Examining the Racial Disparities In Presentation and Treatment for Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL).

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1521-1521
Author(s):  
Pareen J Shenoy ◽  
Uma Borate ◽  
Kevin Bumpers ◽  
Tanyanika Douglas-Holland ◽  
Nassoma King ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 1521 Background: Data from the United States Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry indicate that black (B) Americans have a lower relative incidence of DLBCL than Whites (W), but a higher disease-specific mortality (Malik, ASH Annual Meeting 2009). Studies of the SEER-Medicare (Vance, ASH Annual Meeting 2007) and National Cancer Database (Flowers, ASH Annual Meeting 2009) populations revealed that B patients (pts) with DLBCL were less likely to receive rituximab with chemotherapy, however, full details on clinical and demographic parameters that may influence incidence and treatment selection were not available in either dataset. To examine these racial disparities in a setting with more detailed ascertainment of presenting features and the use of cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) chemotherapy with or without rituximab (R), we studied the differences in presentation, socioeconomic status (SES), Family History, and treatment received by B and W patients with DLBCL at Emory University and UAB. Methods: Patients diagnosed with DLBCL at Emory University (1981-2010) and UAB (1985-2010) were identified from pathology, clinical and pharmacy records. Baseline demographic data, components of the International Prognostic Index (IPI: age, performance status (PS), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), number of extranodal sites involved, and stage), B-symptoms, family history, insurance status, employment status, treatment and survival data were extracted. Racial differences in presentation, socio-demographic factors, and first-line treatment received were analyzed using Chi-squared statistical analysis. Results: A total of 862 (575 Emory and 287 UAB) patients with a confirmed diagnosis of DLBCL were identified. The median age of diagnosis for B pts (n=168) was significantly lower than that for W pts (n=607) [49 years (interquartile range [IQR] 36–60) vs. 57 years (IQR 46–69), p<0.001]. There were no differences in stage, PS, LDH level, or extranodal disease. Twice as many W pts (8%) as B pts (4%) had a positive family history of lymphoma (p=0.068). There were no B vs. W differences in employment (38% B vs. 39% W employed, p=0.822). However, fewer B pts were insured (94% B vs. 98% W, p=0.005), and insurance status differed by race (59% B vs. 79% W private, 17% B vs. 5% W Medicaid, 13% B vs. 11% W Medicare, p<0.001). R-CHOP use varied significantly over time (Figure), but contrary to previous reports there were no racial differences in the use of R-CHOP over time (52% B vs. 46% W, p=0.48). Pts who had elevated LDH were more likely to receive R-CHOP (p=0.022). Conclusions: These data corroborate findings that B pts present with DLBCL at a significantly younger age, and provide the impetus for examining racial differences in family history of lymphoma in population-based datasets as a possible contributing factor to the lower relative incidence of DLBCL in B population. In this setting of two regional referral centers with detailed ascertainment of treatment and few uninsured patients, there do not appear to be racial disparities in the adoption of R-CHOP for DLBCL. Disclosures: Foran: Genentech: Honoraria.

Blood ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 108 (11) ◽  
pp. 4614-4614
Author(s):  
Sanjay Maraboyina ◽  
Rami S. Komrokji ◽  
Rami Y. Haddad ◽  
Zeina A. Nahleh ◽  
Malek M. Safa

Abstract Background: Racial disparities in diffuse large B cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (DLBCL) are not well studied. Racial differences in outcome are not well recognized given majority of patients with DLBCL are white. The VA health care system offers a platform to study those racial differences given similar other variables and socioeconomic status among those patients. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis. The VA Central Cancer Registry (VACCR) database was used to identify patients with DLBCL diagnosed between 1995 and 2005. There are approximately 120 VA medical centers diagnosing and/or treating patients with cancer. The VACCR aggregates the data collected by the medical centers’ cancer registries. Data were extrapolated and analyzed using bio-statistical software SPSS. Variables included age, sex, stage of disease, histology subtype, date of diagnosis, date of last contact, date of relapse, vital status, family history of cancer, tobacco history, alcohol history, Agent orange exposure and whether patients received chemotherapy and or radiation. Independent t test was used for comparing continuous variables and chi square test for categorical variables. Wilcoxon test was used to compare survival among the two groups. Results: There were 2792 patients with DLBCL at the VA system, 2402 white and 323 black patients. Sixty-seven patients from other racial groups were excluded from this analysis. The mean age of presentation among blacks was 57.8 years compared to 65.7 years among whites (P-value &lt; 0.005). More Black patients had history of alcohol use, and smoking. More white patients had family history of cancer. No differences in histology subtypes were observed. Other baseline characteristics were similar. No difference in stage of disease was noted at presentation. IPI score data were not available. Similar proportion of patients received multi-agent chemotherapy among the two groups, 70 % for blacks and 67% for whites (P-value 0.58). Among blacks 16 % of patients received radiation while 19.5 % white patients did (P-value 0.73). The 5-year overall survival for blacks was 24 % compared to 29% for whites (P-value 0.92, Wilcoxon test). No statistically significant differences in survival were noted between the two races within each clinical stage. Using Cox regression multivariable analysis age, stage and chemotherapy were the only statistically significant independent variables affecting survival. Conclusions: DLBCL is less common among blacks. Blacks diagnosed with DLBCL are more likely to present at younger age. The treatment and outcome of DLBCL among blacks are not different from whites within the VA system.


2021 ◽  
Vol 206 (Supplement 3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Deepansh Dalela ◽  
Renee Hanna ◽  
Marcus Jamil ◽  
Akshay Sood ◽  
Jacob Keeley ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 154-154
Author(s):  
Katie Marsh ◽  
Thad Benefield ◽  
Sheila Lee ◽  
Louise Henderson

154 Background: The Oncotype DX (ODX) is a 21-gene assay that quantifies the risk of breast cancer recurrence and predicts chemotherapy benefit among early stage, hormone-receptor positive patients. Most major insurance carriers now cover testing. We sought to determine factors associated with ODX testing in a diverse patient population. Methods: Data from the Carolina Mammography Registry (CMR), a breast imaging registry in North Carolina (NC) was used for this analysis. We included women ages 18 and over diagnosed with breast cancer from 2010-2017 who had a breast imaging exam at a CMR facility with no personal history of breast cancer. ODX testing was obtained through linkage with the NC Central Cancer Registry. Using a backwards elimination selection strategy, we explored the association of patient residence (urban versus rural), age, race, breast density, and family history of breast cancer on receipt of ODX testing. Results: Our population included 12,329 breast cancers among women that were 24.2% non-white with a median age of 64 years (11.2% < 50 years at time of diagnosis). The majority of our sample had dense breasts (52.0%), no family history of breast cancer (80.9%), and lived in urban areas (66.3%). Use of ODX testing increased from 15.7% in 2010 to 24.8% in 2017 (p-value for time trend < 0.00001). Compared with white women, black women were less likely to receive ODX testing (aOR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.51-0.65), as were women of other races (aOR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.51-0.90). We found that for every year age increased, the likelihood of receiving ODX testing decreased (aOR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.97-0.98). Patient residence and breast density influenced the association of ODX testing. Among women in urban areas, women with dense versus non-dense breasts were more likely to receive ODX testing (aOR = 1.13; 95% CI: 1.01-1.27). Among women in rural areas, density was not associated with ODX testing (aOR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.78-1.06). Conclusions: In our cohort, ODX testing was more common among younger white women with dense breast tissue living in urban areas of NC. Additional research to understand differences in testing by rural/urban areas are warranted to ensure that all appropriate patients receive this genetic assay.


JAMA ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 306 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Argyrios Ziogas ◽  
Nora K. Horick ◽  
Anita Y. Kinney ◽  
Jan T. Lowery ◽  
Susan M. Domchek ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 423-423
Author(s):  
Warren Fingrut ◽  
Ioannis Politikos ◽  
Eric Davis ◽  
Stephanie Chinapen ◽  
Kristine Naputo ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Understanding disparities in allograft access is a prerequisite to interpret outcomes. Moreover, while alternative donors extend access, the extent to which there are racial disparities in availability of optimal donors is not established. Methods: We evaluated access to alternative donor allografts (all other than HLA-identical sibling donors) in adults 19-65 years according to recipient ancestry over time between 1/2016-4/2021. During this period an 8/8 HLA allele-matched unrelated donor (URD) had priority followed by double unit cord blood (dCB) (usually preferred if &lt; 60 years) or haploidentical donors with mismatched URDs being considered most recently. We examined access to any acceptable donor, as well as an optimal donor, by recipient ancestry. To determine trends over time, we compared early (1/2016-1/2018, 25 months), middle (2/2018-2/2020, 25 months), & pandemic (3/2020-4/2021, 14 months) time periods. Results: 592 adults (median 53.5 years, range 19-65) received alternative donor allografts. 374 (63%) had European & 218 (37%) non-European origins (66 African, 56 Asian, 55 White Hispanic, 41 other). Overall, 340 (56%) patients received 8/8 URD, 139 (23%) dCB, 69 (11%) haploidentical, & 44 (7%) 5-7/8 URD grafts with 14 (2%) patients having no graft. Europeans (263/374, 70%) mostly received 8/8 URD donors, whereas only one-third of non-Europeans (77/218, 35%) did (p &lt; 0.01). Moreover, non-European patients were more likely than Europeans to receive HLA-disparate donors of all types: 36% of non-Europeans received dCB vs 16% of Europeans, 18% vs 8% for haploidentical donors, 10% vs 6% for 5-7/8 URD grafts. African ancestry patients (n = 66) were the least likely to receive 8/8 URDs (13/66, 20%) with 27/66 (41%) of them receiving dCB, 16/66 (24%) haploidentical, & 10/66 (15%) 5-7/8 URD grafts. When analyzing by period, the relative proportion of patients receiving allografts from 8/8 URDs, dCB, & haploidentical donors remained unchanged over time (Figure 1). However, while 14 patients (13 non-Europeans including 11 of African ancestry) had no graft, the utilization of 5-7/8 URDs (4% of alternative donor allografts 1/2016-1/2018, 8% 2/2018-2/2020, 14% 3/2020-4/2021) has decreased the "no graft" incidence to 1% of patients most recently (Figure 1). We then analyzed access to an "optimal donor" defined as an 8/8 URD &lt; 35 years (Shaw et al., BBMT 2018), a dCB graft with each unit with a CD34+ dose &gt; 1.5 x10^5/kg & &gt; 4/8 HLA-match (Politikos et al., BBMT 2020), or a haploidentical donor &lt; 40 years without recipient high titer donor-specific antibodies (McCurdy et al., Seminars in Hematology 2016 & others). Mismatched URDs were excluded based on lack of literature guiding an "optimal" definition. Of 8/8 URDs/ dCB/ haploidentical transplant recipients, 424/548 (77%) received an optimal donor with 269/340 (79%) URD, 94/139 (68%) dCB, & 61/69 (88%) haploidentical grafts being optimal. Transplanted non-Europeans were less likely to receive an optimal 8/8 URD / dCB / haploidentical donor than transplanted Europeans (67% vs 84%, p &lt; 0.01) with White Hispanic & African patients having the lowest chances at 56% & 61%, respectively. Analysis of the 3 periods showed the likelihood that non-European patients received an optimal 8/8 URD / dCB / haploidentical donor is not improving: optimal allografts in 63% of non-Europeans vs 78% of Europeans 1/2016-1/2018, 68% vs 88% 2/2018-2/2020 & 68% vs 92% 3/2020-4/2021. Notably, the greatest disparity was seen at the pandemic's onset (3/2020-9/2020, Figure 2). Conclusion: Our data suggests access to 8/8 URDs for non-Europeans is not improving but utilization of all potential alternatives (dCB, haploidentical, 5-7/8 URD) is increasingly providing "donors for all". However, when incorporating the concept of an "optimal" 8/8 URD/ dCB/ haploidentical donor, there is a significant disparity in access to optimal donors for non-Europeans, with Africans & White Hispanics the least likely to receive an optimal graft. This disparity is also not improving, and worsened at the pandemic's onset. Optimization of dCB, haploidentical, & mismatched URD transplants, & recognition of optimal donor definitions for each, is critical to further improve allograft outcomes. Future studies must also investigate the extent to which futile 8/8 URD pursuits adversely impact non-European patient transplant outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Politikos: Merck: Research Funding; ExcellThera, Inc: Other: Member of DSMB - Uncompensated. Giralt: AMGEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PFIZER: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; JENSENN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CELGENE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SANOFI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; JAZZ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinnum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gyurkocza: Actinium Pharmaceutical Inc.: Research Funding. Perales: Omeros: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other; NexImmune: Honoraria; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Other; Merck: Honoraria; Medigene: Honoraria; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Other; Equilium: Honoraria; Cidara: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Sellas Life Sciences: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Ponce: Ceramedix: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CareDx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kadmon pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seres Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Generon Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy.


2011 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 352-353
Author(s):  
Martha L. Finch

It has been more than one hundred years since the American Society of Church History (ASCH) began publishing its Papers in 1889, followed in 1932 by the journal Church History. To commemorate these one hundred–plus years of publication, the History of Christianity Section of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) invited four current and past editors of Church History and, for an “outsider's” perspective, one historian who has not served as editor to participate in a panel discussion at the AAR's 2009 annual meeting in Montreal. We asked the panelists to look back on changes to Church History over time and how those changes have both mirrored and stimulated changes in the broader field of history of Christianity. We also wanted them to reflect on where they see scholarship in the field headed in the next five years or so.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document