2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A systematic review and meta-analysis of germline BRCA mutations in pancreatic cancer patients identifies global and racial disparities in access to genetic testing

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (gBRCAm) can inform pancreatic cancer (PC) risk and treatment but most of the available information is derived from white patients. The ethnic and geographic variability of gBRCAm prevalence and of germline BRCA (gBRCA) testing uptake in PC globally is largely unknown.

          Materials and methods

          We carried out a systematic review and prevalence meta-analysis of gBRCA testing and gBRCAm prevalence in PC patients stratified by ethnicity . The main outcome was the distribution of gBRCA testing uptake across diverse populations worldwide. Secondary outcomes included: geographic distribution of gBRCA testing uptake, temporal analysis of gBRCA testing uptake in ethnic groups, and pooled proportion of gBRCAm stratified by ethnicity. The study is listed under PROSPERO registration number #CRD42022311769.

          Results

          A total of 51 studies with 16 621 patients were included. Twelve of the studies (23.5%) enrolled white patients only, 10 Asians only (19.6%), and 29 (56.9%) included mixed populations. The pooled prevalence of white, Asian, African American, and Hispanic patients tested per study was 88.7%, 34.8%, 3.6%, and 5.2%, respectively. The majority of included studies were from high-income countries (HICs) (64; 91.2%). Temporal analysis showed a significant increase only in white and Asians patients tested from 2000 to present ( P < 0.001). The pooled prevalence of gBRCAm was: 3.3% in white, 1.7% in Asian, and negligible (<0.3%) in African American and Hispanic patients.

          Conclusions

          Data on gBRCA testing and gBRCAm in PC derive mostly from white patients and from HICs. This limits the interpretation of gBRCAm for treating PC across diverse populations and implies substantial global and racial disparities in access to BRCA testing in PC.

          Highlights

          • gBRCA testing is relevant for precision PC treatment and more broad cancer screening strategies.

          • Little is known about the ethnicity of PC patients tested for germline BRCA1/2 mutations.

          • We show that most PC patients tested for germline BRCA1/2 mutations in research context are white (74.7%) and from high-income countries (91.2%).

          • These findings implie major global and ethnic disparities in access to gBRCA testing for patients with PC.

          • Global efforts are urgently needed to promote accessibility of non-white patients to gBRCA testing and, in general, to clinical trials.

          Related collections

          Most cited references109

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis in clinical trials

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                @Totuccio83
                @gregoriDario
                @gimalleo
                @MadameSurgeon
                @MeliD32
                @pvhdfm
                @crovetto_a
                @SalviaRobi
                @Raffa_Casolino
                Journal
                ESMO Open
                ESMO Open
                ESMO Open
                Elsevier
                2059-7029
                21 February 2023
                April 2023
                21 February 2023
                : 8
                : 2
                : 100881
                Affiliations
                [1 ]General and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona, Verona
                [2 ]Department of Environmental and Preventive Science, University of Ferrara, Ferrara
                [3 ]Unit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences, and Public Health, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
                [4 ]Oncology Institute, Sheba Medical Center at Tel-Hashomer, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
                [5 ]Department of Surgery, New York University, New York
                [6 ]Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, New York
                [7 ]Department of Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Weill Cornell University, New York
                [8 ]Englander Institute of Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell University, New York, USA
                [9 ]Wolfson Wohl Cancer Research Centre, School of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow
                [10 ]West of Scotland Pancreatic Unit, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK
                [11 ]Faculty of Medicine, South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of NSW, Liverpool, Australia
                Author notes
                [] Correspondence to: Prof Andrew V. Biankin, Wolfson Wohl Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Garscube Estate, Switchback Road, Bearsden, Glasgow G61 1BD, UK. Tel: +44-141-330-5670; Fax: +44-141-330-5834 andrew.biankin@ 123456glasgow.ac.uk
                []Dr Raffaella Casolino, Wolfson Wohl Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Garscube Estate, Switchback Road, Bearsden, Glasgow G61 1BD, UK. Tel: +44-141-330-5670; Fax: +44-141-330-5834 raffaella.casolino@ 123456glasgow.ac.uk @Raffa_Casolino
                Article
                S2059-7029(23)00101-1 100881
                10.1016/j.esmoop.2023.100881
                10163165
                36822114
                552a5337-f94a-4644-a208-bbaf4f29ba4d
                © 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of European Society for Medical Oncology.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Original Research

                pancreatic cancer,brca,germline testing,disparities
                pancreatic cancer, brca, germline testing, disparities

                Comments

                Comment on this article