Retrospective study reveals lower genotype-matched therapy uptake in minority metastatic breast cancer, highlighting persistent barriers to precision oncology.
PURPOSE: Race/ethnicity may affect outcomes in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) due to biological and social determinants. We evaluated the impact of race/ethnicity on clinical, socioeconomic, and genomic characteristics, clinical trial participation, and receipt of genotype-matched therapy among patients with MBC. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A retrospective study of patients with MBC who underwent cell-free DNA testing (cfDNA, Guardant360, 74 gene panel) between 11/2016 and 11/2020 was conducted. Receipt of genotype-matched therapy targeted at a cfDNA actionable mutation was determined. Pearson χ2 and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables between groups. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association of race and receiving matched therapy. RESULTS: A total of 425 patients with MBC and cfDNA results were identified (White: 369, Black: 27, Hispanic: 15, and Asian: 14). White patients traveled further for cancer care than other groups (P < 0.001). White patients had the highest rates of commercial insurance, Black patients had the highest rates of state-supported insurance, and Asian patients had the highest uninsured rates (P < 0.001). Clinical trial enrollment did not differ by race/ethnicity (P = 0.34). The proportion of patients with ≥1 actionable mutation in cfDNA did not vary by race/ethnicity (P = 0.18). The highest rates of matched therapy were observed in White patients (P < 0.001). After multivariable logistic regression adjusting for subtype, commercial versus other insurance, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and distance to center, White patients remained more likely to receive matched therapy (P = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Racial/ethnic minority patients were less likely to receive matched therapy. Further research is needed to identify barriers to precision medicine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sood et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: