from the larger medical field, it is important to understand the negative encounters individuals who are TGGD have likely experienced in medicine, and how those events may skew their feelings about psychiatric treatment. This is especially salient given the higher prevalence of various psychiatric disorders among individuals who are TGGD.¹⁸

According to the US Transgender Survey, 39% of participants were currently experiencing serious psychological distress, which is nearly 8 times the rate in the US population (5%).¹⁸ When extrapolated, this data indicates that we in psychiatry are likely to work with individuals who identify as TGGD, regardless of our expertise. Additionally, research indicates that having access to gender-affirming care—such as hormone replacement therapy, gender-affirming surgery, voice therapy, and other treatments—greatly improves mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and suicidality among individuals who are TGGD.^19,20 It is in this way we in psychiatry must do more than just care for our patients by becoming advocates for them to receive the care they need and deserve. While at times we may want to stay out of politics and other public discourse, it is becoming increasingly necessary as health care is entrenched in politics.

Clinical applicability

Because individuals who are TGGD experience higher rates of depression, anxiety, substance use, and other psychiatric disorders,¹⁴ it is increasingly likely that many clinicians will be presented with opportunities to treat such individuals. Despite high rates of psychiatric disorders, individuals who are TGGD often avoid treatment due to concerns about being pathologized, stereotyped, and/or encountering professionals who lack the knowledge to treat them as they are.²¹ Several studies recommend clinicians better equip themselves to appropriately provide services to individuals who are TGGD.²¹ Some advise seeking education to understand the unique needs of these patients and to help stay current with appropriate terminology and language (Table 2²²). This also implies not relying on patients to educate clinicians in understanding their specific needs and experiences.

Making assumptions about a patient’s identity is one of the most commonly reported issues by individuals who are TGGD. Therefore, it is critical to avoid making assumptions about patients based on binary stereotypes.^23,24 We can circumvent these mistakes by asking every patient for their name and pronouns, and introducing ourselves with our pronouns. This illustrates an openness and understanding of the importance of identity and language, and makes it common practice from the outset. Integrating the use of gender-neutral language into paperwork, intake forms, charting, and conversation will also help avoid the pitfalls of misgendering and making false assumptions. This will also allow for support staff, medical assistants, and others to use correct language with patients. Having a patient’s used name and pronouns visible for everyone who works with the patient is necessary to effectively meet the patient’s needs. Additionally, understanding that the range of experiences and needs for individuals who are TGGD is heterogeneous can help reduce assumptions and ensure we are asking for needed information. It is also important to ask for only relevant information needed to provide treatment.

Continue to: Resources are widely available...

Resources are widely available to aid in the care of individuals who are TGGD. In 2022, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health released new guidelines—Standards of Care 8—for working with individuals who are TGGD.²⁵ While these standards include a section dedicated to mental health, they also provide guidelines on education, assessments, specific demographic groups, hormone therapy, primary care, and sexual health. Additionally, while we may not want the role of gatekeeping for individuals to receive gender-affirming care, we work within a health care and insurance system that continues to require psychiatric assessment for such surgeries. In this role, we must do our part to educate ourselves in how to best provide these assessments and letters of support to help patients receive appropriate and life-saving care.

Finally, in order to provide a more comfortable and affirming space for individuals who are TGGD, develop ways to self-assess and monitor the policies, procedures, and language used within your practice, clinic, or institution. Monitoring the language used in charting to ensure consistency with the individual’s gender identity is important for our own understanding of the patient, and for patients to feel seen. This is especially true given patients’ access to medical records under the Cures Act. Moreover, it is essential to be cognizant of how you present clients to others in consultation or care coordination to ensure the patient is identified correctly and consistently by clinicians and staff.

Bottom Line

Understanding the social, cultural, and medical discrimination faced by patients who are transgender or gender diverse can make us better suited to engage and treat these individuals in an affirming and supportive way.

Related Resources

• World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care—8th edition. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644
• The Fenway Institute: National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center. https://fenwayhealth.org/the-fenway-institute/education/the-national-lgbtia-health-education-center/

Treating patients who are transgender or gender diverse (TGGD) requires an understanding of the social and psychological factors that have a unique impact on this population. As clinicians, it is our responsibility to understand the social, cultural, and political issues our patients face, both historically and currently. In this article, we provide information about the nature of gender and gender identity as separate from biological sex and informed by a person’s perception of self as male, female, nonbinary, or other variation.

Psychiatrists must be aware of how individuals who are TGGD have been perceived, classified, and treated by the medical profession, as this history is often a source of mistrust and a barrier to treatment for patients who need psychiatric care. This includes awareness of the “gatekeeping” role that persists in medical institutions today: applying strict eligibility criteria to determine the “fitness” of individuals who are transgender to pursue medical transition, as compared to the informed-consent model that is widely applied to other medical interventions. Our review of minority stress theory, as applicable to this patient population, provides a context and framework for empathic approaches to care for patients who are TGGD. Recognizing barriers to care and ways in which we can create a supportive environment for treatment will allow for tailored approaches that better fit the unique needs of this patient population.

The gender binary

In Western societies, gender has often been viewed as “binary,” oppositional, and directly correlated with physical sex or presumed anatomy.¹ The theory of gender essentialism insists that sex and gender are indistinguishable from one another and provide 2 “natural” and distinct categories: women and men. The “gender/sex” binary refers to the belief that individuals born with 2 X chromosomes will inherently develop into and fulfill the social roles of women, and those born with an X and a Y chromosome will develop into and fulfill the social roles of men.¹ In this context, “sex” refers to biological characteristics of individuals, including combinations of sex chromosomes, anatomy, and the development of sex characteristics during puberty. The term “gender” refers to the social, cultural, and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, both, or neither, and “gender identity” refers to one’s internal, individual sense of self and experience of gender (Figure 1²). Many Western cultures are now facing destabilization of the gender/sex binary in social, political, and interpersonal contexts.¹ This is perhaps most clearly seen in the battle for self-determination and protection by laws affecting individuals who are transgender as well as the determination of other groups to maintain traditional sex and gender roles, often through political action. Historically, individuals who are TGGD have been present in a variety of cultures. For example, most Native American cultures have revered other-gendered individuals, more recently referred to as “two-spirited.” Similarly, the Bugis people of South Sulawesi, Indonesia, recognize 5 genders that exist on a non­binary spectrum.³

Despite its prevalence in Western society, scientific evidence for the gender/sex binary is lacking. The gender similarities hypothesis states that males and females are similar in most, but not all, psychological variables and is supported by multiple meta-analyses examining psychological gender differences.⁴ In a 2005 review of 46 meta-analyses of gender-differences, studied through behavior analysis, effect sizes for gender differences were trivial or small in almost 75% of examined variables.⁵ Analyzing for internal consistency among studies showing large gender/sex differences, Joel et al⁶ found that, on measures of personality traits, attitudes, interests, and behaviors were rarely homogenous in the brains of males or females. In fact, <1% of study participants showed only masculine or feminine traits, whereas 55% showed a combination, or mosaic, of these traits.⁶ These findings were supported by further research in behavioral neuroendocrinology that demonstrated a lack of hormonal evidence for 2 distinct sexes. Both estrogen (the “female” hormone) and testosterone (the “male” hormone) are produced by both biological males and females. Further, levels of estradiol do not significantly differ between males and females, and, in fact, in nonpregnant females, estradiol levels are more similar to those of males than to those of pregnant females.¹ In the last decade, imaging studies of the human brain have shown that brain structure and connectivity in individuals who are transgender are more similar to those of their experienced gender than of their natal sex.⁷ In social analyses of intersex individuals (individuals born with ambiguous physical sex characteristics), surgical assignment into the binary gender system did not improve—and often worsened—feelings of isolation and shame.¹

The National Institutes of Health defines gender as “socially constructed and enacted roles and behaviors which occur in a historical and cultural context and vary across societies and time.”⁸ The World Health Organization (WHO) provides a similar definition, and the evidence to support this exists in social-role theory, social-identity theory, and the stereotype-content model. However, despite evidence disputing a gender/sex binary, this method of classifying individuals into a dyad persists in many areas of modern culture, from gender-specific physical spaces (bathrooms, classrooms, store brands), language (pronouns), and laws. This desire for categorization helps fulfill social and psychological needs of groups and individuals by providing group identities and giving structure to the complexity of modern-day life. Identity and group membership provide a sense of belonging, source of self-esteem, and avoidance of ambiguity. Binary gender stereo­types provide expectations that allow anticipation and prediction of our social environments.⁹ However, the harm of perpetuating the false gender/sex binary is well documented and includes social and economic penalties, extreme violence, and even death. The field of medicine has not been immune from practices that implicitly endorse the gender/sex connection, as seen in the erroneous use of gender in biomedical writings at the highest levels and evidenced in research examining “gender” differences in disease incidence.

Gender diversity as a pathology

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has been a source of pathologizing gender diversity since the 1960s, with the introduction of “transsexualism” in DSM-II¹⁰ and “gender identity disorder of childhood” in DSM-III.¹¹ These diagnoses were listed under the headings of “sexual deviations” and “psychosexual disorders” in the respective DSM editions. This illustrates how gender diversity was viewed as a mental illness/defect. As the DSM developed through various revisions, so have these diagnoses. DSM-IV used the diagnosis “gender identity disorder.”¹² Psychiatry has evolved away from this line of thinking by focusing on the distress from biological sex characteristics that are “incongruent” with an individual’s gender identity, leading to the development of the gender dysphoria diagnosis.¹³ While this has been a positive step in psychiatry’s efforts to de-pathologize individuals who are gender-diverse, it raises the question: should such diagnoses be included in the DSM at all?

The gender dysphoria diagnosis continues to be needed by many individuals who are TGGD in order to access gender-affirming health care services. Mental health professionals are placed in a gatekeeping role by the expectation that they provide letters of “support” to indicate an individual is of sound mind and consistent gender identity to have services covered by insurance providers. In this way, the insurance industry and the field of medicine continue to believe that individuals who are TGGD need psychiatric permission and/or counsel regarding their gender identity. This can place psychiatry in a role of controlling access to necessary care while also creating a possible distrust in our ability to provide care to patients who are gender-diverse. This is particularly problematic given the high rates of depression, anxiety, trauma, and substance use within these communities.¹⁴ In the WHO’s ICD-11, gender dysphoria was changed to gender incongruence and is contained in the category of “Conditions related to sexual health.”¹⁵ This indicates continued evolution of how medicine views individuals who are TGGD, and offers hope that psychiatry and the DSM will follow suit.

Continue to: Minority stress theory

Ilan Meyer’s minority stress theory explores how cultural and social factors impact mental health functioning (Figure 2¹⁶). Minority stress theory, which was originally developed for what at the time was described as the lesbian, gay, and bisexual communities, purports that the higher prevalence of mental health disorders among such individuals is likely due to social stigma, discrimination, and stressors associated with minority status. More recently, minority stress theory has been expanded to provide framework for individuals who are TGGD. Hendricks et al¹⁷ explain how distal, proximal, and resilience factors contribute to mental health outcomes among these individuals. Distal factors, such as gender-related discrimination, harassment, violence, and rejection, explain how systemic, cultural, and environmental events lead to overt stress. Proximal factors consist of an individual’s expectation and anticipation of negative and stressful events and the internalization of negative attitudes and prejudice (ie, internalized transphobia). Resilience factors consist of community connectedness and within-group identification and can help mediate the negative effects of distal and proximal factors.

As clinicians, understanding our patients’ experiences and expectations can help us better engage with them and create an environment of safety and healing. Minority stress theory framework suggests that patients may start treatment with distrust or suspicion in light of previous negative experiences. They may also be likely to expect clinicians to be judgmental or to lack understanding of them. The 2015 US Transgender Survey found that 33% of individuals who are TGGD who sought medical treatment in the past year had at least 1 negative experience related to their gender identity (Table 1¹⁸). Twenty-four percent reported having to educate their clinician about people who are TGGD, while 15% reported the health care professional asked invasive or unnecessary questions about their gender status that were unrelated to their visit. While psychiatry is often distinct from the larger medical field, it is important to understand the negative encounters individuals who are TGGD have likely experienced in medicine, and how those events may skew their feelings about psychiatric treatment. This is especially salient given the higher prevalence of various psychiatric disorders among individuals who are TGGD.¹⁸

According to the US Transgender Survey, 39% of participants were currently experiencing serious psychological distress, which is nearly 8 times the rate in the US population (5%).¹⁸ When extrapolated, this data indicates that we in psychiatry are likely to work with individuals who identify as TGGD, regardless of our expertise. Additionally, research indicates that having access to gender-affirming care—such as hormone replacement therapy, gender-affirming surgery, voice therapy, and other treatments—greatly improves mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and suicidality among individuals who are TGGD.^19,20 It is in this way we in psychiatry must do more than just care for our patients by becoming advocates for them to receive the care they need and deserve. While at times we may want to stay out of politics and other public discourse, it is becoming increasingly necessary as health care is entrenched in politics.

Clinical applicability

Because individuals who are TGGD experience higher rates of depression, anxiety, substance use, and other psychiatric disorders,¹⁴ it is increasingly likely that many clinicians will be presented with opportunities to treat such individuals. Despite high rates of psychiatric disorders, individuals who are TGGD often avoid treatment due to concerns about being pathologized, stereotyped, and/or encountering professionals who lack the knowledge to treat them as they are.²¹ Several studies recommend clinicians better equip themselves to appropriately provide services to individuals who are TGGD.²¹ Some advise seeking education to understand the unique needs of these patients and to help stay current with appropriate terminology and language (Table 2²²). This also implies not relying on patients to educate clinicians in understanding their specific needs and experiences.

Making assumptions about a patient’s identity is one of the most commonly reported issues by individuals who are TGGD. Therefore, it is critical to avoid making assumptions about patients based on binary stereotypes.^23,24 We can circumvent these mistakes by asking every patient for their name and pronouns, and introducing ourselves with our pronouns. This illustrates an openness and understanding of the importance of identity and language, and makes it common practice from the outset. Integrating the use of gender-neutral language into paperwork, intake forms, charting, and conversation will also help avoid the pitfalls of misgendering and making false assumptions. This will also allow for support staff, medical assistants, and others to use correct language with patients. Having a patient’s used name and pronouns visible for everyone who works with the patient is necessary to effectively meet the patient’s needs. Additionally, understanding that the range of experiences and needs for individuals who are TGGD is heterogeneous can help reduce assumptions and ensure we are asking for needed information. It is also important to ask for only relevant information needed to provide treatment.

Continue to: Resources are widely available...

Resources are widely available to aid in the care of individuals who are TGGD. In 2022, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health released new guidelines—Standards of Care 8—for working with individuals who are TGGD.²⁵ While these standards include a section dedicated to mental health, they also provide guidelines on education, assessments, specific demographic groups, hormone therapy, primary care, and sexual health. Additionally, while we may not want the role of gatekeeping for individuals to receive gender-affirming care, we work within a health care and insurance system that continues to require psychiatric assessment for such surgeries. In this role, we must do our part to educate ourselves in how to best provide these assessments and letters of support to help patients receive appropriate and life-saving care.

Finally, in order to provide a more comfortable and affirming space for individuals who are TGGD, develop ways to self-assess and monitor the policies, procedures, and language used within your practice, clinic, or institution. Monitoring the language used in charting to ensure consistency with the individual’s gender identity is important for our own understanding of the patient, and for patients to feel seen. This is especially true given patients’ access to medical records under the Cures Act. Moreover, it is essential to be cognizant of how you present clients to others in consultation or care coordination to ensure the patient is identified correctly and consistently by clinicians and staff.

Bottom Line

Understanding the social, cultural, and medical discrimination faced by patients who are transgender or gender diverse can make us better suited to engage and treat these individuals in an affirming and supportive way.

Related Resources

• World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care—8th edition. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644
• The Fenway Institute: National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center. https://fenwayhealth.org/the-fenway-institute/education/the-national-lgbtia-health-education-center/

Treating patients who are transgender or gender diverse (TGGD) requires an understanding of the social and psychological factors that have a unique impact on this population. As clinicians, it is our responsibility to understand the social, cultural, and political issues our patients face, both historically and currently. In this article, we provide information about the nature of gender and gender identity as separate from biological sex and informed by a person’s perception of self as male, female, nonbinary, or other variation.

Psychiatrists must be aware of how individuals who are TGGD have been perceived, classified, and treated by the medical profession, as this history is often a source of mistrust and a barrier to treatment for patients who need psychiatric care. This includes awareness of the “gatekeeping” role that persists in medical institutions today: applying strict eligibility criteria to determine the “fitness” of individuals who are transgender to pursue medical transition, as compared to the informed-consent model that is widely applied to other medical interventions. Our review of minority stress theory, as applicable to this patient population, provides a context and framework for empathic approaches to care for patients who are TGGD. Recognizing barriers to care and ways in which we can create a supportive environment for treatment will allow for tailored approaches that better fit the unique needs of this patient population.

The gender binary

In Western societies, gender has often been viewed as “binary,” oppositional, and directly correlated with physical sex or presumed anatomy.¹ The theory of gender essentialism insists that sex and gender are indistinguishable from one another and provide 2 “natural” and distinct categories: women and men. The “gender/sex” binary refers to the belief that individuals born with 2 X chromosomes will inherently develop into and fulfill the social roles of women, and those born with an X and a Y chromosome will develop into and fulfill the social roles of men.¹ In this context, “sex” refers to biological characteristics of individuals, including combinations of sex chromosomes, anatomy, and the development of sex characteristics during puberty. The term “gender” refers to the social, cultural, and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, both, or neither, and “gender identity” refers to one’s internal, individual sense of self and experience of gender (Figure 1²). Many Western cultures are now facing destabilization of the gender/sex binary in social, political, and interpersonal contexts.¹ This is perhaps most clearly seen in the battle for self-determination and protection by laws affecting individuals who are transgender as well as the determination of other groups to maintain traditional sex and gender roles, often through political action. Historically, individuals who are TGGD have been present in a variety of cultures. For example, most Native American cultures have revered other-gendered individuals, more recently referred to as “two-spirited.” Similarly, the Bugis people of South Sulawesi, Indonesia, recognize 5 genders that exist on a non­binary spectrum.³

Despite its prevalence in Western society, scientific evidence for the gender/sex binary is lacking. The gender similarities hypothesis states that males and females are similar in most, but not all, psychological variables and is supported by multiple meta-analyses examining psychological gender differences.⁴ In a 2005 review of 46 meta-analyses of gender-differences, studied through behavior analysis, effect sizes for gender differences were trivial or small in almost 75% of examined variables.⁵ Analyzing for internal consistency among studies showing large gender/sex differences, Joel et al⁶ found that, on measures of personality traits, attitudes, interests, and behaviors were rarely homogenous in the brains of males or females. In fact, <1% of study participants showed only masculine or feminine traits, whereas 55% showed a combination, or mosaic, of these traits.⁶ These findings were supported by further research in behavioral neuroendocrinology that demonstrated a lack of hormonal evidence for 2 distinct sexes. Both estrogen (the “female” hormone) and testosterone (the “male” hormone) are produced by both biological males and females. Further, levels of estradiol do not significantly differ between males and females, and, in fact, in nonpregnant females, estradiol levels are more similar to those of males than to those of pregnant females.¹ In the last decade, imaging studies of the human brain have shown that brain structure and connectivity in individuals who are transgender are more similar to those of their experienced gender than of their natal sex.⁷ In social analyses of intersex individuals (individuals born with ambiguous physical sex characteristics), surgical assignment into the binary gender system did not improve—and often worsened—feelings of isolation and shame.¹

The National Institutes of Health defines gender as “socially constructed and enacted roles and behaviors which occur in a historical and cultural context and vary across societies and time.”⁸ The World Health Organization (WHO) provides a similar definition, and the evidence to support this exists in social-role theory, social-identity theory, and the stereotype-content model. However, despite evidence disputing a gender/sex binary, this method of classifying individuals into a dyad persists in many areas of modern culture, from gender-specific physical spaces (bathrooms, classrooms, store brands), language (pronouns), and laws. This desire for categorization helps fulfill social and psychological needs of groups and individuals by providing group identities and giving structure to the complexity of modern-day life. Identity and group membership provide a sense of belonging, source of self-esteem, and avoidance of ambiguity. Binary gender stereo­types provide expectations that allow anticipation and prediction of our social environments.⁹ However, the harm of perpetuating the false gender/sex binary is well documented and includes social and economic penalties, extreme violence, and even death. The field of medicine has not been immune from practices that implicitly endorse the gender/sex connection, as seen in the erroneous use of gender in biomedical writings at the highest levels and evidenced in research examining “gender” differences in disease incidence.

Gender diversity as a pathology

The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has been a source of pathologizing gender diversity since the 1960s, with the introduction of “transsexualism” in DSM-II¹⁰ and “gender identity disorder of childhood” in DSM-III.¹¹ These diagnoses were listed under the headings of “sexual deviations” and “psychosexual disorders” in the respective DSM editions. This illustrates how gender diversity was viewed as a mental illness/defect. As the DSM developed through various revisions, so have these diagnoses. DSM-IV used the diagnosis “gender identity disorder.”¹² Psychiatry has evolved away from this line of thinking by focusing on the distress from biological sex characteristics that are “incongruent” with an individual’s gender identity, leading to the development of the gender dysphoria diagnosis.¹³ While this has been a positive step in psychiatry’s efforts to de-pathologize individuals who are gender-diverse, it raises the question: should such diagnoses be included in the DSM at all?

The gender dysphoria diagnosis continues to be needed by many individuals who are TGGD in order to access gender-affirming health care services. Mental health professionals are placed in a gatekeeping role by the expectation that they provide letters of “support” to indicate an individual is of sound mind and consistent gender identity to have services covered by insurance providers. In this way, the insurance industry and the field of medicine continue to believe that individuals who are TGGD need psychiatric permission and/or counsel regarding their gender identity. This can place psychiatry in a role of controlling access to necessary care while also creating a possible distrust in our ability to provide care to patients who are gender-diverse. This is particularly problematic given the high rates of depression, anxiety, trauma, and substance use within these communities.¹⁴ In the WHO’s ICD-11, gender dysphoria was changed to gender incongruence and is contained in the category of “Conditions related to sexual health.”¹⁵ This indicates continued evolution of how medicine views individuals who are TGGD, and offers hope that psychiatry and the DSM will follow suit.

Continue to: Minority stress theory

Ilan Meyer’s minority stress theory explores how cultural and social factors impact mental health functioning (Figure 2¹⁶). Minority stress theory, which was originally developed for what at the time was described as the lesbian, gay, and bisexual communities, purports that the higher prevalence of mental health disorders among such individuals is likely due to social stigma, discrimination, and stressors associated with minority status. More recently, minority stress theory has been expanded to provide framework for individuals who are TGGD. Hendricks et al¹⁷ explain how distal, proximal, and resilience factors contribute to mental health outcomes among these individuals. Distal factors, such as gender-related discrimination, harassment, violence, and rejection, explain how systemic, cultural, and environmental events lead to overt stress. Proximal factors consist of an individual’s expectation and anticipation of negative and stressful events and the internalization of negative attitudes and prejudice (ie, internalized transphobia). Resilience factors consist of community connectedness and within-group identification and can help mediate the negative effects of distal and proximal factors.

As clinicians, understanding our patients’ experiences and expectations can help us better engage with them and create an environment of safety and healing. Minority stress theory framework suggests that patients may start treatment with distrust or suspicion in light of previous negative experiences. They may also be likely to expect clinicians to be judgmental or to lack understanding of them. The 2015 US Transgender Survey found that 33% of individuals who are TGGD who sought medical treatment in the past year had at least 1 negative experience related to their gender identity (Table 1¹⁸). Twenty-four percent reported having to educate their clinician about people who are TGGD, while 15% reported the health care professional asked invasive or unnecessary questions about their gender status that were unrelated to their visit. While psychiatry is often distinct from the larger medical field, it is important to understand the negative encounters individuals who are TGGD have likely experienced in medicine, and how those events may skew their feelings about psychiatric treatment. This is especially salient given the higher prevalence of various psychiatric disorders among individuals who are TGGD.¹⁸

According to the US Transgender Survey, 39% of participants were currently experiencing serious psychological distress, which is nearly 8 times the rate in the US population (5%).¹⁸ When extrapolated, this data indicates that we in psychiatry are likely to work with individuals who identify as TGGD, regardless of our expertise. Additionally, research indicates that having access to gender-affirming care—such as hormone replacement therapy, gender-affirming surgery, voice therapy, and other treatments—greatly improves mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and suicidality among individuals who are TGGD.^19,20 It is in this way we in psychiatry must do more than just care for our patients by becoming advocates for them to receive the care they need and deserve. While at times we may want to stay out of politics and other public discourse, it is becoming increasingly necessary as health care is entrenched in politics.

Clinical applicability

Because individuals who are TGGD experience higher rates of depression, anxiety, substance use, and other psychiatric disorders,¹⁴ it is increasingly likely that many clinicians will be presented with opportunities to treat such individuals. Despite high rates of psychiatric disorders, individuals who are TGGD often avoid treatment due to concerns about being pathologized, stereotyped, and/or encountering professionals who lack the knowledge to treat them as they are.²¹ Several studies recommend clinicians better equip themselves to appropriately provide services to individuals who are TGGD.²¹ Some advise seeking education to understand the unique needs of these patients and to help stay current with appropriate terminology and language (Table 2²²). This also implies not relying on patients to educate clinicians in understanding their specific needs and experiences.

Making assumptions about a patient’s identity is one of the most commonly reported issues by individuals who are TGGD. Therefore, it is critical to avoid making assumptions about patients based on binary stereotypes.^23,24 We can circumvent these mistakes by asking every patient for their name and pronouns, and introducing ourselves with our pronouns. This illustrates an openness and understanding of the importance of identity and language, and makes it common practice from the outset. Integrating the use of gender-neutral language into paperwork, intake forms, charting, and conversation will also help avoid the pitfalls of misgendering and making false assumptions. This will also allow for support staff, medical assistants, and others to use correct language with patients. Having a patient’s used name and pronouns visible for everyone who works with the patient is necessary to effectively meet the patient’s needs. Additionally, understanding that the range of experiences and needs for individuals who are TGGD is heterogeneous can help reduce assumptions and ensure we are asking for needed information. It is also important to ask for only relevant information needed to provide treatment.

Continue to: Resources are widely available...

Resources are widely available to aid in the care of individuals who are TGGD. In 2022, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health released new guidelines—Standards of Care 8—for working with individuals who are TGGD.²⁵ While these standards include a section dedicated to mental health, they also provide guidelines on education, assessments, specific demographic groups, hormone therapy, primary care, and sexual health. Additionally, while we may not want the role of gatekeeping for individuals to receive gender-affirming care, we work within a health care and insurance system that continues to require psychiatric assessment for such surgeries. In this role, we must do our part to educate ourselves in how to best provide these assessments and letters of support to help patients receive appropriate and life-saving care.

Finally, in order to provide a more comfortable and affirming space for individuals who are TGGD, develop ways to self-assess and monitor the policies, procedures, and language used within your practice, clinic, or institution. Monitoring the language used in charting to ensure consistency with the individual’s gender identity is important for our own understanding of the patient, and for patients to feel seen. This is especially true given patients’ access to medical records under the Cures Act. Moreover, it is essential to be cognizant of how you present clients to others in consultation or care coordination to ensure the patient is identified correctly and consistently by clinicians and staff.

Bottom Line

Understanding the social, cultural, and medical discrimination faced by patients who are transgender or gender diverse can make us better suited to engage and treat these individuals in an affirming and supportive way.

Related Resources

• World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care—8th edition. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644
• The Fenway Institute: National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center. https://fenwayhealth.org/the-fenway-institute/education/the-national-lgbtia-health-education-center/

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

A genetic sequencing effort identified more patients to be carriers of risk genes for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome than would have been discovered by following existing genetic testing guidelines, according to new research.

The authors of the clinical trial suggest that these guidelines may need to be revised.

Individuals with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have an 80% lifetime risk of breast cancer and are at greater risk of ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. Those with Lynch syndrome (LS) have an 80% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, a 60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and heightened risk of upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, skin, and other tumors, said study coauthor N. Jewel Samadder, MD in a statement.

The National Cancer Control Network has guidelines for determining family risk for colorectal cancer and breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer to identify individuals who should be screened for LS and HBOC, but these rely on personal and family health histories.

“These criteria were created at a time when genetic testing was cost prohibitive and thus aimed to identify those at the greatest chance of being a mutation carrier in the absence of population-wide whole-exome sequencing. However, [LS and HBOC] are poorly identified in current practice, and many patients are not aware of their cancer risk,” said Dr. Samadder, professor of medicine and coleader of the precision oncology program at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Phoenix, in the statement.

Whole-exome sequencing covers only protein-coding regions of the genome, which is less than 2% of the total genome but includes more than 85% of known disease-related genetic variants, according to Emily Gay, who presented the trial results (Abstract 5768) on April 18 at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

“In recent years, the cost of whole-exome sequencing has been rapidly decreasing, allowing us to complete this test on saliva samples from thousands, if not tens of thousands of patients covering large populations and large health systems,” said Ms. Gay, a genetic counseling graduate student at the University of Arizona, during her presentation.

She described results from the TAPESTRY clinical trial, with 44,306 participants from Mayo Clinic centers in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota, who were identified as definitely or likely to be harboring pathogenic mutations and consented to whole-exome sequencing from saliva samples. They used electronic health records to determine whether patients would satisfy the testing criteria from NCCN guidelines.

The researchers identified 1.24% of participants to be carriers of HBOC or LS. Of the HBOC carriers, 62.8% were female, and of the LS carriers, 62.6% were female. The percentages of HBOC and LS carriers who were White were 88.6 and 94.5, respectively. The median age of both groups was 57 years. Of HBOC carriers, 47.3% had personal histories of cancers; for LS carries, the percentage was 44.2.

Of HBOC carriers, 49.1% had been previously unaware of their genetic condition, while an even higher percentage of patients with LS – 59.3% – fell into that category. Thirty-two percent of those with HBOC and 56.2% of those with LS would not have qualified for screening using the relevant NCCN guidelines.

“Most strikingly,” 63.8% of individuals with mutations in the MSH6 gene and 83.7% of those mutations in the PMS2 gene would not have met NCCN criteria, Ms. Gay said.

Having a cancer type not known to be related to a genetic syndrome was a reason for 58.6% of individuals failing to meet NCCN guidelines, while 60.5% did not meet the guidelines because of an insufficient number of relatives known to have a history of cancer, and 63.3% did not because they had no personal history of cancer. Among individuals with a pathogenic mutation who met NCCN criteria, 34% were not aware of their condition.

“This suggests that the NCCN guidelines are underutilized in clinical practice, potentially due to the busy schedule of clinicians or because the complexity of using these criteria,” said Ms. Gay.

The numbers were even more striking among minorities: “There is additional data analysis and research needed in this area, but based on our preliminary findings, we saw that nearly 50% of the individuals who are [part of an underrepresented minority group] did not meet criteria, compared with 32% of the white cohort,” said Ms. Gay.

Asked what new NCCN guidelines should be, Ms. Gay replied: “I think maybe limiting the number of relatives that you have to have with a certain type of cancer, especially as we see families get smaller and smaller, especially in the United States – that family data isn’t necessarily available or as useful. And then also, I think, incorporating in the size of a family into the calculation, so more of maybe a point-based system like we see with other genetic conditions rather than a ‘yes you meet or no, you don’t.’ More of a range to say ‘you fall on the low-risk, medium-risk, or high-risk stage,’” said Ms. Gay.

During the Q&A period, session cochair Andrew Godwin, PhD, who is a professor of molecular oncology and pathology at University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, said he wondered if whole-exome sequencing was capable of picking up cancer risk mutations that standard targeted tests don’t look for.

Dr. Samadder, who was in the audience, answered the question, saying that targeted tests are actually better at picking up some types of mutations like intronic mutations, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and deletions.

“There are some limitations to whole-exome sequencing. Our estimate here of 1.2% [of participants carrying HBOC or LS mutations] is probably an underestimate. There are additional variants that exome sequencing probably doesn’t pick up easily or as well. That’s why we qualify that exome sequencing is a screening test, not a diagnostic,” he continued.

Ms. Gay and Dr. Samadder have no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Godwin has financial relationships with Clara Biotech, VITRAC Therapeutics, and Sinochips Diagnostics.

Patients with darker skin phototypes are “poorly represented” in randomized controlled trials of laser and light treatments for cosmetic dermatologic conditions, according to a systematic review of the literature, the authors reported.

“While there broadly appears to be skin of color representation [in such studies], a more granular understanding of the data shows a large discrepancy in representation between ‘lighter’ and ‘darker’ skin of color patients,” Priya Manjaly and associates wrote in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.

Among the 461 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) eligible for inclusion, most (81.7%) included participants with skin phototypes 4-6, which is considered skin of color. When only phototypes 5 and 6 were included, however, representation in studies involving laser and light devices was only 27.5%, said Ms. Manjaly, a research fellow in the department of dermatology at Boston University, and associates.

“This trend of excluding darker skin phototypes persisted when the results were stratified by condition, laser of study, study location, journal type, and funding source,” the investigators noted.

RCTs of laser/light devices for scarring, the most common dermatologic condition represented, included phototypes 5 and 6 in 24.4% of studies, compared with 84.4% for phototypes 4-6. The gap was smaller for melasma, but not for port wine stains. Among the devices examined, RCTs of diode lasers and intense pulsed light had the smallest gaps between inclusion of the two groups of phototypes, while pulsed-dye laser studies had the largest, they reported.

Stratification by journal showed the largest gap in studies published by Lasers in Medical Science and the smallest gap coming from Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. Funding was not specified for the majority of the eligible device RCTs, but those funded by industry had the smallest discrepancy between types 5-6 and types 4-6 and those supported by foundations/nonprofits the largest, Ms. Manjaly and associates said.

“With projections estimating that more than 50% of the U.S. population is set to identify as Hispanic or nonwhite by 2045 ... the lack of information has important consequences for clinical practice, as clinicians are unable to counsel patients on the efficacy and possible complications of various devices in patient with skin of color,” they wrote.

The investigators did not declare any conflicts of interest or funding sources.

Patients with darker skin phototypes are “poorly represented” in randomized controlled trials of laser and light treatments for cosmetic dermatologic conditions, according to a systematic review of the literature, the authors reported.

“While there broadly appears to be skin of color representation [in such studies], a more granular understanding of the data shows a large discrepancy in representation between ‘lighter’ and ‘darker’ skin of color patients,” Priya Manjaly and associates wrote in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.

Among the 461 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) eligible for inclusion, most (81.7%) included participants with skin phototypes 4-6, which is considered skin of color. When only phototypes 5 and 6 were included, however, representation in studies involving laser and light devices was only 27.5%, said Ms. Manjaly, a research fellow in the department of dermatology at Boston University, and associates.

“This trend of excluding darker skin phototypes persisted when the results were stratified by condition, laser of study, study location, journal type, and funding source,” the investigators noted.

RCTs of laser/light devices for scarring, the most common dermatologic condition represented, included phototypes 5 and 6 in 24.4% of studies, compared with 84.4% for phototypes 4-6. The gap was smaller for melasma, but not for port wine stains. Among the devices examined, RCTs of diode lasers and intense pulsed light had the smallest gaps between inclusion of the two groups of phototypes, while pulsed-dye laser studies had the largest, they reported.

Stratification by journal showed the largest gap in studies published by Lasers in Medical Science and the smallest gap coming from Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. Funding was not specified for the majority of the eligible device RCTs, but those funded by industry had the smallest discrepancy between types 5-6 and types 4-6 and those supported by foundations/nonprofits the largest, Ms. Manjaly and associates said.

“With projections estimating that more than 50% of the U.S. population is set to identify as Hispanic or nonwhite by 2045 ... the lack of information has important consequences for clinical practice, as clinicians are unable to counsel patients on the efficacy and possible complications of various devices in patient with skin of color,” they wrote.

The investigators did not declare any conflicts of interest or funding sources.

Patients with darker skin phototypes are “poorly represented” in randomized controlled trials of laser and light treatments for cosmetic dermatologic conditions, according to a systematic review of the literature, the authors reported.

“While there broadly appears to be skin of color representation [in such studies], a more granular understanding of the data shows a large discrepancy in representation between ‘lighter’ and ‘darker’ skin of color patients,” Priya Manjaly and associates wrote in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.

Among the 461 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) eligible for inclusion, most (81.7%) included participants with skin phototypes 4-6, which is considered skin of color. When only phototypes 5 and 6 were included, however, representation in studies involving laser and light devices was only 27.5%, said Ms. Manjaly, a research fellow in the department of dermatology at Boston University, and associates.

“This trend of excluding darker skin phototypes persisted when the results were stratified by condition, laser of study, study location, journal type, and funding source,” the investigators noted.

RCTs of laser/light devices for scarring, the most common dermatologic condition represented, included phototypes 5 and 6 in 24.4% of studies, compared with 84.4% for phototypes 4-6. The gap was smaller for melasma, but not for port wine stains. Among the devices examined, RCTs of diode lasers and intense pulsed light had the smallest gaps between inclusion of the two groups of phototypes, while pulsed-dye laser studies had the largest, they reported.

Stratification by journal showed the largest gap in studies published by Lasers in Medical Science and the smallest gap coming from Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. Funding was not specified for the majority of the eligible device RCTs, but those funded by industry had the smallest discrepancy between types 5-6 and types 4-6 and those supported by foundations/nonprofits the largest, Ms. Manjaly and associates said.

“With projections estimating that more than 50% of the U.S. population is set to identify as Hispanic or nonwhite by 2045 ... the lack of information has important consequences for clinical practice, as clinicians are unable to counsel patients on the efficacy and possible complications of various devices in patient with skin of color,” they wrote.

The investigators did not declare any conflicts of interest or funding sources.

Black patients with cancer are significantly more likely to experience cardiotoxicity and heart failure related to chemotherapy than White cancer patients are, a research review indicates.

“It’s important that both patients and clinicians be aware of these disparities so that more meaningful conversations around long-term cardiac health and cancer treatment can take place,” lead investigator Wondewossen Gebeyehu, with the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

However, patients “should not avoid chemotherapy, as the most important thing is making sure they get the best cancer treatment possible, and studies already show Black patients may get less optimal cancer treatments,” Mr. Gebeyehu added in a statement.

Ana Barac, MD, PHD, chair of cardio-oncology at Inova Schar Cancer Institute and Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Fairfax, Va., who wasn’t involved in the study, agreed.

“The most important message is to look at preexisting cardiovascular disease, oncology diagnosis, and be aware of existing disparities in a specific cancer and CVD,” Barac said in an interview.

“What should NOT happen is to overinterpret this report of cardiotoxicity as an indication to modify/avoid planned cancer treatment to decrease cardiotoxicity. This approach could worsen oncology outcomes and lead to undertreatment of cancer, therefore posing real danger,” said Dr. Barac.

The study was presented at the American College of Cardiology Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient 2023 conference.
 

Causes unclear

Chemotherapy is known to increase the risk of cardiovascular heart failure and other forms of CVD, but less is known about racial disparities in the incidence of chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity.

Mr. Gebeyehu and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to assess racial disparities in CV adverse effects among cancer patients who were treated with chemotherapeutic agents. They screened 7,057 studies, fully reviewed 57, and included 24 studies, representing 683,749 participants, in their analysis.

Breast cancer was the most commonly reported malignancy. Other common malignancies were prostate, kidney, and hematologic malignancies such as leukemia and lymphoma.

Chemotherapeutic agents included anthracyclines (doxorubicin, daunorubicin), trastuzumab, and hormonal therapies.

Black race or African ancestry was associated with increased odds of chemotherapy-associated cardiotoxicity (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.10), as well as congestive heart failure (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.68-2.19).

Mr. Gebeyehu said in an interview that it’s hard to speculate on causation with an analysis of preexisting data such as this. “Our initial analysis that we’ve reported on so far are unadjusted values, meaning they don’t adjust for those potential underlying factors,” he noted.

“However, some of the studies individually controlled for socioeconomic factors and still found increased vulnerability to chemotherapy-associated cardiotoxicity in patients of Black race or African ancestry,” Mr. Gebeyehu said.

“It’s certainly possible that a mix of both biological and socioeconomic factors are interacting to lead to these disparities. One example could be the underrepresentation of Black patients in clinical trials to develop drugs. These could lead to chemotherapeutic agents being poorly optimized in this population relative to other racial/ethnic groups,” he added.

Dr. Barac said this study adds to the growing body of evidence about the importance of racial disparities in CVD and cancer outcomes.

“It is important to note that only the unadjusted odds ratio was reported and that much more detail is needed to understand what may be underlying the disparities. It is critically important to await the adjusted analysis, as well as details of the type of cancers and treatment used, before clinical implications can be discussed,” said Dr. Barac, who served as codirector of the conference.

“The risk of cardiotoxicity needs to be presented in the context of the oncology and CV disease burden, as both can influence the risk, and there could be a synergistic effect of disparities,” Dr. Barac added.

The study had no specific funding. Mr. Gebeyehu and Dr. Barac disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Black patients with cancer are significantly more likely to experience cardiotoxicity and heart failure related to chemotherapy than White cancer patients are, a research review indicates.

“It’s important that both patients and clinicians be aware of these disparities so that more meaningful conversations around long-term cardiac health and cancer treatment can take place,” lead investigator Wondewossen Gebeyehu, with the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

However, patients “should not avoid chemotherapy, as the most important thing is making sure they get the best cancer treatment possible, and studies already show Black patients may get less optimal cancer treatments,” Mr. Gebeyehu added in a statement.

Ana Barac, MD, PHD, chair of cardio-oncology at Inova Schar Cancer Institute and Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Fairfax, Va., who wasn’t involved in the study, agreed.

“The most important message is to look at preexisting cardiovascular disease, oncology diagnosis, and be aware of existing disparities in a specific cancer and CVD,” Barac said in an interview.

“What should NOT happen is to overinterpret this report of cardiotoxicity as an indication to modify/avoid planned cancer treatment to decrease cardiotoxicity. This approach could worsen oncology outcomes and lead to undertreatment of cancer, therefore posing real danger,” said Dr. Barac.

The study was presented at the American College of Cardiology Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient 2023 conference.
 

Causes unclear

Chemotherapy is known to increase the risk of cardiovascular heart failure and other forms of CVD, but less is known about racial disparities in the incidence of chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity.

Mr. Gebeyehu and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to assess racial disparities in CV adverse effects among cancer patients who were treated with chemotherapeutic agents. They screened 7,057 studies, fully reviewed 57, and included 24 studies, representing 683,749 participants, in their analysis.

Breast cancer was the most commonly reported malignancy. Other common malignancies were prostate, kidney, and hematologic malignancies such as leukemia and lymphoma.

Chemotherapeutic agents included anthracyclines (doxorubicin, daunorubicin), trastuzumab, and hormonal therapies.

Black race or African ancestry was associated with increased odds of chemotherapy-associated cardiotoxicity (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.10), as well as congestive heart failure (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.68-2.19).

Mr. Gebeyehu said in an interview that it’s hard to speculate on causation with an analysis of preexisting data such as this. “Our initial analysis that we’ve reported on so far are unadjusted values, meaning they don’t adjust for those potential underlying factors,” he noted.

“However, some of the studies individually controlled for socioeconomic factors and still found increased vulnerability to chemotherapy-associated cardiotoxicity in patients of Black race or African ancestry,” Mr. Gebeyehu said.

“It’s certainly possible that a mix of both biological and socioeconomic factors are interacting to lead to these disparities. One example could be the underrepresentation of Black patients in clinical trials to develop drugs. These could lead to chemotherapeutic agents being poorly optimized in this population relative to other racial/ethnic groups,” he added.

Dr. Barac said this study adds to the growing body of evidence about the importance of racial disparities in CVD and cancer outcomes.

“It is important to note that only the unadjusted odds ratio was reported and that much more detail is needed to understand what may be underlying the disparities. It is critically important to await the adjusted analysis, as well as details of the type of cancers and treatment used, before clinical implications can be discussed,” said Dr. Barac, who served as codirector of the conference.

“The risk of cardiotoxicity needs to be presented in the context of the oncology and CV disease burden, as both can influence the risk, and there could be a synergistic effect of disparities,” Dr. Barac added.

The study had no specific funding. Mr. Gebeyehu and Dr. Barac disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Black patients with cancer are significantly more likely to experience cardiotoxicity and heart failure related to chemotherapy than White cancer patients are, a research review indicates.

“It’s important that both patients and clinicians be aware of these disparities so that more meaningful conversations around long-term cardiac health and cancer treatment can take place,” lead investigator Wondewossen Gebeyehu, with the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

However, patients “should not avoid chemotherapy, as the most important thing is making sure they get the best cancer treatment possible, and studies already show Black patients may get less optimal cancer treatments,” Mr. Gebeyehu added in a statement.

Ana Barac, MD, PHD, chair of cardio-oncology at Inova Schar Cancer Institute and Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Fairfax, Va., who wasn’t involved in the study, agreed.

“The most important message is to look at preexisting cardiovascular disease, oncology diagnosis, and be aware of existing disparities in a specific cancer and CVD,” Barac said in an interview.

“What should NOT happen is to overinterpret this report of cardiotoxicity as an indication to modify/avoid planned cancer treatment to decrease cardiotoxicity. This approach could worsen oncology outcomes and lead to undertreatment of cancer, therefore posing real danger,” said Dr. Barac.

The study was presented at the American College of Cardiology Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient 2023 conference.
 

Causes unclear

Chemotherapy is known to increase the risk of cardiovascular heart failure and other forms of CVD, but less is known about racial disparities in the incidence of chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity.

Mr. Gebeyehu and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to assess racial disparities in CV adverse effects among cancer patients who were treated with chemotherapeutic agents. They screened 7,057 studies, fully reviewed 57, and included 24 studies, representing 683,749 participants, in their analysis.

Breast cancer was the most commonly reported malignancy. Other common malignancies were prostate, kidney, and hematologic malignancies such as leukemia and lymphoma.

Chemotherapeutic agents included anthracyclines (doxorubicin, daunorubicin), trastuzumab, and hormonal therapies.

Black race or African ancestry was associated with increased odds of chemotherapy-associated cardiotoxicity (odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.10), as well as congestive heart failure (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.68-2.19).

Mr. Gebeyehu said in an interview that it’s hard to speculate on causation with an analysis of preexisting data such as this. “Our initial analysis that we’ve reported on so far are unadjusted values, meaning they don’t adjust for those potential underlying factors,” he noted.

“However, some of the studies individually controlled for socioeconomic factors and still found increased vulnerability to chemotherapy-associated cardiotoxicity in patients of Black race or African ancestry,” Mr. Gebeyehu said.

“It’s certainly possible that a mix of both biological and socioeconomic factors are interacting to lead to these disparities. One example could be the underrepresentation of Black patients in clinical trials to develop drugs. These could lead to chemotherapeutic agents being poorly optimized in this population relative to other racial/ethnic groups,” he added.

Dr. Barac said this study adds to the growing body of evidence about the importance of racial disparities in CVD and cancer outcomes.

“It is important to note that only the unadjusted odds ratio was reported and that much more detail is needed to understand what may be underlying the disparities. It is critically important to await the adjusted analysis, as well as details of the type of cancers and treatment used, before clinical implications can be discussed,” said Dr. Barac, who served as codirector of the conference.

“The risk of cardiotoxicity needs to be presented in the context of the oncology and CV disease burden, as both can influence the risk, and there could be a synergistic effect of disparities,” Dr. Barac added.

The study had no specific funding. Mr. Gebeyehu and Dr. Barac disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force currently recommends that breast cancer screening start at age 50 years, regardless of race or ethnicity.

But a new analysis of breast cancer deaths supports a “race and ethnicity-adapted” approach to breast screening, with Black women starting screening 8 years sooner – at age 42.

The current “one-size-fits-all” policy to screen the entire female population from a certain age may be “neither fair and equitable nor optimal,” noted the authors, led by Tianhui Chen, PhD, with Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, China.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Laurie R. Margolies, MD, chief of breast imaging at the Dubin Breast Center of the Mount Sinai Tisch Cancer Center in New York City, agreed.

Black women get breast cancer at a much younger age, are less likely to be diagnosed with early breast cancer, and are more likely to die of breast cancer, explained Dr. Margolies, who was not involved in the study.

“That’s why the guidelines that say begin at age 50 are flawed and so dangerous,” she said in an interview with this news organization. “This study is really important to highlight that we’re missing an opportunity to detect and treat breast cancer early in the Black population.”

The current study explored the optimal race- and ethnicity-specific ages to initiate breast cancer screening to address racial disparities in breast cancer mortality.

Using a nationwide population-based cross-sectional study design, the team analyzed data on 415,277 women who died of breast cancer in the United States from 2011 to 2020.

The cohort was 75% White, 15% Black, 7% Hispanic, 3% Asian or Pacific Islander, and < 1% Native American or Alaska Native. A total of 115,214 women (28%) died before age 60. The team calculated the 10-year cumulative risk of breast cancer–specific death by age and by race and ethnicity.

For those aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years), followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years) and American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander women (11 deaths per 100,000 person-years).

If breast screening started at age 50 for the entire population, the mean 10-year cumulative risk of dying from breast cancer would be 0.329%. Black women reached this risk threshold level at age 42, whereas non-Hispanic White women reached the threshold at age 51, American Indian/Alaska Native and Hispanic women at age 57, and Asian/Pacific Islander women at age 61.

If screening started at age 45 for all women, the mean 10-year cumulative risk of breast cancer death would be 0.235%. Black women reached this risk threshold level at age 38, non-Hispanic White women at age 46, Hispanic women at age 49, Asian/Pacific Islander women at age 50, and American Indian/Alaska Native women at age 51.

If screening started at age 40 for all women, with a mean 10-year cumulative risk of 0.154%, Black women would reach this risk threshold at age 34, White women at age 41, Hispanic women at age 43, and American Indian/Alaska Native and Asian/Pacific Islander women at age 43.

Dr. Chen and colleagues concluded that failure to consider race and ethnicity in breast cancer screening guidelines “may pose a significant risk for greater harm to a group already at increased risk.

“Changing guidelines based on readily available risk factors, such as race and ethnicity, is possible and may be the first, yet important step toward a personalized and fair screening program,” the team explained.

Dr. Margolies said she believes individualized screening recommendations will likely come, but first, all women should start screening at age 40 instead of age 50.

“Most American women are starting in their 40s, or starting at 40, because we know what the current guidelines are,” she said. “The question that this study doesn’t answer is, is age 40 young enough for the Black population? Maybe it should be 35.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Key Research-Development Program of China and from the Ten-Thousand Talents Plan of Zhejiang Province and by Start-Up Funds for Recruited Talents in Zhejiang Cancer Hospital. Dr. Chen and Dr. Margolies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force currently recommends that breast cancer screening start at age 50 years, regardless of race or ethnicity.

But a new analysis of breast cancer deaths supports a “race and ethnicity-adapted” approach to breast screening, with Black women starting screening 8 years sooner – at age 42.

The current “one-size-fits-all” policy to screen the entire female population from a certain age may be “neither fair and equitable nor optimal,” noted the authors, led by Tianhui Chen, PhD, with Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, China.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Laurie R. Margolies, MD, chief of breast imaging at the Dubin Breast Center of the Mount Sinai Tisch Cancer Center in New York City, agreed.

Black women get breast cancer at a much younger age, are less likely to be diagnosed with early breast cancer, and are more likely to die of breast cancer, explained Dr. Margolies, who was not involved in the study.

“That’s why the guidelines that say begin at age 50 are flawed and so dangerous,” she said in an interview with this news organization. “This study is really important to highlight that we’re missing an opportunity to detect and treat breast cancer early in the Black population.”

The current study explored the optimal race- and ethnicity-specific ages to initiate breast cancer screening to address racial disparities in breast cancer mortality.

Using a nationwide population-based cross-sectional study design, the team analyzed data on 415,277 women who died of breast cancer in the United States from 2011 to 2020.

The cohort was 75% White, 15% Black, 7% Hispanic, 3% Asian or Pacific Islander, and < 1% Native American or Alaska Native. A total of 115,214 women (28%) died before age 60. The team calculated the 10-year cumulative risk of breast cancer–specific death by age and by race and ethnicity.

For those aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years), followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years) and American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander women (11 deaths per 100,000 person-years).

If breast screening started at age 50 for the entire population, the mean 10-year cumulative risk of dying from breast cancer would be 0.329%. Black women reached this risk threshold level at age 42, whereas non-Hispanic White women reached the threshold at age 51, American Indian/Alaska Native and Hispanic women at age 57, and Asian/Pacific Islander women at age 61.

If screening started at age 45 for all women, the mean 10-year cumulative risk of breast cancer death would be 0.235%. Black women reached this risk threshold level at age 38, non-Hispanic White women at age 46, Hispanic women at age 49, Asian/Pacific Islander women at age 50, and American Indian/Alaska Native women at age 51.

If screening started at age 40 for all women, with a mean 10-year cumulative risk of 0.154%, Black women would reach this risk threshold at age 34, White women at age 41, Hispanic women at age 43, and American Indian/Alaska Native and Asian/Pacific Islander women at age 43.

Dr. Chen and colleagues concluded that failure to consider race and ethnicity in breast cancer screening guidelines “may pose a significant risk for greater harm to a group already at increased risk.

“Changing guidelines based on readily available risk factors, such as race and ethnicity, is possible and may be the first, yet important step toward a personalized and fair screening program,” the team explained.

Dr. Margolies said she believes individualized screening recommendations will likely come, but first, all women should start screening at age 40 instead of age 50.

“Most American women are starting in their 40s, or starting at 40, because we know what the current guidelines are,” she said. “The question that this study doesn’t answer is, is age 40 young enough for the Black population? Maybe it should be 35.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Key Research-Development Program of China and from the Ten-Thousand Talents Plan of Zhejiang Province and by Start-Up Funds for Recruited Talents in Zhejiang Cancer Hospital. Dr. Chen and Dr. Margolies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force currently recommends that breast cancer screening start at age 50 years, regardless of race or ethnicity.

But a new analysis of breast cancer deaths supports a “race and ethnicity-adapted” approach to breast screening, with Black women starting screening 8 years sooner – at age 42.

The current “one-size-fits-all” policy to screen the entire female population from a certain age may be “neither fair and equitable nor optimal,” noted the authors, led by Tianhui Chen, PhD, with Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, China.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Laurie R. Margolies, MD, chief of breast imaging at the Dubin Breast Center of the Mount Sinai Tisch Cancer Center in New York City, agreed.

Black women get breast cancer at a much younger age, are less likely to be diagnosed with early breast cancer, and are more likely to die of breast cancer, explained Dr. Margolies, who was not involved in the study.

“That’s why the guidelines that say begin at age 50 are flawed and so dangerous,” she said in an interview with this news organization. “This study is really important to highlight that we’re missing an opportunity to detect and treat breast cancer early in the Black population.”

The current study explored the optimal race- and ethnicity-specific ages to initiate breast cancer screening to address racial disparities in breast cancer mortality.

Using a nationwide population-based cross-sectional study design, the team analyzed data on 415,277 women who died of breast cancer in the United States from 2011 to 2020.

The cohort was 75% White, 15% Black, 7% Hispanic, 3% Asian or Pacific Islander, and < 1% Native American or Alaska Native. A total of 115,214 women (28%) died before age 60. The team calculated the 10-year cumulative risk of breast cancer–specific death by age and by race and ethnicity.

For those aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years), followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years) and American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander women (11 deaths per 100,000 person-years).

If breast screening started at age 50 for the entire population, the mean 10-year cumulative risk of dying from breast cancer would be 0.329%. Black women reached this risk threshold level at age 42, whereas non-Hispanic White women reached the threshold at age 51, American Indian/Alaska Native and Hispanic women at age 57, and Asian/Pacific Islander women at age 61.

If screening started at age 45 for all women, the mean 10-year cumulative risk of breast cancer death would be 0.235%. Black women reached this risk threshold level at age 38, non-Hispanic White women at age 46, Hispanic women at age 49, Asian/Pacific Islander women at age 50, and American Indian/Alaska Native women at age 51.

If screening started at age 40 for all women, with a mean 10-year cumulative risk of 0.154%, Black women would reach this risk threshold at age 34, White women at age 41, Hispanic women at age 43, and American Indian/Alaska Native and Asian/Pacific Islander women at age 43.

Dr. Chen and colleagues concluded that failure to consider race and ethnicity in breast cancer screening guidelines “may pose a significant risk for greater harm to a group already at increased risk.

“Changing guidelines based on readily available risk factors, such as race and ethnicity, is possible and may be the first, yet important step toward a personalized and fair screening program,” the team explained.

Dr. Margolies said she believes individualized screening recommendations will likely come, but first, all women should start screening at age 40 instead of age 50.

“Most American women are starting in their 40s, or starting at 40, because we know what the current guidelines are,” she said. “The question that this study doesn’t answer is, is age 40 young enough for the Black population? Maybe it should be 35.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Key Research-Development Program of China and from the Ten-Thousand Talents Plan of Zhejiang Province and by Start-Up Funds for Recruited Talents in Zhejiang Cancer Hospital. Dr. Chen and Dr. Margolies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Non-Hispanic persons of African ancestry typically have worse clinical outcomes from colorectal cancer (CRC) than individuals of other heritages, a disparity attributed to many factors, including socioeconomic, environmental, and genetic influences, as well as less access to care.

Results from a new genomic study provide greater clarity regarding the genetic piece of the puzzle: Persons of African background tend to have fewer targetable alterations, compared with patients of other races.

The findings were presented in a briefing and scientific poster session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Overall, the numbers to date show a clear trend: The incidence of and mortality from CRC are higher among Black patients than other populations. However, the extent to which genetic difference plays a role in these disparities remains unclear.

In the current study, researchers from Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center in New York explored how germline and somatic genomic alterations differ among patients of African ancestry, in comparison with those of European and other heritage, and how those differences might influence CRC outcomes.

Lead author Henry Walch, MS, a computational biologist at MSK, and colleagues compared genomic profiles among nearly 3,800 patients with CRC who were treated at MSK from 2014 to 2022. Patients in the study were classified by genetic ancestry as European (3,201 patients), African (236 patients), East Asian (253 patients), and South Asian (89 patients).

Tumor and normal tissues from the patients underwent next-generation DNA sequencing with a panel that covers 505 cancer-associated genes.

An analysis of overall survival by genetic ancestry confirmed findings from other studies: Overall survival was significantly worse among patients of African ancestry than among those of other groups (median 45.7 vs. 67.1 months).

The investigators used a precision oncology knowledge base (OncoKB) to assign levels of therapeutic actionability for each genomic alteration that was identified. The highest assigned value was for drugs that have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and that target FDA-recognized biomarkers. The lowest value was assigned to biomarkers for which there was “compelling biological evidence” that the particular biomarker predicted response to a drug.

The team found that the percentage of patients who qualified for immunotherapy on the basis of microsatellite instability or high tumor mutational burden was significantly lower among patients of African heritage, compared with those of European heritage (13.5% vs. 20.4%; P = .008).

Compared with those of European ancestry, patients of African ancestry had significantly fewer actionable alterations (5.6% vs. 11.2%; P = .01). This difference was largely driven by the lack of targetable BRAF mutations (1.8% vs. 5.0%).

Mutations in APC, the most frequently altered gene in CRC, are typically associated with cancer outcomes, but the authors found that overall survival was similar for patients of African heritage regardless of whether they had altered or wild-type APC (median overall survival, 45.0 months for altered APC vs. 45.9 months for wild-type APC; P = .91). However, a significant association between APC status and overall survival was observed for patients of European ancestry (median, 64.6 months for altered APC vs. 45.6 months for wild-type APC; P < .0001).

Analyses that accounted for sex, age, primary tumor location, and stage at diagnosis also showed an association between APC status and overall survival for patients of European heritage (hazard ratio, 0.64), but not for patients of African heritage (HR, 0.74, P = .492).

Mr. Walch noted that a limitation of the study is that information regarding comprehensive treatment, environmental exposures, lifestyle, and socioeconomic factors was not available for the analysis but that these elements likely play an important role in patient outcomes.

“This is a complex problem involving many unseen factors, and the genomic landscape is a piece of a much larger puzzle,” said Mr. Walch. He noted that future studies will incorporate these factors into the models “with the ultimate goal of identifying opportunities to intervene and improve outcomes.”

Briefing moderator Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of Weill Cornell Medicine and New York–Presbyterian, in New York, commented that Mr. Walch presented “some very compelling data that demonstrate the importance of including individuals from diverse backgrounds into [cancer] research.”

The study was funded in part by a Chris4Life Early Career Investigator Award Grant from the Colorectal Cancer Alliance for Francisco Sanchez-Vega, PhD, senior author of the study. Dr. Sanchez-Vega was also supported by an AACR-Minority and Minority-serving Institution Faculty Scholar in Cancer Research Award. Mr. Walch and Dr. Newman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Non-Hispanic persons of African ancestry typically have worse clinical outcomes from colorectal cancer (CRC) than individuals of other heritages, a disparity attributed to many factors, including socioeconomic, environmental, and genetic influences, as well as less access to care.

Results from a new genomic study provide greater clarity regarding the genetic piece of the puzzle: Persons of African background tend to have fewer targetable alterations, compared with patients of other races.

The findings were presented in a briefing and scientific poster session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Overall, the numbers to date show a clear trend: The incidence of and mortality from CRC are higher among Black patients than other populations. However, the extent to which genetic difference plays a role in these disparities remains unclear.

In the current study, researchers from Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center in New York explored how germline and somatic genomic alterations differ among patients of African ancestry, in comparison with those of European and other heritage, and how those differences might influence CRC outcomes.

Lead author Henry Walch, MS, a computational biologist at MSK, and colleagues compared genomic profiles among nearly 3,800 patients with CRC who were treated at MSK from 2014 to 2022. Patients in the study were classified by genetic ancestry as European (3,201 patients), African (236 patients), East Asian (253 patients), and South Asian (89 patients).

Tumor and normal tissues from the patients underwent next-generation DNA sequencing with a panel that covers 505 cancer-associated genes.

An analysis of overall survival by genetic ancestry confirmed findings from other studies: Overall survival was significantly worse among patients of African ancestry than among those of other groups (median 45.7 vs. 67.1 months).

The investigators used a precision oncology knowledge base (OncoKB) to assign levels of therapeutic actionability for each genomic alteration that was identified. The highest assigned value was for drugs that have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and that target FDA-recognized biomarkers. The lowest value was assigned to biomarkers for which there was “compelling biological evidence” that the particular biomarker predicted response to a drug.

The team found that the percentage of patients who qualified for immunotherapy on the basis of microsatellite instability or high tumor mutational burden was significantly lower among patients of African heritage, compared with those of European heritage (13.5% vs. 20.4%; P = .008).

Compared with those of European ancestry, patients of African ancestry had significantly fewer actionable alterations (5.6% vs. 11.2%; P = .01). This difference was largely driven by the lack of targetable BRAF mutations (1.8% vs. 5.0%).

Mutations in APC, the most frequently altered gene in CRC, are typically associated with cancer outcomes, but the authors found that overall survival was similar for patients of African heritage regardless of whether they had altered or wild-type APC (median overall survival, 45.0 months for altered APC vs. 45.9 months for wild-type APC; P = .91). However, a significant association between APC status and overall survival was observed for patients of European ancestry (median, 64.6 months for altered APC vs. 45.6 months for wild-type APC; P < .0001).

Analyses that accounted for sex, age, primary tumor location, and stage at diagnosis also showed an association between APC status and overall survival for patients of European heritage (hazard ratio, 0.64), but not for patients of African heritage (HR, 0.74, P = .492).

Mr. Walch noted that a limitation of the study is that information regarding comprehensive treatment, environmental exposures, lifestyle, and socioeconomic factors was not available for the analysis but that these elements likely play an important role in patient outcomes.

“This is a complex problem involving many unseen factors, and the genomic landscape is a piece of a much larger puzzle,” said Mr. Walch. He noted that future studies will incorporate these factors into the models “with the ultimate goal of identifying opportunities to intervene and improve outcomes.”

Briefing moderator Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of Weill Cornell Medicine and New York–Presbyterian, in New York, commented that Mr. Walch presented “some very compelling data that demonstrate the importance of including individuals from diverse backgrounds into [cancer] research.”

The study was funded in part by a Chris4Life Early Career Investigator Award Grant from the Colorectal Cancer Alliance for Francisco Sanchez-Vega, PhD, senior author of the study. Dr. Sanchez-Vega was also supported by an AACR-Minority and Minority-serving Institution Faculty Scholar in Cancer Research Award. Mr. Walch and Dr. Newman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Non-Hispanic persons of African ancestry typically have worse clinical outcomes from colorectal cancer (CRC) than individuals of other heritages, a disparity attributed to many factors, including socioeconomic, environmental, and genetic influences, as well as less access to care.

Results from a new genomic study provide greater clarity regarding the genetic piece of the puzzle: Persons of African background tend to have fewer targetable alterations, compared with patients of other races.

The findings were presented in a briefing and scientific poster session at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Overall, the numbers to date show a clear trend: The incidence of and mortality from CRC are higher among Black patients than other populations. However, the extent to which genetic difference plays a role in these disparities remains unclear.

In the current study, researchers from Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center in New York explored how germline and somatic genomic alterations differ among patients of African ancestry, in comparison with those of European and other heritage, and how those differences might influence CRC outcomes.

Lead author Henry Walch, MS, a computational biologist at MSK, and colleagues compared genomic profiles among nearly 3,800 patients with CRC who were treated at MSK from 2014 to 2022. Patients in the study were classified by genetic ancestry as European (3,201 patients), African (236 patients), East Asian (253 patients), and South Asian (89 patients).

Tumor and normal tissues from the patients underwent next-generation DNA sequencing with a panel that covers 505 cancer-associated genes.

An analysis of overall survival by genetic ancestry confirmed findings from other studies: Overall survival was significantly worse among patients of African ancestry than among those of other groups (median 45.7 vs. 67.1 months).

The investigators used a precision oncology knowledge base (OncoKB) to assign levels of therapeutic actionability for each genomic alteration that was identified. The highest assigned value was for drugs that have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and that target FDA-recognized biomarkers. The lowest value was assigned to biomarkers for which there was “compelling biological evidence” that the particular biomarker predicted response to a drug.

The team found that the percentage of patients who qualified for immunotherapy on the basis of microsatellite instability or high tumor mutational burden was significantly lower among patients of African heritage, compared with those of European heritage (13.5% vs. 20.4%; P = .008).

Compared with those of European ancestry, patients of African ancestry had significantly fewer actionable alterations (5.6% vs. 11.2%; P = .01). This difference was largely driven by the lack of targetable BRAF mutations (1.8% vs. 5.0%).

Mutations in APC, the most frequently altered gene in CRC, are typically associated with cancer outcomes, but the authors found that overall survival was similar for patients of African heritage regardless of whether they had altered or wild-type APC (median overall survival, 45.0 months for altered APC vs. 45.9 months for wild-type APC; P = .91). However, a significant association between APC status and overall survival was observed for patients of European ancestry (median, 64.6 months for altered APC vs. 45.6 months for wild-type APC; P < .0001).

Analyses that accounted for sex, age, primary tumor location, and stage at diagnosis also showed an association between APC status and overall survival for patients of European heritage (hazard ratio, 0.64), but not for patients of African heritage (HR, 0.74, P = .492).

Mr. Walch noted that a limitation of the study is that information regarding comprehensive treatment, environmental exposures, lifestyle, and socioeconomic factors was not available for the analysis but that these elements likely play an important role in patient outcomes.

“This is a complex problem involving many unseen factors, and the genomic landscape is a piece of a much larger puzzle,” said Mr. Walch. He noted that future studies will incorporate these factors into the models “with the ultimate goal of identifying opportunities to intervene and improve outcomes.”

Briefing moderator Lisa Newman, MD, MPH, of Weill Cornell Medicine and New York–Presbyterian, in New York, commented that Mr. Walch presented “some very compelling data that demonstrate the importance of including individuals from diverse backgrounds into [cancer] research.”

The study was funded in part by a Chris4Life Early Career Investigator Award Grant from the Colorectal Cancer Alliance for Francisco Sanchez-Vega, PhD, senior author of the study. Dr. Sanchez-Vega was also supported by an AACR-Minority and Minority-serving Institution Faculty Scholar in Cancer Research Award. Mr. Walch and Dr. Newman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer screening remains challenging. There are screens available for a handful of solid tumors, but uptake is low caused in part by health care access barriers as well as the potential for unnecessary follow-up procedures, according to Phillip Febbo, MD.

These issues could threaten efforts like that of President Joe Biden’s Cancer Moonshot initiative, which aims to reduce cancer mortality by 50%. Advances in circulating tumor (ct) DNA analysis could help address these problems, but a lack of diversity among study participants needs to be addressed to ensure it has broad utility, continued Dr. Febbo, during his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

The problem is particularly acute among African American, Hispanic, and other underserved populations who often face health care barriers that can exacerbate the issue, said Dr. Febbo, who is chief medical officer for Illumina. The lack of access is compounded by the fact that there are only currently screens for lung, breast, colorectal, cervical, and prostate cancer, leaving a vast unmet need.

“We still do not have screening tests for 70% of the deaths that are due to cancer,” he said.

ctDNA released from dying cancer cells has the potential to reveal a wide range of cancer types and reduce barriers to access, because it is based on a blood test. It can be analyzed for various factors, including mutations, chromosomal rearrangements, methylation patterns, and other characteristics that hint at the presence of cancer. However, it can’t be successful without sufficient inclusion in research studies, Dr. Febbo explained.

“We have to ensure we have the right representation [of] populations when we develop these tests, when we go through the clinical trials, and as we bring these into communities,” he said.

During his presentation, Dr. Febbo shared a slide showing that about 78% of participants in published gene-association studies were White.

ctDNA showed promise in at least on recent study. Dr. Febbo discussed the ECLIPSE trial, which used the Guardant Health SHIELD assay for colorectal cancer (CRC). About 13% of its approximately 20,000 participants were Black or African American, 15% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian Americans. It also included both urban and rural individuals. In results announced in December 2022, the researchers found a sensitivity of 83%, which was lower than the 92.3% found in standard CRC screening, but above the 74% threshold set by the Food and Drug Administration. The specificity was 90%.

One approach that could dramatically change the landscape of cancer screening is a multicancer early detection (MCED) test, according to Dr. Febbo. The CancerSeek MCED test, developed by Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center researchers, uses a series of genetic and protein biomarkers to detect all cancers, with the exception of leukemia, skin cancer, and central nervous system tumors. Among 10,006 women aged between 65 and 75 years with no history of cancer, it had a sensitivity of 27.1% and a specificity of 98.9%, with a positive predictive value of 19.4%. The study’s population was 95% non-Hispanic White.

He also discussed the Pathfinder study, sponsored by the Illumina subsidiary Grail, which included 6,662 individuals age 50 and over from seven sites in the United States, and grouped them into normal and increased risk; 92% were non-Hispanic White. It used the Galleri MCED test, which performed with a sensitivity of 29%, specificity of 99.1%, and a positive predictive value of 38.0%. False positives produced to limited burden, with 93% undergoing imaging, 28% nonsurgical invasive procedures, and 2% undergoing fruitless invasive surgical procedures.

Dr. Febbo touted the potential for such tests to greatly reduce cancer mortality, but only if there is adequate uptake of screening procedures, particularly in underserved groups. He put up a slide of a model showing that MCED has the potential to reduce cancer mortality by 20%, but only if the screen is widely accepted among all groups. “I’ve had my team model this. If we accept the current use of screening tests, and we don’t address disparities, and we don’t ensure everybody feels included and participates actively – not only in the research, but also in the testing and adoption, you would cut that potential benefit in half. That would be hundreds of thousands of lives lost because we didn’t address disparities.”
 

Successful recruiting of African Americans for research

Following Dr. Febbo’s talk, Karriem Watson, MS, spoke about some potential solutions to the issue, including his own experiences and success stories in recruiting African Americans to play active roles in research. He is chief engagement officer for the National Institute of Health’s All of Us Research Program, which aims to gather health data on at least 1 million residents of the United States. Mr. Watson has spent time reaching out to people living in communities in the Chicago area to encourage participation in breast cancer screening. An event at his church inspired his own sister to get a mammogram, and she was diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer.

“I’m a living witness that early engagement can lead to early detection,” said Mr. Watson during his talk.

He reported that the All of Us research program has succeeded in creating diversity within its data collection, as 46.7% of participants identify as racial and ethnic minorities.

Mr. Watson took issue with the common perception that underrepresented communities may be hard to reach.

“I want to challenge us to think outside the box and really ask ourselves: Are populations hard to reach, or are there opportunities for us to do better and more intentional engagement?” He went on to describe a program to recruit African American men as citizen scientists. He and his colleagues developed a network that included barbers, faith leaders, and fraternity and civic organization members to help recruit participants for a prostate cancer screening project. They exceeded their initial recruitment goal.

They went on to develop a network of barbers in the south and west sides of Chicago to recruit individuals to participate in studies of protein methylation and lung cancer screening, as well as a project that investigated associations between neighborhood of residence and lung cancer. The results of those efforts have also informed other projects, including a smoking cessation study. “We’ve not only included African American men in our research, but we’ve included them as part of our research team,” said Mr. Watson.

Dr. Febbo is also a stockholder of Illumina. Mr. Watson has no relevant financial disclosures.

From American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2023: Improving cancer outcomes through equitable access to cfDNA tests. Presented Monday, April 17, 2023.

Cancer screening remains challenging. There are screens available for a handful of solid tumors, but uptake is low caused in part by health care access barriers as well as the potential for unnecessary follow-up procedures, according to Phillip Febbo, MD.

These issues could threaten efforts like that of President Joe Biden’s Cancer Moonshot initiative, which aims to reduce cancer mortality by 50%. Advances in circulating tumor (ct) DNA analysis could help address these problems, but a lack of diversity among study participants needs to be addressed to ensure it has broad utility, continued Dr. Febbo, during his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

The problem is particularly acute among African American, Hispanic, and other underserved populations who often face health care barriers that can exacerbate the issue, said Dr. Febbo, who is chief medical officer for Illumina. The lack of access is compounded by the fact that there are only currently screens for lung, breast, colorectal, cervical, and prostate cancer, leaving a vast unmet need.

“We still do not have screening tests for 70% of the deaths that are due to cancer,” he said.

ctDNA released from dying cancer cells has the potential to reveal a wide range of cancer types and reduce barriers to access, because it is based on a blood test. It can be analyzed for various factors, including mutations, chromosomal rearrangements, methylation patterns, and other characteristics that hint at the presence of cancer. However, it can’t be successful without sufficient inclusion in research studies, Dr. Febbo explained.

“We have to ensure we have the right representation [of] populations when we develop these tests, when we go through the clinical trials, and as we bring these into communities,” he said.

During his presentation, Dr. Febbo shared a slide showing that about 78% of participants in published gene-association studies were White.

ctDNA showed promise in at least on recent study. Dr. Febbo discussed the ECLIPSE trial, which used the Guardant Health SHIELD assay for colorectal cancer (CRC). About 13% of its approximately 20,000 participants were Black or African American, 15% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian Americans. It also included both urban and rural individuals. In results announced in December 2022, the researchers found a sensitivity of 83%, which was lower than the 92.3% found in standard CRC screening, but above the 74% threshold set by the Food and Drug Administration. The specificity was 90%.

One approach that could dramatically change the landscape of cancer screening is a multicancer early detection (MCED) test, according to Dr. Febbo. The CancerSeek MCED test, developed by Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center researchers, uses a series of genetic and protein biomarkers to detect all cancers, with the exception of leukemia, skin cancer, and central nervous system tumors. Among 10,006 women aged between 65 and 75 years with no history of cancer, it had a sensitivity of 27.1% and a specificity of 98.9%, with a positive predictive value of 19.4%. The study’s population was 95% non-Hispanic White.

He also discussed the Pathfinder study, sponsored by the Illumina subsidiary Grail, which included 6,662 individuals age 50 and over from seven sites in the United States, and grouped them into normal and increased risk; 92% were non-Hispanic White. It used the Galleri MCED test, which performed with a sensitivity of 29%, specificity of 99.1%, and a positive predictive value of 38.0%. False positives produced to limited burden, with 93% undergoing imaging, 28% nonsurgical invasive procedures, and 2% undergoing fruitless invasive surgical procedures.

Dr. Febbo touted the potential for such tests to greatly reduce cancer mortality, but only if there is adequate uptake of screening procedures, particularly in underserved groups. He put up a slide of a model showing that MCED has the potential to reduce cancer mortality by 20%, but only if the screen is widely accepted among all groups. “I’ve had my team model this. If we accept the current use of screening tests, and we don’t address disparities, and we don’t ensure everybody feels included and participates actively – not only in the research, but also in the testing and adoption, you would cut that potential benefit in half. That would be hundreds of thousands of lives lost because we didn’t address disparities.”
 

Successful recruiting of African Americans for research

Following Dr. Febbo’s talk, Karriem Watson, MS, spoke about some potential solutions to the issue, including his own experiences and success stories in recruiting African Americans to play active roles in research. He is chief engagement officer for the National Institute of Health’s All of Us Research Program, which aims to gather health data on at least 1 million residents of the United States. Mr. Watson has spent time reaching out to people living in communities in the Chicago area to encourage participation in breast cancer screening. An event at his church inspired his own sister to get a mammogram, and she was diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer.

“I’m a living witness that early engagement can lead to early detection,” said Mr. Watson during his talk.

He reported that the All of Us research program has succeeded in creating diversity within its data collection, as 46.7% of participants identify as racial and ethnic minorities.

Mr. Watson took issue with the common perception that underrepresented communities may be hard to reach.

“I want to challenge us to think outside the box and really ask ourselves: Are populations hard to reach, or are there opportunities for us to do better and more intentional engagement?” He went on to describe a program to recruit African American men as citizen scientists. He and his colleagues developed a network that included barbers, faith leaders, and fraternity and civic organization members to help recruit participants for a prostate cancer screening project. They exceeded their initial recruitment goal.

They went on to develop a network of barbers in the south and west sides of Chicago to recruit individuals to participate in studies of protein methylation and lung cancer screening, as well as a project that investigated associations between neighborhood of residence and lung cancer. The results of those efforts have also informed other projects, including a smoking cessation study. “We’ve not only included African American men in our research, but we’ve included them as part of our research team,” said Mr. Watson.

Dr. Febbo is also a stockholder of Illumina. Mr. Watson has no relevant financial disclosures.

From American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2023: Improving cancer outcomes through equitable access to cfDNA tests. Presented Monday, April 17, 2023.

Cancer screening remains challenging. There are screens available for a handful of solid tumors, but uptake is low caused in part by health care access barriers as well as the potential for unnecessary follow-up procedures, according to Phillip Febbo, MD.

These issues could threaten efforts like that of President Joe Biden’s Cancer Moonshot initiative, which aims to reduce cancer mortality by 50%. Advances in circulating tumor (ct) DNA analysis could help address these problems, but a lack of diversity among study participants needs to be addressed to ensure it has broad utility, continued Dr. Febbo, during his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

The problem is particularly acute among African American, Hispanic, and other underserved populations who often face health care barriers that can exacerbate the issue, said Dr. Febbo, who is chief medical officer for Illumina. The lack of access is compounded by the fact that there are only currently screens for lung, breast, colorectal, cervical, and prostate cancer, leaving a vast unmet need.

“We still do not have screening tests for 70% of the deaths that are due to cancer,” he said.

ctDNA released from dying cancer cells has the potential to reveal a wide range of cancer types and reduce barriers to access, because it is based on a blood test. It can be analyzed for various factors, including mutations, chromosomal rearrangements, methylation patterns, and other characteristics that hint at the presence of cancer. However, it can’t be successful without sufficient inclusion in research studies, Dr. Febbo explained.

“We have to ensure we have the right representation [of] populations when we develop these tests, when we go through the clinical trials, and as we bring these into communities,” he said.

During his presentation, Dr. Febbo shared a slide showing that about 78% of participants in published gene-association studies were White.

ctDNA showed promise in at least on recent study. Dr. Febbo discussed the ECLIPSE trial, which used the Guardant Health SHIELD assay for colorectal cancer (CRC). About 13% of its approximately 20,000 participants were Black or African American, 15% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian Americans. It also included both urban and rural individuals. In results announced in December 2022, the researchers found a sensitivity of 83%, which was lower than the 92.3% found in standard CRC screening, but above the 74% threshold set by the Food and Drug Administration. The specificity was 90%.

One approach that could dramatically change the landscape of cancer screening is a multicancer early detection (MCED) test, according to Dr. Febbo. The CancerSeek MCED test, developed by Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center researchers, uses a series of genetic and protein biomarkers to detect all cancers, with the exception of leukemia, skin cancer, and central nervous system tumors. Among 10,006 women aged between 65 and 75 years with no history of cancer, it had a sensitivity of 27.1% and a specificity of 98.9%, with a positive predictive value of 19.4%. The study’s population was 95% non-Hispanic White.

He also discussed the Pathfinder study, sponsored by the Illumina subsidiary Grail, which included 6,662 individuals age 50 and over from seven sites in the United States, and grouped them into normal and increased risk; 92% were non-Hispanic White. It used the Galleri MCED test, which performed with a sensitivity of 29%, specificity of 99.1%, and a positive predictive value of 38.0%. False positives produced to limited burden, with 93% undergoing imaging, 28% nonsurgical invasive procedures, and 2% undergoing fruitless invasive surgical procedures.

Dr. Febbo touted the potential for such tests to greatly reduce cancer mortality, but only if there is adequate uptake of screening procedures, particularly in underserved groups. He put up a slide of a model showing that MCED has the potential to reduce cancer mortality by 20%, but only if the screen is widely accepted among all groups. “I’ve had my team model this. If we accept the current use of screening tests, and we don’t address disparities, and we don’t ensure everybody feels included and participates actively – not only in the research, but also in the testing and adoption, you would cut that potential benefit in half. That would be hundreds of thousands of lives lost because we didn’t address disparities.”
 

Successful recruiting of African Americans for research

Following Dr. Febbo’s talk, Karriem Watson, MS, spoke about some potential solutions to the issue, including his own experiences and success stories in recruiting African Americans to play active roles in research. He is chief engagement officer for the National Institute of Health’s All of Us Research Program, which aims to gather health data on at least 1 million residents of the United States. Mr. Watson has spent time reaching out to people living in communities in the Chicago area to encourage participation in breast cancer screening. An event at his church inspired his own sister to get a mammogram, and she was diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer.

“I’m a living witness that early engagement can lead to early detection,” said Mr. Watson during his talk.

He reported that the All of Us research program has succeeded in creating diversity within its data collection, as 46.7% of participants identify as racial and ethnic minorities.

Mr. Watson took issue with the common perception that underrepresented communities may be hard to reach.

“I want to challenge us to think outside the box and really ask ourselves: Are populations hard to reach, or are there opportunities for us to do better and more intentional engagement?” He went on to describe a program to recruit African American men as citizen scientists. He and his colleagues developed a network that included barbers, faith leaders, and fraternity and civic organization members to help recruit participants for a prostate cancer screening project. They exceeded their initial recruitment goal.

They went on to develop a network of barbers in the south and west sides of Chicago to recruit individuals to participate in studies of protein methylation and lung cancer screening, as well as a project that investigated associations between neighborhood of residence and lung cancer. The results of those efforts have also informed other projects, including a smoking cessation study. “We’ve not only included African American men in our research, but we’ve included them as part of our research team,” said Mr. Watson.

Dr. Febbo is also a stockholder of Illumina. Mr. Watson has no relevant financial disclosures.

From American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2023: Improving cancer outcomes through equitable access to cfDNA tests. Presented Monday, April 17, 2023.