Association of patients' primary language, race, and location of care with decision-making for personalized breast cancer risk assessment.

Abstract

331 Background: Personalized breast cancer risk assessment (CRA) and genetic counseling/testing for women have been shown to improve interventional and clinical outcomes. However, despite CRA being routinely offered to all women at our institution, not all women choose to opt into the program. This study evaluated the demographic distribution of patients that opted out of the CRA to identify potential components influencing this substantial decision. Methods: Our medical center, located in four urban and suburban locations, piloted a clinical framework to provide CRA to all women between the ages of 25 and 75 with a qualifying mammogram. In this single institution retrospective study, we analyzed differences among patients who opted out of the program between July 20, 2020and July 19, 2021. Data elements extracted from the electronic medical record include race, primary language, location of care, and decision to partake in CRA. Overall Chi-square tests and all pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction were used to statistically determine the impact of various demographics on opting out. Results: 18726 women met criteria for inclusion and 2717 (14.5%) declined CRA. Within their respective racial groups, 122 (17.6%) Asian, 1175 (16.3%) Black, 455 (14.2%) Hispanic, 112 (15%) Other, and 853 (12.4%) White opted out. Within their identified primary language, 2370 (13.7%) English, 231 (23.1%) Spanish, 35 (19.7%) Bilingual, and 81 (35.2%) Other opted out. Based on their setting of care, 837 (16.8%) Location A, 1436 (14.2%) Location B, 270 (13.8%) Location C, and 174 (10.6%) Location D opted out. The differences between demographics and opting out were statistically significant for all analyses (p <.0001). Results shown in Table below. Conclusions: The main variables mediating the decision to opt out of CRA are a non-English primary language, non-White race, and location of care, potentially due to inadequate interpretation services, barriers to education, and staffing shortages. Thus, these women are less likely to receive genetic counseling/testing or supplemental screening. Our study is the first to investigate the factors contributing to the uptake of risk assessment. Further study is needed to determine the clinical impact of this striking disparity.[Table: see text]