Evaluation of the Cancer Control P.L.A.N.E.T. Web Portal.

CONTEXT: The Cancer Control P.L.A.N.E.T. (P.L.A.N.E.T.) Web portal was designed to ease access to data and evidence-based resources for cancer control practitioners and researchers focused on developing, implementing, and evaluating cancer control programs. OBJECTIVES: To determine usability, applicability, and opportunities to improve the P.L.A.N.E.T. Web portal after significant changes to the portal over time. DESIGN: The National Cancer Institute surveyed and interviewed cancer control professionals to assess factors influencing utilization of P.L.A.N.E.T. Data were collected from May 2017 to June 2018 via partner agencies, electronic publications, and online links. OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive statistics with χ test were used to analyze the quantitative data and examine the relationship among variables. Qualitative interviews further informed the quantitative analysis. RESULTS: Of the 724 participants surveyed, 51% were users of P.L.A.N.E.T., with the majority accessing P.L.A.N.E.T. within the last 6 months. Most users felt that P.L.A.N.E.T. effectively met their needs for accessing specific cancer data, identifying evidenced-based programs, and ascertaining details on various cancer topics. There were statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics between users and nonusers of P.L.A.N.E.T., where users were more likely to have more experience in the cancer field, were older in age, and located in southern states. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that P.L.A.N.E.T. is seen as a viable and credible source for cancer control program planning and delivery. A reassessment of P.L.A.N.E.T.'s goals is warranted, which may support reaching out to new audiences, amplifying or removing underutilized resources, and adding additional resources and topics. Consideration for training and tutorials on P.L.A.N.E.T. would benefit partner agencies and build capacity for evidence-based program development.

Correction to: Lung cancer screening: an emerging cancer control issue presents opportunities for an awareness campaign in rural Michigan.

In the original publication of the article, the co-author name (Antoinette Percy-Laurry) was misspelled during the publication process. The coauthor name has been corrected in this correction.

Association Between Socioeconomic Status and Tumor Grade Among Black Men with Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer affects black men disproportionately. Black men have an increased incidence of prostate cancer diagnoses at earlier ages and higher grade as indicated by Gleason score, compared to other races. This study investigates the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on prostate cancer tumor grade among black men. METHODS: Black men with a prostate cancer diagnosis during 1973-2011 were examined using individual-level data from the SEER NLMS database. Logistic regression model estimated the likelihood of receiving a diagnosis of high versus low grade prostate cancer based on self-reported SES status at the time of diagnosis. RESULTS: Men who completed high school only were statistically significantly more likely to have a higher prostate cancer grade than those with a bachelor's degree or higher. However, there was no dose-response effect across educational strata. Retirees were 30% less likely to have higher grade tumors compared to those who were employed. CONCLUSIONS: SES differences among black men did not fully explain the high grade of prostate cancer. Further research is needed on the biology of the disease and to assess access to medical care and prostate health education, discrimination, stress exposures, and social norms that might contribute to the aggressiveness of prostate cancer among black men.

Prostate cancer collaborative stage data items--their definitions, quality, usage, and clinical implications: a review of SEER data for 2004-2010.

BACKGROUND: Version 2 of the Collaborative Stage Data Collection System (CSv2) became effective with cases diagnosed in 2010. This report focuses on the CSv2 components required to derive the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage for prostate cancer and on the site-specific factors for prostate cancer captured in CSv2. The report also highlights differences between the AJCC 6th and 7th editions for classifying prostate cancer stage. METHODS: Data from 18 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program population-based registries (SEER-18) were analyzed for the years 2004-2010, which included 400,591 prostate cancer cases. RESULTS: CSv2 provides specificity with regard to the Gleason grading system by distinguishing between clinical and pathologic patterns and scores. The AJCC 7th edition incorporates prostate-specific antigen values into staging, subdivides stage II into IIA and IIB, and reclassifies extraprostatic invasion with microscopic bladder neck invasion from T4 in the 6th edition to T3a; this latter change affected the AJCC stage of 283 cases in 2010. Of the 44,578 prostate cancer cases diagnosed in 2010 that would have been classified as stage II in the AJCC 6th edition, 32.7%, 27.5%, and 39.8% are classified as stages I, IIA, and IIB, respectively, in the 7th edition. CONCLUSIONS: CSv2 provides more information than was previously available to researchers using SEER prostate data. The absence of a clearly defined clinical stage for each prostate case is the overriding limitation that researchers face in relying on Collaborative Stage information to analyze prostate cancer data.

Health disparities calculator: a methodologically rigorous tool for analyzing inequalities in population health.

Historically, researchers and policy planners have selected a single indicator to measure trends in social inequalities. A more rigorous approach is to review the literature and data, select appropriate inequality measures to address the research question, compute results from various indices, and graphically compare resulting trends. The Health Disparities Calculator (HD*Calc, version 1.2.4; National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD) computes results from different indices and graphically displays them, making an arduous task easier, more transparent, and more accessible.

Community and partner engagement in dissemination and implementation research at the National Institutes of Health: an analysis of recently funded studies and opportunities to advance the field.

BACKGROUND: As the focus has grown in recent years on both engaged research and dissemination and implementation (D&I) research, so too has federal funding to support these areas. The purpose of this analysis is to provide an overall perspective about the range of practices and approaches being used to engage partners in D&I research, with special attention to disparities-relevant research, and to identify gaps and opportunities in research funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) in this space. METHODS: This analysis examined a portfolio of active D&I research grants funded in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 across the NIH. Grant applications were deductively coded and summary statistics were calculated. Cross-tabulations were used to identify trends by engagement and disparities foci. RESULTS: There were 103 grants included in the portfolio, of which 87% contained some form of community or partner engagement, and 50% of engaged grants were relevant to health disparities. Engagement was planned across the research continuum with each study engaging on average 2.5 different partner types. Consultation was the most common level of engagement (56%) while partnership was the least common (3%). On average, each study used 2.2 engagement strategies. Only 16% of grants indicated formally measuring engagement. Compared to non-disparities studies, disparities-relevant studies were about twice as likely to engage partners at the higher levels of partnership or collaboration (19% vs. 11%) and were also more likely to be conducted in community settings (26% vs. 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this portfolio analysis, D&I research appears to regularly integrate engagement approaches and strategies, though opportunities to deepen engagement and diversify who is engaged remain. This manuscript outlines several gaps in the portfolio and describes opportunities for increasing engagement to improve the quality of D&I research and application to advancing health equity. In addition, opportunities for leveraging the consistent and systematic application of engagement approaches and strategies to advance the science of engagement are discussed.

The Cancer Survival Query System: making survival estimates from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program more timely and relevant for recently diagnosed patients.

BACKGROUND: Population-based cancer registries that include patient follow-up generally provide information regarding net survival (ie, survival associated with the risk of dying of cancer in the absence of competing risks). However, registry data also can be used to calculate survival from cancer in the presence of competing risks, which is more clinically relevant. METHODS: Statistical methods were developed to predict the risk of death from cancer and other causes, as well as natural life expectancy if the patient did not have cancer based on a profile of prognostic factors including characteristics of the cancer, demographic factors, and comorbid conditions. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program database was used to calculate the risk of dying of cancer. Because the risks of dying of cancer versus other causes are assumed to be independent conditional on the prognostic factors, a wide variety of independent data sources can be used to calculate the risk of death from other causes. Herein, the risk of death from other causes was estimated using SEER and Medicare claims data, and was matched to the closest fitting portion of the US life table to obtain a "health status-adjusted age." RESULTS: A nomogram was developed for prostate cancer as part of a Web-based Cancer Survival Query System that is targeted for use by physicians and patients to obtain information on a patient's prognosis. More nomograms currently are being developed. CONCLUSIONS: Nomograms of this type can be used as one tool to assist cancer physicians and their patients to better understand their prognosis and to weigh alternative treatment and palliative strategies.

Improving Evidence-Based Program Repositories: Introducing the Evidence-Based Cancer Control Programs (EBCCP) Web Repository.

To reduce the research to practice gap, promoting the utility of evidence-based repositories is essential among both practitioners and researchers. Organizing these repositories to address the needs of these audiences requires a user-centered design approach as proposed recently in an article by Harden et al, 2020. This commentary builds on the proposed solutions to introduce a recently redesigned Evidence-Based Cancer Control Programs (EBCCP) web repository (formerly Research-Tested Intervention Programs (RTIPs)) from the National Cancer Institute. Specifically, we describe the user-centered redesign process, strategies for broader dissemination of the repository using digital tools and provide future directions for the evidence-based program repository.

Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer survival by neighborhood socioeconomic status in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Registries.

INTRODUCTION: Reducing cancer disparities is a major public health objective. Disparities often are discussed in terms of either race and ethnicity or socioeconomic status (SES), without examining interactions between these variables. METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-18 data, excluding Alaska Native and Louisiana registries, from 2002 to 2008, were used to estimate five-year, cause-specific survival by race/ethnicity and census tract SES. Differences in survival between groups were used to assess absolute disparities. Hazard ratios were examined as a measure of relative disparity. Interactions between race/ethnicity and neighborhood SES were evaluated using proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Survival increased with higher SES for all racial/ethnic groups and generally was higher among non-Hispanic white and Asian/Pacific Islander (API) than non-Hispanic black and Hispanic cases. Absolute disparity in breast cancer survival among non-Hispanic black vs non-Hispanic white cases was slightly larger in low-SES areas than in high-SES areas (7.1% and 6.8%, respectively). In contrast, after adjusting for stage, age, and treatment, risk of mortality among non-Hispanic black cases compared with non-Hispanic white cases was 21% higher in low-SES areas and 64% higher in high-SES areas. Similarly, patterns of absolute and relative disparity compared with non-Hispanic whites differed by SES for Hispanic breast cancer, non-Hispanic black colorectal cancer, and prostate cancer cases. Statistically significant interactions existed between race/ethnicity and SES for colorectal and female breast cancers. DISCUSSION: In health disparities research, both relative and absolute measures provide context. A better understanding of the interactions between race/ethnicity and SES may be useful in directing screening and treatment resources toward at-risk populations.