ReviewCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Equity and Inclusion in Assessing Hereditary Cancer Risk: Insights From Excluded Communities, Structured Interviews, and Population Genetics.
Review in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinicopathologic characteristics of early-onset breast cancer among unselected young Black women.Cancer · 2026Article
- Equity and Inclusion in Assessing Hereditary Cancer Risk: Insights From Excluded Communities, Structured Interviews, and Population Genetics.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterReview
- Moving Toward Equity: Identifying and Mitigating Disparities in Cancer Care from Screening to Survival.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
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
Abstract
Including underrepresented population groups in databases and initiatives integral to assessing hereditary cancer risk presents several challenges. Data and knowledge from genome-wide association studies (GWASs) and clinical genomics are based largely on people with predominantly European ancestry. Individuals who do not have this ancestry are under-represented in resources used to make clinical assessments. They are therefore more likely to receive results of "variant of unknown significance" (VUS) from genetic testing. Efforts to broaden representation of population groups have created additional challenges in grouping those with mixed ancestry. Further, the focus on genetics can lead to downplaying the impacts of racism. We describe challenges that must be overcome to include underrepresented population groups, including our insights from our ongoing work within each of 3 population groups that focus on: health care access for heterogeneous Hispanic/Latino populations, engagement with Black, African, and African Diasporic communities, and Indigenous Data sovereignty. Using empirical data derived from population databases, we demonstrate gaps in hereditary cancer gene variant representation. Our interviews with experts in genetic testing and data sharing suggest ways to create inclusive hereditary cancer data resources. The interview data highlight the inequities that have led to underrepresentation, ranging from patient access to research and health services (especially those that are culturally-sensitive), to funding available for professional training and grants to those who belong to underrepresented groups. Our goal is to ensure the realities of how different excluded groups experience genetic testing are not overlooked in the development of policy to address the broad challenge of hereditary cancer gene variant data sharing. There is no one simple solution to making more inclusive hereditary cancer data resources, but there are many opportunities to improve them and better serve these populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.