4.6 Review

Reporting of race in genome and exome sequencing studies of cancer: a scoping review of the literature

Journal

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 21, Issue 12, Pages 2676-2680

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0558-2

Keywords

genome sequencing; exome sequencing; race; cancer; disparities

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R15CA239100]
  2. Hampton University Minority Men's Health Initiative - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities [U54MD008621-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Minorities are often underrepresented in clinical cancer research yet the frequency of reporting of race in genomic sequencing studies of cancer is unknown. This scoping review determines the rate at which race is reported as a demographic variable, the factors associated with reporting of race, and the participation rates of minority populations. Methods: PubMed was systematically searched from 1 January 2010 through 15 November 2018 and 11,014 studies were assessed for eligibility. Publications reporting genome or exome sequencing data for patients with one of the ten most common cancers in the United States were included. Results: A total of 231 publications containing sequencing data from 15,721 unique patients met inclusion criteria. Race was reported in 37% of studies compared with 84% of studies reporting age and 85% reporting gender. Reporting of race was associated with cohort size, sequencing method, familial cancer, cancers with disparities, and reporting of age and gender. Minority populations were significantly underpowered to detect recurrent pathogenic variants in most cancers. Conclusion: Race is underreported as a demographic variable in genomic sequencing studies of cancer. Substantially increased efforts are needed to sequence patients from underrepresented populations to reduce health disparities in patients of non-European ancestry.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available