Back

Endometrial cancer survival disparities in women of African ancestry persist beyond clinical, molecular, and socioeconomic determinants

Gee, D. A.; Daroch, A.; Akerman, M.; Danziger, N.; Panella, L.; Gorman, M.; Bright, M.; Lin, D. I.; Chambwe, N.; Frimer, M.

2026-06-24 genetic and genomic medicine
10.64898/2026.06.22.26355869 medRxiv
Show abstract

Introduction Stark disparities in endometrial cancer (EC) risk and mortality exist between non-Hispanic Black and White women, with Black women experiencing higher incidence and worse survival. This disparity has been attributed to biological and socioeconomic factors, though how these factors interact to influence EC disparities remains unclear. This study modeled EC outcomes using race, area-level socioeconomic deprivation, clinical phenotypes, genetic ancestry, and molecular alterations. Methods We identified 281 cases of EC diagnosed from 2013-2023 in women who underwent clinical genomic sequencing as part of routine care across multiple Northwell Health sites. We estimated genetic ancestry, oncogenic alterations in 324 genes, microsatellite instability, and molecular classification. Geocoded patient addresses were used to derive the state-level Area Deprivation Index to estimate socioeconomic deprivation. Results African ancestry patients were enriched for high-grade disease (89% vs 64%), serous histology (57% vs 26%), and the TP53-mutant molecular classification (71% vs 51%) compared to European ancestry patients (p-value<0.05). Socioeconomic deprivation quintiles were associated with race, with more deprived quintiles enriched for Black patients (p-value<0.001). Both race and genetic ancestry, but not area-level deprivation, were independently associated with differences in progression-free survival. TP53 mutations were enriched in African ancestry patients, while KRAS, PTEN, and ARID1A mutations were enriched in European ancestry patients (q<0.10). Cox proportional hazards modeling, adjusting for these factors, showed that African ancestry patients had worse progression-free survival (HR 1.91, p-value<0.05). Conclusion Our findings indicate that EC disparities persist after adjusting for socioeconomic, clinical, and molecular factors, highlighting the need to further investigate additional drivers of disparity.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.0%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 24%
6.8%
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 15%
5.6%
4
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.2%
5
Genetics in Medicine
78 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.2%
6
Annals of Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
7
Journal of Medical Genetics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
8
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.3%
9
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.3%
10
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
50% of probability mass above
11
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 37%
2.8%
12
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 38%
2.7%
13
The American Journal of Human Genetics
234 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
14
European Journal of Human Genetics
58 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.0%
15
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
84 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
16
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
17
International Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
18
Cancer Research Communications
51 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.5%
19
Genome Medicine
183 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
20
European Journal of Cancer
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
21
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
22
The Journal of Pathology
26 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
23
Genes
144 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
24
Cell Reports
1498 papers in training set
Top 26%
0.9%
25
Breast Cancer Research
36 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
26
Matrix Biology Plus
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
27
Molecular Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
28
Annals of Epidemiology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
29
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
30
NAR Cancer
37 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%