ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
Disparities in Next-Generation Genetic Sequencing Among Individuals with Cancer.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Are There Socio-Demographic Inequalities in the Utilisation of Tumour and ctDNA Somatic Mutation Testing in Solid Tumours? A Systematic Review.Cancer medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Paying for precision: funding approaches for N-of-1 trials of individualized gene targeted therapies.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Review
- Trends and Disparities in the Use of Next-Generation Sequencing in Patients With Cancer in the United States.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Comparison of Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Metastatic Prostate Cancer With and Without Next-Generation Sequencing Testing.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Article
- Tumor-Agnostic Therapies in Practice: Challenges, Innovations, and Future Perspectives.Cancers · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe sought to investigate disparities in the utilization of next-generation genetic sequencing (NGS) across demographic groups related to several common cancer subtypes.
methodsData on patients aged 65 years or older with a diagnosis of gastrointestinal, lung, and breast cancer between 2015 and 2020 were obtained from the Medicare Standard Analytic Files. Propensity score matching was employed to reduce selection bias, and logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate racial, ethnic, and sex-based disparities in NGS utilization.
resultsAmong 1,466,105 individuals, only 1.8% (n = 26,608) underwent NGS. Median patient age was 76 years (IQR 71-82), 36.8% (n = 539,201) of patients were male, and 87.8% (n = 1,287,805) were non-Hispanic White. Of note, minority patients, including non-Hispanic Black individuals (no NGS: 7.2% vs. NGS: 5.2%) and Hispanics (no NGS: 0.9% vs. NGS: 0.5%), as well as individuals residing in socially vulnerable neighborhoods (no NGS: 32.6% vs. NGS: 30.7%) were less likely to undergo NGS testing (all p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.78), Hispanic race/ethnicity (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.77), and males (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-0.99) remained at lower odds of undergoing NGS.
conclusionNon-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients, along with socioeconomically vulnerable individuals, were less likely to undergo NGS. Addressing these inequities is crucial to ensure that all patients have equal opportunities to receive effective, personalized cancer care that is equitable across diverse populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39523293What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.