Sorry you asked? Mayo, Myriad, and the battles over patent-eligibility.

Genetic testing for inherited cancer risk changed dramatically when the US Supreme Court handed down unanimous rulings in Mayo v. Prometheus (2012) and Myriad v. Association for Molecular Pathology (2013). Those decisions struck down claims to methods based on 'laws of nature' (Mayo) and DNA molecules corresponding to sequences found in nature (Myriad). Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Christopher Coons (D-DE) introduced legislation that would abrogate those decisions and specify narrow statutory exclusions to patent-eligibility in §101 of the US Patent Act. What would be the consequences of doing so? The Supreme Court decisions coincided with changes in how genetic tests were performed, reimbursed and regulated. Multi-gene sequencing supplanted oligo-gene testing as the cost of sequencing dropped 10,000-fold. Payers dramatically changed reimbursement practices. Food and Drug Administration regulation was proposed and remains in prospect. Databases for clinical interpretation made data freely available, augmenting a knowledge commons. The spectacular implosion of Theranos tempered investment in molecular diagnostics. These factors all complicate explanations of why venture capital funding for molecular diagnostics dropped relative to other sectors. Restoring patent-eligibility would put renewed pressure on other patent doctrines, such as obviousness, enablement and written description, that were not raised in the Supreme Court cases.

Breast Density Knowledge and Awareness Among Latinas in a Low-Resource Setting.

PURPOSE: Latinas in low-resource settings face additional barriers to understanding mammographic breast density (MBD) implications. The authors compared MBD awareness and knowledge in Latinas from a safety-net clinic in Arizona with a national sample. METHODS: Latinas 40 to 74 years of age were recruited within a safety-net clinic during screening mammography appointments from 2016 to 2019 (AZ cohort) and from a nationally representative online panel in 2017 (NS cohort). Surveys completed in either English or Spanish assessed awareness and knowledge of MBD. Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used for comparisons. RESULTS: The NS cohort (n = 152) was older, more educated, more likely to have undergone prior mammography, and more likely to prefer English compared with the AZ cohort (n = 1,327) (P ≤ .03 for all) The NS cohort was more likely to be aware of MBD (32.6% versus 20.7%). Of those aware, the NS cohort was more likely to understand MBD's effect on masking (67.8% versus 37.0%) and breast cancer risk (72.2% versus 32.6%) compared with the AZ cohort (P ≤ .001 for all). Adjusting for age, education, screening history, and language, MBD awareness was similar between the two cohorts (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj], 0.95; P = .83), but knowledge of MBD as a masking factor (ORadj, 2.8; P = .03) and risk factor (ORadj, 7.2; P < .001) remained higher in the NS cohort compared with the AZ cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in MBD awareness, but not knowledge, between Latinas in a low-resource setting compared with a national sample could be explained by age, education, screening history, and language preference, underscoring the need for tailored approaches to MBD education among Latinas.