Intersectional Analysis of U.S. Medical Faculty Diversity over Four Decades.

The 2020 U.S. Census data show a rapidly diversifying U.S. population. We sought to evaluate whether clinical faculty and leadership representation at academic medical schools reflects the diversifying population over time. Using data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for the period of 1977 through 2019, we found notable progress in female representation among clinical faculty, with smaller gains among department chairs and medical school deans. Racial and ethnic groups that are underrepresented in medicine are designated as such because their presence within the medical profession is disproportionate to the U.S. Census data. Even with accounting for this underrepresentation, clinical faculty and leadership positions show even starker disparities. Thoughtful policy implementation could help address this persistent underrepresentation among medical school faculty and leadership positions.

Considerations from employed African-American and white prostate cancer survivors on prostate cancer treatment and survivorship: a qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To solicit information/suggestions from prostate cancer survivors to improve survivorship experiences specific to work/workability. DESIGN: The study employed a qualitative/phenomenological approach. Black/African-American and white prostate cancer survivors who: (1) had prostatectomy or radiation therapy 6-36 months prior, (2) were working for pay within 30 days before having treatment, and (3) expected to be working for pay 6 months later (n = 45) were eligible for this study. Survivors were engaged in 60-to-90-minute structured interviews. Content analysis was used to ascertain prominent themes. RESULTS: Participants had the following recommendations for survivors: ask about research on treatment options and side effects; speak with other survivors about cancer diagnosis; and inform family/friends and employers about needed accommodations. Considerations for family/friends emphasized the significance of instrumental (e.g. help finding information) and emotional support (e.g. encouragement). Employer/co-worker considerations most often related to work-related accommodations/support and avoiding stigmatization of the survivor. Considerations for healthcare providers commonly included the provision of unbiased, plain-language communication about treatment options and side effects. No major differences existed by race. CONCLUSIONS: Needs of employed PrCA survivors, regardless of their race or treatment type, are commonly related to their desire for informational, instrumental, and/or emotional support from family/friends, employers/co-workers, and healthcare providers. The requested supports are most often related to the side effects of prostate cancer treatment.

In pursuit of equity in cancer care: Moving beyond the Affordable Care Act.

Although Medicaid Expansion under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been associated with many improvements for patients with cancer, Snyder et al. provide evidence demonstrating the persistence of racial disparities in cancer. This Editorial describes why insurance coverage alone does not ensure access to health care, highlights various manifestations of structural racism that constitute barriers to access beyond the direct costs of care, and calls for not just equality, but equity, in cancer care.

A comparison of survey incentive methods to recruit rural cancer survivors into cancer care delivery research studies.

Unconditional (upfront) incentives are proposed to improve acceptance of cancer research among underrepresented, racial/ethnic minority populations, but few studies have tested incentive strategies among rural cancer survivors. Descriptive statistics summarized demographic characteristics of survey respondents, and response rates by arm were compared using Chi-square tests. We compared upfront ($2) and response-based ($10 conditional) incentives in a mailed survey of adult post-treatment rural survivors. Individuals meeting eligibility criteria from the electronic medical record (n = 2,830) were randomized into two incentive arms (n = 1,414 for the upfront arm and n = 1,416 for the contingent arm). Of the total delivered, presumed eligible participants (n = 1,304 upfront arm; n = 1,317 contingent arm), 67.8% were aged 65y+, 49.8% were female, and 95.1% were non-Hispanic white. The response rate for all participants was 18.5%. We received eligible surveys from 281 rural survivors in the first arm (response rate: 21.5%); and 205 surveys in the second arm (response rate: 15.6%). Participants who received the upfront incentive had a higher response rate than those receiving a response-based incentive, X2 (1, 2,621) = 15.53, p < 0.0001. Incentivizing survey completion with an upfront $2 bill encouraged a higher survey response rate; other supplemental strategies are needed to achieve a higher response rate for this population.

Capacity to Provide Geriatric Specialty Care for Older Adults in Community Oncology Practices.

BACKGROUND: American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend that patients ≥65 years of age starting chemotherapy undergo a geriatric assessment (GA) to inform and guide management; however, little is known about resources available in community oncology practices to implement these guidelines and to facilitate geriatric oncology research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oncology practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were electronically surveyed in 2017 regarding the availability of specialty providers, supportive services, and practice characteristics, as part of a larger survey of cancer care delivery research capacity. RESULTS: Of the 943 NCORP practices, 504 (54%) responded to the survey, representing 210 practice groups. The median new cancer cases per year ≥65 years of age was 457 (interquartile range 227-939). Of respondents, only 2.0% of practices had a fellowship-trained geriatric oncologist on staff. Geriatricians were available for consultation or comanagement at 37% of sites, and of those, only 13% had availability within the oncology clinic (5% of overall). Practice size of ≥1,000 new adult cancer cases (ages ≥18) per year was associated with higher odds (1.81, confidence interval 1.02-3.23) of geriatrician availability. Other multidisciplinary care professionals that could support GA were variably available onsite: social worker (84%), nurse navigator (81%), pharmacist (77%), dietician (71%), rehabilitative medicine (57%), psychologist (42%), and psychiatrist (37%). CONCLUSION: Only a third of community oncology practices have access to a geriatrician within their group and only 5% of community sites have access within the oncology clinic. Use of primarily self-administered GA tools that direct referrals to available services may be an effective implementation strategy for guideline-based care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Only a minority of community oncology practices in the U.S. have access to geriatric specialty care. Developing models of care that use patient-reported measures and/or other geriatric screening tools to assess and guide interventions in older adults, rather than geriatric consultations, are likely the most practical methods to improve the care of this vulnerable population.

Management and outcomes of women diagnosed with primary breast lymphoma: a multi-institution experience.

PURPOSE: Primary breast lymphoma (PBL) comprises < 1% of breast malignancies, leading to a paucity of data to guide management. We evaluated PBL recurrence patterns across two academic hospitals in the era of modern systemic-therapy and radiotherapy. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with PBL between October 1994 and June 2016 were identified. Demographic/clinical variables were assessed via primary chart review. Local control (LC) was estimated using the cumulative incidence function and overall survival (OS) using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were identified. Median follow-up 5.8 years (range 0.3-17.8 years). Median age at diagnosis 66 years (range 35-86 years). Indolent versus aggressive lymphoma represented 57% (n = 20) and 43% (n = 15) of the cohort, respectively. All patients with aggressive lymphoma received systemic therapy. Thirty patients (86%) received radiotherapy (RT). Breast-only RT was used in 57% (n = 20); 23% (n = 7) received regional nodal irradiation (RNI), and 6% (n = 2) received limited-field RT. Local recurrences were observed in 3% (n = 1), contralateral breast 9% (n = 3), CNS 6% (n = 2), distant non-CNS 30% (n = 10), both local and distant 3% (n = 1). There were no regional nodal recurrences. The 6-year LC rate was 95% for indolent and 81% for aggressive subtypes. The 6-year OS rate was 87% for indolent and 70% for aggressive subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients in this PBL cohort received breast-only RT with no nodal relapses, suggesting that prophylactic RNI may be unnecessary. Given the prevalence of contralateral breast involvement at diagnosis and at recurrence, vigilant surveillance of bilateral breasts may be warranted. The role of CNS prophylaxis requires further investigation.

Perceptions of Cancer Care and Clinical Trials in the Black Community: Implications for Care Coordination Between Oncology and Primary Care Teams.

BACKGROUND: Despite efforts to ameliorate disparities in cancer care and clinical trials, barriers persist. As part of a multiphase community-engaged assessment, an exploratory community-engaged research partnership, forged between an academic hospital and a community-based organization, set out to explore perceptions of cancer care and cancer clinical trials by black Bostonians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Key informant interviews with health care providers and patient advocates in community health centers (CHCs), organizers from grassroots coalitions focused on cancer, informed the development of a focus group protocol. Six focus groups were conducted with black residents in Boston, including groups of cancer survivors and family members. Transcripts were coded thematically and a code-based report was generated and analyzed by community and academic stakeholders. RESULTS: While some participants identified clinical trials as beneficial, overall perceptions conjured feelings of fear and exploitation. Participants describe barriers to clinical trial participation in the context of cancer care experiences, which included negative interactions with providers and mistrust. Primary care physicians (PCPs) reported being levied as a trusted resource for patients undergoing care, but lamented the absence of a mechanism by which to gain information about cancer care and clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Confusion about cancer care and clinical trials persists, even among individuals who have undergone treatment for cancer. Greater coordination between PCPs and CHC care teams and oncology care teams may improve patient experiences with cancer care, while also serving as a mechanism to disseminate information about treatment options and clinical trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Inequities in cancer care and clinical trial participation persist. The findings of this study indicate that greater coordination with primary care physicians (PCPs) and community health center (CHC) providers may be an important step for both improving the quality of cancer care in communities and increasing awareness of clinical trials. However, PCPs and CHCs are often stretched to capacity with caring for their communities. This leaves the oncology community well positioned to create programs to bridge the communication gaps and provide resources necessary to support oncologic care along the cancer continuum, from prevention through survivorship.

Financial Burden of Cancer Clinical Trial Participation and the Impact of a Cancer Care Equity Program.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer clinical trial (CT) participation rates are low and financial barriers likely play a role. We implemented a cancer care equity program (CCEP) to address financial burden associated with trial participation. We sought to examine the impact of the CCEP on CT enrollment and to assess barriers to participation. METHODS: We used an interrupted time series design to determine trends in CT enrollment before and after CCEP implementation. Linear regression models compared trial enrollment before and after the CCEP. We also compared patient characteristics before and after the CCEP and between CCEP and non-CCEP participants. We surveyed CCEP and non-CCEP participants to compare pre-enrollment financial barriers. RESULTS: After accounting for increased trial availability and the trends in accrual for prior years, we found that enrollment increased after CCEP implementation (18.97 participants per month greater than expected; p < .001). A greater proportion of CCEP participants were younger, female, in phase I trials, lived farther away, had lower incomes, and had metastatic disease. Of 87 participants who completed the financial barriers survey, 49 CCEP and 38 matched, non-CCEP participants responded (63% response rate). CCEP participants were more likely to report concerns regarding finances (56% vs. 11%), medical costs (47% vs. 14%), travel (69% vs. 11%), lodging (60% vs. 9%), and insurance coverage (43% vs. 14%) related to trial participation (all p < .01). CONCLUSION: CT participation increased following implementation of the CCEP and the program enrolled patients experiencing greater financial burden. These findings highlight the need to address the financial burden associated with CT participation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Financial barriers likely discourage patients from participating in clinical trials. Implementation of a cancer care equity program (CCEP) seeking to reduce financial barriers by assisting with travel and lodging costs was associated with increased trial accrual. The CCEP provided assistance to patients particularly in need, including those living farther away, those with lower incomes, and those reporting financial barriers related to trial participation. These findings suggest that financial concerns represent a major barrier to patient participation in clinical trials and underscore the importance of efforts to address these concerns.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Recurrent Hodgkin Lymphoma.

This topic addresses the management of recurrent Hodgkin lymphoma. While autologous stem cell transplantation may be appropriate for select cases of recurrent disease following comprehensive combined-modality therapy, other options exist for patients treated with lower-dose therapy for early-stage disease. Additionally, innovative targeted therapies provide newer salvage options to consider. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria® are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment. By combining the most recent medical literature and expert opinion, this revised guideline can aid clinicians in the complex decision-making associated with the management of recurrent Hodgkin lymphoma.

Inequity in Cancer and Cancer Care Delivery in the United States.

Inequity exists along the continuum of cancer and cancer care delivery in the United States. Marginalized populations have later stage cancer at diagnosis, decreased likelihood of receiving cancer-directed care, and worse outcomes from treatment. These inequities are driven by historical, structural, systemic, interpersonal, and internalized factors that influence cancer across the pathologic and clinical continuum. To ensure equity in cancer care, interventions are needed at the level of policy, care delivery, interpersonal communication, diversity within the clinical workforce, and clinical trial accessibility and design.

Randomized Pilot Study of a Keratin-based Topical Cream for Radiation Dermatitis in Breast Cancer Patients.

Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) is commonly used in the treatment of breast cancer and often, despite advances in fractionated dosing schedules, produces undesirable skin toxicity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using a keratin-based topical cream, KeraStat® Cream (KC; KeraNetics, Inc., Winston Salem, NC, USA) to manage the symptoms of radiation dermatitis (RD) in breast cancer patients undergoing RT. Materials and Methods: A total of 24 subjects were enrolled on this single-center, randomized, open-label study. Participants were randomly assigned to KC or standard of care (SOC, patient's choice of a variety of readily available creams or moisturizers). Patients were asked to apply the assigned treatment to the irradiated area twice daily, beginning with day 1 of RT, through 30 days post-RT. The primary outcome was compliance of use. Secondary outcomes included safety and tolerability of KC, as well as RD severity assessed using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scale and the patient-reported Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Results: All subjects in the KC group were assessed as compliant with no adverse events. The rate of RTOG Grade 2 RD was lower in the KC group (30.8%) compared to the SOC group (54.5%, P = .408). At the final RT visit, the mean RTOG RD score was lower in the KC group (1.0) versus the SOC group (1.4). Similarly, patient-reported quality of life measured by the DLQI at the end of RT was improved in the KC group (mean 4.25, small effect) versus the SOC group (mean 6.18, moderate effect, P = .412). Conclusions: KC was safe and well tolerated with no adverse events. Though efficacy measures were not powered to draw definitive conclusions, trends and clinical assessments suggest that there is a benefit of using KC compared to SOC for breast cancer patients treated with RT, and a larger powered study for efficacy is warranted. Trial Registry: This clinical trial is registered as NCT03374995 titled KeraStat(R) Cream for Radiation Dermatitis.

Analysis and Optimization of Equitable US Cancer Clinical Trial Center Access by Travel Time.

Importance: Racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are currently underrepresented in clinical trials. Data-driven, quantitative analyses and strategies are required to help address this inequity. Objective: To systematically analyze the geographical distribution of self-identified racial and socioeconomic demographics within commuting distance to cancer clinical trial centers and other hospitals in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal quantitative study used data from the US Census 2020 Decennial and American community survey (which collects data from all US residents), OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Centers list, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, National Trial registry, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data. Statistical analyses were performed on data collected between 2006 and 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Population distributions of socioeconomic deprivation indices and self-identified race within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute 1-way driving commute times from US cancer trial sites. Map overlay of high deprivation index and high diversity areas with existing hospitals, existing major cancer trial centers, and commuting distance to the closest cancer trial center. Results: The 78 major US cancer trial centers that are involved in 94% of all US cancer trials and included in this study were found to be located in areas with socioeconomically more affluent populations with higher proportions of self-identified White individuals (+10.1% unpaired mean difference; 95% CI, +6.8% to +13.7%) compared with the national average. The top 10th percentile of all US hospitals has catchment populations with a range of absolute sum difference from 2.4% to 35% from one-third each of Asian/multiracial/other (Asian alone, American Indian or Alaska Native alone, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander alone, some other race alone, population of 2 or more races), Black or African American, and White populations. Currently available data are sufficient to identify diverse census tracks within preset commuting times (30, 60, or 120 minutes) from all hospitals in the US (N = 7623). Maps are presented for each US city above 500 000 inhabitants, which display all prospective hospitals and major cancer trial sites within commutable distance to racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Conclusion and Relevance: This study identified biases in the sociodemographics of populations living within commuting distance to US-based cancer trial sites and enables the determination of more equitably commutable prospective satellite hospital sites that could be mobilized for enhanced racial and socioeconomic representation in clinical trials. The maps generated in this work may inform the design of future clinical trials or investigations in enrollment and retention strategies for clinical trials; however, other recruitment barriers still need to be addressed to ensure racial and socioeconomic demographics within the geographical vicinity of a clinical site can translate to equitable trial participant representation.

Radiotherapy for Advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma with Initial Bulk: A Combined Analysis of Two Randomized Trials.

Purpose: The role of consolidative radiation therapy (RT) in patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma with initial bulk is unclear. GITIL/FIL HD0607 and FIL HD0801, 2 randomized controlled trials with similar design and methodologies, did not identify a benefit to consolidative RT after a metabolic complete response to 6 cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine. However, their limited sample sizes reduced statistical power to detect a small but clinically meaningful benefit to RT. Methods and Materials: In a secondary analysis of these 2 phase 3 trials, reconstructed patient data were used to compare outcomes for early and complete responders randomized to no RT or RT to the site(s) of initial bulk. Estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were generated using the combined data and compared between groups using the log-rank test. Results: A total of 412 patients were included in the ITT analysis, and 373 patients were included in the PP analysis. Median age was 30 to 32 years, 42% of patients were stage IIB, and 73% of bulky sites were located in the mediastinum. For the no RT versus RT groups, 5-year ITT PFS estimates were 90.1% versus 90.1%, respectively (P = .81). Five-year PP PFS rates were 90.9% versus 92.9%, respectively (P = .31). There was no observed difference between no RT and RT groups in subgroups according to size of bulky disease: 5 to 7 cm (P = .78), 7 to 10 cm (P = .25), and >10 cm (P = .69). Conclusions: In this combined analysis of 2 randomized phase 3 clinical trials, consolidative RT to initial sites of bulky nodal involvement was not associated with a PFS benefit in patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma in metabolic complete response after 2 and 6 cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria: Localized nodal indolent lymphoma.

The present guidelines review epidemiology, pathology, presentation, workup, staging, prognostic factors, and treatment options for patients with localized nodal indolent lymphoma, with an emphasis on radiation guidelines, including radiation dose, field design, and radiation techniques. Following a discussion of the current literature and available data for treatment and outcomes of patients with indolent lymphoma, several different example cases are reviewed to help physicians make appropriate treatment decisions. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) by which the panel rates the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

Addressing disparities in cancer care and incorporating precision medicine for minority populations.

Cancer incidence and outcomes vary considerably between racial and ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic (NH) Blacks are disproportionately burdened with the most common cancer types, having the highest death rate of any group. Racial health disparities are complex and have been identified at each step of the cancer care continuum, encompassing patient and provider factors and health care system processes. The higher cancer mortality among NH Blacks may reflect underuse of prevention strategies such as vaccination and screening, resulting in later stage of disease at diagnosis and underuse of cancer-directed therapy. Inequalities in the quality of care, including access to health care and receipt of recommended diagnostic and therapeutic interventions as well as supportive care also contribute to the excess burden of cancer-related deaths among NH Blacks. Non-clinical factors such as structural racism and lower socioeconomic status are associated with unequal access to resources such as housing, healthy foods, employment, and education, which have been demonstrated to drive racial disparities in cancer. Concerted efforts to understand and target the causes of the observed differences in access, screening, and treatment utilization will be critical for achieving more equitable treatment delivery and outcomes for all patients with cancer. Moreover, ongoing efforts to enhance diversity in clinical trials enrollment and access to novel precision medicine initiatives are processes warranted to reduce healthcare inequalities.

Navigating Financial Barriers to Papanicolaou Tests and Mammograms for Young Adult Women Residing in Rural and Border Areas of Texas.

Purpose: Costs of Papanicolaou (Pap) tests and mammograms are a primary barrier for women aged 18-39 seeking screening and diagnostic services. Race/ethnicity and rural/border resident status compound their risks for delayed diagnosis, possibly resulting in higher mortality. Methods: We analyzed cross-sectional data from young adult (YA) women (aged 18-39) from a cancer education and patient navigation (PN) program in rural and border Texas from 2012 to 2016. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests, and logistic regressions summarized sociodemographic variables and receipt of PN, Pap tests, and mammograms. Results: The sample consisted of 1181 women aged 31.8 years (standard deviation 5.5) on average. A total of 795 (67.3%) received PN, 494 (41.8%) received a Pap test, and 121 (10.3%) received a mammogram. The YA women attending the program due to cost (odds ratio [OR]: 7.24; confidence interval [CI]: 4.74-11.05) and reporting 1 (OR: 3.84; CI: 2.40-6.14) or 2+ barriers (OR: 6.00; CI: 3.61-9.99) had higher odds of being navigated than those not concerned about cost and not identifying a barrier. The YA women attending due to cost (OR: 2.22, CI: 1.61-3.05) and receiving navigation (OR: 1.92; CI: 1.29-2.84) had higher odds of receiving a Pap test than their counterparts. The majority receiving a mammogram were worried about cost (85.1%); 40.5% had a family history of breast cancer, and a doctor or nurse recommended a mammogram for 15.7%. Conclusion: Detection of cervical and breast cancer in YA women residing in rural and border Texas may be improved with PN to assist with financial barriers to care and service coordination.