Self-Collection for Primary HPV Testing: Perspectives on Implementation From Federally Qualified Health Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Primary testing for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) by self-collection could result in higher rates of cervical cancer screening. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in the US serve a large proportion of women who have low income and no health insurance and are medically underserved - risk factors for being insufficiently screened for cervical cancer. Although the implementation of self-collection for HPV testing is not yet widespread, health care entities need to prepare for its eventual approval by the US Food and Drug Administration. We conducted focus groups and interviews among clinical and administrative staff and leadership to gather data on key logistical concerns that must be addressed before implementing self-collection for HPV testing in FQHCs. METHODS: We identified focus group and interview participants from 6 FQHCs in North Carolina. We conducted focus groups with clinical and administrative staff (N = 45) and semistructured interviews with chief executive officers, senior-level administrators, chief medical officers, and clinical data managers (N = 24). Transcripts were coded by using codebooks derived from research questions and notes taken during data collection. Themes emerged on implementation of self-collection for HPV testing. We applied the constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to themes to identify domains of potential barriers and facilitators to implementation. RESULTS: Clinical personnel reported that offering self-collection for HPV testing is acceptable and feasible and can increase cervical cancer screening rates. Uncertainties emerged about accuracy of results, workflow disruptions, financial implications, and effects on clinic quality measures. CONCLUSION: Implementing self-collection for HPV testing was considered feasible and acceptable by participants. However, important health service delivery considerations, including financial implications, must be addressed before integrating self-collection for HPV testing into the standard of care.

Prioritizing rural populations in state comprehensive cancer control plans: a qualitative assessment.

PURPOSE: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) requires that states develop comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans and recommends that disparities related to rural residence are addressed in these plans. The objective of this study was to explore rural partner engagement and describe effective strategies for incorporating a rural focus in CCC plans. METHODS: States were selected for inclusion using stratified sampling based on state rurality and region. State cancer control leaders were interviewed about facilitators and barriers to engaging rural partners and strategies for prioritizing rural populations. Content analysis was conducted to identify themes across states. RESULTS: Interviews (n = 30) revealed themes in three domains related to rural inclusion in CCC plans. The first domain (barriers) included (1) designing CCC plans to be broad, (2) defining "rural populations," and (3) geographic distance. The second domain (successful strategies) included (1) collaborating with rural healthcare systems, (2) recruiting rural constituents, (3) leveraging rural community-academic partnerships, and (4) working jointly with Native nations. The third domain (strategies for future plan development) included (1) building relationships with rural communities, (2) engaging rural constituents in planning, (3) developing a better understanding of rural needs, and (4) considering resources for addressing rural disparities. CONCLUSION: Significant relationship building with rural communities, resource provision, and successful strategies used by others may improve inclusion of rural needs in state comprehensive cancer control plans and ultimately help plan developers directly address rural cancer health disparities.

Barriers and facilitators to the engagement of physical activity among Black and African American cancer survivors during and after treatments.

PURPOSE: To identify physical activity (PA) barriers and facilitators among Black and African American (Black/AA) cancer survivors that should be considered in future PA intervention development for this population. METHODS: A community advisory board (CAB) of Black/AA cancer survivors and patient advocates guided in-depth qualitative interviews (n = 19) that were completed via telephone using a semi-structured interview guide. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and data were analyzed using directed content analysis to detail a report of PA barriers and facilitators during and after cancer treatment. The CAB reviewed and interpreted these barriers and facilitators to identify the final results. RESULTS: Survivors (n = 19) of nine different types of cancer completed interviews. PA barriers during cancer treatments included physical and psychological suffering. PA barriers after cancer treatments included social and environmental constraints (e.g., lack of access needed for PA, safety concerns, and competing priorities). PA facilitators both during and after cancer treatments included family support, faith, and support from other survivors. PA facilitators during treatment also included feeling better after doing PA, setting realistic and flexible goals, and gaining a sense of control of one's health by striving for PA goals. CONCLUSIONS: To increase PA among Black/AA cancer survivors, PA interventions are needed that address structural barriers, include the role of faith, leverage family support, highlight the psychological benefits of PA, and use goal setting.

Patient and Provider Perception of Transurethral Resection of Bladder Tumor vs Chemoablation for Nonmuscle-invasive Bladder Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: The aim of this mixed methods study was to investigate patient and provider perceptions of repeat transurethral resection of bladder tumors to improve counseling as new nonsurgical treatment modalities for nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer emerge. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Quantitative data were collected via a web-based survey through the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network of patients with nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer who had undergone at least 1 transurethral resection of bladder tumor. Bivariable and multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate associations of patient demographics and clinical variables with treatment preference. Qualitative data were collected with 60 in-depth telephone interviews with patients (n=40) and urologists (n=20) to understand experiences with bladder cancer and transurethral resection of bladder tumor. Telephone interviews were conducted by trained qualitative experts. Transcripts were imported into Dedoose to facilitate analysis. RESULTS: Survey data of 352 patients showed 210 respondents (60%) preferred repeat transurethral resection of bladder tumor while 142 (40%) preferred intravesical chemoablation. Patients who preferred repeat transurethral resection of bladder tumor were more likely to prioritize initial treatment effectiveness (63%), whereas those who preferred chemoablation prioritized risk of recurrence (55%). Variables associated with a preference for intravesical chemoablation included U.S. residence (OR=2; 95% CI 1.1, 3.8), or if they expressed their reason for treatment preference as priority of recurrence risk over effectiveness (OR=14.6; 95% CI 7.4, 28.5). Predominant interview themes varied across participants, with patients but not urologists emphasizing the emotional toll of the procedure along with the need for improved counseling regarding recurrence, terminology, and cancer-related signs and symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Differences exist in the way patients and urologists perceive repeat transurethral resection of bladder tumor for bladder cancer. Understanding transurethral resection of bladder tumor perception will aid in shared decision making as novel treatments emerge for nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Minimal Patient-Reported Side Effects for a Chemoablative Gel (UGN-102) Used as Frontline Treatment in Adults with Nonmuscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.

PURPOSE: Optima II ("OPTimized Instillation of Mitomycin for Bladder Cancer Treatment," clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03558503) was a phase 2b trial evaluating a nonsurgical alternative as a primary treatment for nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Patients received 6 weekly instillations of UGN-102, a mitomycin-containing reverse thermal gel. This is the first study to report on patient-reported side effects of UGN-102. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-three patients enrolled in Optima II from 20 sites. Of these 63 patients, 44 were in the cohort completing a quarterly patient-reported outcome measure assessing side effects. Changes in side effects were evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Associations of 3-month outcomes with demographic and clinical characteristics were examined with regression, controlling for baseline values. Ten of 44 patients (23%) were interviewed after the trial to understand tolerability for future patients making treatment decisions. Transcripts were double-coded using standard methods. RESULTS: In the patient-reported outcome measure cohort (44), 61% were men, 57% aged 65+ years and 89% were non-Hispanic White. UGN-102 did not cause decrements in patient-reported urinary symptoms, bloating/flatulence or malaise at the primary endpoint of 3 months. Sexual function mildly worsened. Future health worries improved. Demographics were not correlated with changes. Clinically, sexual function was correlated with new NMIBC and bloating/flatulence was associated with transurethral resection of bladder tumor within 12 months. In interviews, patients appreciated a nonsurgical alternative, would recommend the gel to other patients and would choose the gel over surgery. CONCLUSIONS: A nonsurgical, chemoablative gel (UGN-102) used as a primary treatment for NMIBC offers a more patient-centered therapeutic approach than standard treatments.