OBJECTIVE:To compare receipt of National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guideline-Adherent treatment for gynecologic cancers, inclusive of uterine, cervical, and ovarian cancer, between non-Hispanic White women and racial-ethnic minority women in the equal-Access Military Health System.METHODS:We accessed MilCanEpi, which links data from the Department of Defense Central Cancer Registry and Military Health System Data Repository administrative claims data, to identify a cohort of women aged 18-79 years who were diagnosed with uterine, cervical, or ovarian cancer between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2014. Information on tumor stage, grade, and histology was used to determine which treatment(s) (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy) was indicated for each patient according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines during the period of the data (1998-2014). We compared non-Hispanic Black, Asian, and Hispanic women with non-Hispanic White women in their likelihood to receive guideline-Adherent treatment using multivariable logistic regression models given as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs.RESULTS:The study included 3,354 women diagnosed with a gynecologic cancer of whom 68.7% were non-Hispanic White, 15.6% Asian, 9.0% non-Hispanic Black, and 6.7% Hispanic. Overall, 77.8% of patients received guideline-Adherent treatment (79.1% non-Hispanic White, 75.9% Asian, 69.3% non-Hispanic Black, and 80.5% Hispanic). Guideline-Adherent treatment was similar in Asian compared with non-Hispanic White patients (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 0.84-1.48) or Hispanic compared with non-Hispanic White women (aOR 1.30, 95% CI 0.86-1.96). Non-Hispanic Black patients were marginally less likely to receive guideline-Adherent treatment compared with non-Hispanic White women (aOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53-1.00, P=.011) and significantly less likely to receive guideline-Adherent treatment than either Asian (aOR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.97) or Hispanic patients (aOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.92).CONCLUSION:Racial-ethnic differences in guideline-Adherent care among patients in the equal-Access Military Health System suggest factors other than access to care contributed to the observed disparities.