Context Given the current context of racial disparities in health and health care and the historical context of eugenics, racial disparities in the use of genetic susceptibility testing have been widely anticipated. However, to our knowledge there are no published studies examining the magnitude and determinants of racial differences in the use of genetic susceptibility testing. Objectives To investigate the relationship between race and the use of BRCA1/2 counseling among women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer and to determine the contribution of socioeconomic characteristics, cancer risk perception and worry, attitudes about genetic testing, and interactions with primary care physicians to racial differences in utilization. Design, Setting, and Participants Case-control study (December 1999-August 2003) of 408 women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, of whom 217 underwent genetic counseling for BRCA1/2 testing (cases) and 191 women did not (controls). Participants received primary care within a large health system in greater Philadelphia, Pa. Main Outcome Measures Probability of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation, socioeconomic characteristics, perception of breast and ovarian cancer risk, worry about breast and ovarian cancer, attitudes about BRCA1/2 testing, and primary care physician discussion of BRCA1/2 testing were measured prior to undergoing BRCA1/2 counseling for cases and at the time of enrollment for controls. Results African American women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer were significantly less likely to undergo genetic counseling for BRCA1/2 testing than were white women with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.40). This association persisted after adjustment for probability of BRCA1/2 mutation, socioeconomic characteristics, breast and ovarian cancer risk perception and worry, attitudes about the risks and benefits of BRCA1/2 testing, and primary care physician discussion of BRCA1/2 testing (adjusted odds ratio for African American vs white, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.89). Conclusions Racial disparities in the use of BRCA1/2 counseling are large and do not appear to be explained by differences in risk factors for carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation, socioeconomic factors, risk perception, attitudes, or primary care physician recommendations. The benefit of predictive genetic testing will not be fully realized unless these disparities can be addressed.

No abstract

Racial differences in health care system distrust are complex with far greater differences seen in the domain of values distrust than in competence distrust. This framework may be useful for explaining the mixed results of studies of race and health care-related distrust to date, for the design of future studies exploring the causes of racial disparities in health and health care, and for the development and testing of novel strategies for reducing these disparities.

Purpose Patients’ estimates of their chances of therapeutic benefit from participation in early-phase trials greatly exceed historical data. Ethicists worry that this “therapeutic misestimation” undermines the validity of informed consent. Patients and Methods We interviewed 45 patients enrolled in phase I or II oncology trials about their expectations of therapeutic benefit and their reasons for those expectations. We employed a phenomenological, qualitative approach with one primary coder to identify emergent themes, verified by 2 independent coders. Results Median expectations of therapeutic benefit varied from 50% to 80%, depending on how the question was asked. Justifications universally invoked hope and optimism, and 27/45 participants used one of these words. Three major themes emerged: (1) optimism as performative, that is, the notion that positive thoughts and expressions improve chances of benefit; (2) fighting cancer as a battle; and (3) faith in God, science, or both. Many participants described a culture in which optimism was encouraged and expected, such that trial enrollment became a way of reflecting this expectation. Many reported they had been told few patients would benefit and appeared to understand the uncertainties of clinical research, yet expressed high expected personal therapeutic benefit. More distressed participants were less likely to invoke performative justifications for their expectations (50% vs 84%; P = .04). Conclusion Expressions of high expected therapeutic benefit had little to do with reporting knowledge and more to do with expressing optimism. These results have implications for understanding how to obtain valid consent from participants in early-phase clinical trials.

A minority of primary care physicians have prescribed tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention. The decision to prescribe tamoxifen is affected by the ability to determine eligibility, patient demand, and personal experience with breast cancer as much as perceptions of the risks and benefits. A woman's risk of endometrial cancer from tamoxifen seems to have less impact on prescribing decisions than the magnitude of her breast cancer risk.