From Base Pairs to City Squares: Comprehensive Precision Oncology for the Future.

SUMMARY: An increased understanding of the role of the social determinants of health in cancer prevention, cancer care, and outcomes can lead to their integration into genetics and genomics as well as informing interventions and clinical trials, creating a comprehensive precision oncology framework.

TARGET: A Randomized, Noninferiority Trial of a Pretest, Patient-Driven Genetic Education Webtool Versus Genetic Counseling for Prostate Cancer Germline Testing.

PURPOSE: Germline genetic testing (GT) is important for prostate cancer (PCA) management, clinical trial eligibility, and hereditary cancer risk. However, GT is underutilized and there is a shortage of genetic counselors. To address these gaps, a patient-driven, pretest genetic education webtool was designed and studied compared with traditional genetic counseling (GC) to inform strategies for expanding access to genetic services. METHODS: Technology-enhanced acceleration of germline evaluation for therapy (TARGET) was a multicenter, noninferiority, randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04447703) comparing a nine-module patient-driven genetic education webtool versus pretest GC. Participants completed surveys measuring decisional conflict, satisfaction, and attitudes toward GT at baseline, after pretest education/counseling, and after GT result disclosure. The primary end point was noninferiority in reducing decisional conflict between webtool and GC using the validated Decisional Conflict Scale. Mixed-effects regression modeling was used to compare decisional conflict between groups. Participants opting for GT received a 51-gene panel, with results delivered to participants and their providers. RESULTS: The analytic data set includes primary outcome data from 315 participants (GC [n = 162] and webtool [n = 153]). Mean difference in decisional conflict score changes between groups was -0.04 (one-sided 95% CI, -∞ to 2.54; P = .01), suggesting the patient-driven webtool was noninferior to GC. Overall, 145 (89.5%) GC and 120 (78.4%) in the webtool arm underwent GT, with pathogenic variants in 15.8% (8.7% in PCA genes). Satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms; knowledge of cancer genetics was higher but attitudes toward GT were less favorable in the webtool arm. CONCLUSION: The results of the TARGET study support the use of patient-driven digital webtools for expanding access to pretest genetic education for PCA GT. Further studies to optimize patient experience and evaluate them in diverse patient populations are warranted.

Did the COVID-19 experience change U.S. parents' attitudes towards HPV vaccination? Results from a national survey.

BACKGROUND: In the U.S., uptake of the HPV vaccine remains below coverage goals. There is concern that negative reactions to emergency initiatives during the COVID-19 pandemic, including vaccination, may have increased some parents' hesitancy towards all vaccines, including HPV. Understanding how different parent populations view routine vaccination post-pandemic is key to strategic efforts to maintaining and increasing uptake of HPV vaccine. METHODS: In early 2022, we recruited an online panel of English-speaking U.S. parents and caregivers, who used the social media platform Twitter and had HPV vaccine-eligible but unvaccinated children age 9-14 years. Respondents completed a 20-minute survey measuring knowledge, attitudes and intentions regarding HPV vaccination for their child, as well as background socio-demographics and health information-seeking practices. Questions regarding experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic included changes in access to preventive care, and perceptions of whether pandemic experiences had positively or negatively affected their attitudes about routine vaccination, with open text capturing reasons for this change. RESULTS: Among 557 respondents, 81 % were definitely or likely to vaccinate their child against HPV, with 12 % being uncertain, and 7 % unlikely to vaccinate. Regarding routine vaccination, most (70 %) felt their attitudes had not changed, while 26 % felt more positively, and only 4 % felt more negatively. Reasons for positive attitude change included increased appreciation for vaccines overall, and motivation to proactively seek preventive care for their child. Negative attitude changes stemmed from distrust of COVID-19 public health efforts including vaccine development, and disillusionment with vaccines' ability to prevent disease. In multivariable models, intention to vaccinate was greater among parents reporting greater education, Democratic affiliation, greater religiosity, and urban residence. Negative attitude change due to the pandemic independently predicted reduced HPV vaccination intention, while positive attitude change predicted positive intention. CONCLUSIONS: Post-pandemic, most U.S. parents remain committed to vaccinating their children against HPV. However, addressing residual COVID-19 concerns could improve uptake among vaccine-hesitant parents.

Toward reducing racialized pain care disparities: Approaching cannabis research and access through the lens of equity and inclusion.

There is growing interest in cannabis use for cancer pain. This commentary aims to discuss the evidence surrounding cannabis use for cancer pain in the context of the long-racialized landscape of cannabis policies and the disparity in pain control among cancer patients holding minoritized racial identities. Much evidence surrounding both the benefits and harms of cannabis use in cancer patients, and all patients in general, is lacking. Although drawing on the research in cancer that is available, it is also important to illustrate the broader context about how cannabis' deep roots in medical, political, and social history impact patient use and health care policies. There are lessons we can learn from the racialized disparities in opioid risk mitigation strategies, so they are not replicated in the settings of cannabis for cancer symptom management. Additionally, the authors intentionally use the term "cannabis" here rather than "marijuana.: In the early 1900s, the lay press and government popularized the use of the word "marijuana" instead of the more common "cannabis" to tie the drug to anti-Mexican prejudice.

Corrigendum: Guaranteed Income and Financial Treatment Trial (GIFT Trial or GIFTT): a 12-month, randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of monthly unconditional cash transfers to treatment as usual in reducing financial toxicity in people with cancer who have low incomes.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1179320.].

Community Outreach and Engagement at U.S. Cancer Centers: Notes from the Third Cancer Center Community Impact Forum.

Community outreach and engagement (COE) is a fundamental activity of cancer centers as they aim to reduce cancer disparities in their geographic catchment areas. As part of COE, NCI-Designated Cancer Centers must monitor the burden of cancer in their catchment area, implement and evaluate evidence-based strategies, stimulate catchment area relevant research, support clinical trial enrollment, and participate in policy and advocacy initiatives, in addition to other responsibilities. The Cancer Center Community Impact Forum (CCCIF) is a national annual meeting of COE professionals who work at or with cancer centers across the country. CCCIF grew out of earlier discussions at American Society of Preventive Oncology (ASPO) annual meetings, where COE was often discussed, but not exclusively. The third annual CCCIF meeting-hosted by the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University-was held in June 2022 in Philadelphia, PA, where more than 200 participants listened to dynamic presentations across 12 COE-related panel sessions. CCCIF leadership and ASPO AD/PL Workshop Planners worked together on the agenda. The 12 sessions used a COE lens to focus on: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; Policy; State Cancer Coalitions; Evaluation and Metrics; Implementation Science; In-reach; Outreach; Training and Education; Funding, Personnel and Resources; Clinical Trials; Innovative Methods; and Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. This article is a summary of main points and key lessons from each session, as well as a summary of overarching themes that were evident across the sessions.

Perceptions of Facilitators and Barriers to Smoking Cessation Among Patients and Providers in a Cancer Center: A Single Institution Qualitative Exploratory Study.

PURPOSE: Cancer patients who remain tobacco users have poorer outcomes, including increased mortality and decreased treatment tolerance; however, cessation post-diagnosis is challenging. Our formative research explored cessation-related perspectives among patients and staff at one National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center, to inform improving cessation services within oncology care. METHODS: Using a descriptive phenomenological approach, a purposive sample of current cancer patients (n = 13) and cancer center physicians and cessation program staff (n = 9) were recruited to complete one-on-one audio-recorded in-depth qualitative interviews, to explore experiences providing or receiving cessation support, and perspectives on patients' readiness and needs regarding cessation. Thematic coding utilized Green's predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing framework to identify factors having positive, negative, or mixed impact on delivery of best-practices cessation services (ie, 5As) and patient cessation success. RESULTS: Patients identified cancer diagnosis as a wake-up call, existing health problems, persistent healthcare providers, cost of cigarettes, and societal disapproval of smoking as factors facilitating quitting. Futility of quitting after a cancer diagnosis, cost and logistics of program participation, clinician time constraints, and lifetime addiction made quitting harder. Family, friends, stigma and motivation, and pharmacotherapies played mixed roles. Patients felt survivor-focused cessation programs, including stress management, could better enable quitting. Provider-anticipated problems with implementing cessation counseling included so-called "therapeutic nihilism" (ie, pessimism regarding cessation post-diagnosis), lack of training and standardized approaches, and time and documentation burden. Clinicians saw both policies and peer clinician "champions" as potentially increasing prioritization of cessation within oncology. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight unmet needs for patients and providers regarding provision of effective cessation care. Despite survival benefit, cessation is still not standard within cancer care. Our results show that many patients would benefit from standardized programs where they are routinely asked about cessation. Providers would benefit from both structural enhancements and professional education to ensure that evidence-based cessation services tailored to cancer patients, are offered throughout treatment and survivorship.

Corrigendum: Guaranteed Income and Financial Treatment (G.I.F.T.): a 12-month, randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of monthly unconditional cash transfers to treatment as usual in reducing financial toxicity in people with cancer who have low incomes.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1179320.].

Guaranteed Income and Financial Treatment Trial (GIFT Trial or GIFTT): a 12-month, randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of monthly unconditional cash transfers to treatment as usual in reducing financial toxicity in people with cancer who have low incomes.

Cancer-related financial hardship (i.e., financial toxicity) has been associated with anxiety and depression, greater pain and symptom burden, treatment nonadherence, and mortality. Out-of-pocket healthcare costs and lost income are primary drivers of financial toxicity, however, income loss is a pronounced risk factor for cancer patients with low incomes. There has been little progress in developing an income intervention to alleviate financial toxicity cancer patients with low incomes. Unconditional cash transfers (UCT), or guaranteed income, have produced positive health effects in experiments with general low-income populations, but have not yet been evaluated in people with cancer. The Guaranteed Income and Financial Treatment (GIFT) Trial will use a two-arm randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy of a 12-month UCT intervention providing $1000/month to treatment as usual on financial toxicity, health-related quality of life and treatment adherence in people with cancer who have low-incomes. The study will recruit 250 Medicaid beneficiaries with advanced cancer from two comprehensive cancer centers in Philadelphia, obtain informed consent, and randomize patients to one of two conditions: (1) $1,000/month UCT or (2) treatment as usual. Both arms will receive information on financial toxicity and the contact information for their hospital social worker or financial advocate upon enrollment. Participants will complete online surveys at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months from enrollment to collect patient-reported data on primary (i.e., financial toxicity, health-related quality of life, and treatment adherence) and secondary outcomes (i.e., anxiety, depression, food insecurity, housing stability). Social security records will be used to explore the effect on mortality at 2, 3, and 5 years post-enrollment. Linear mixed-models will be used to analyze all primary and secondary continuous outcomes over time and general estimating equations with a logit link and binary distribution for all binary outcomes over time. Differences between treatment and control groups and treatment effects will be determined using models that control for age, gender, race, baseline food security, baseline housing stability, and baseline ECOG. Findings from this study will have significant implications for the development and implementation of programs and policies that address the financial burden of cancer and other serious illnesses.

Physician Perceptions on Cancer Screening for LGBTQ+ Patients.

The LGBTQ+ community experiences cancer disparities due to increased risk factors and lower screening rates, attributable to health literacy gaps and systemic barriers. We sought to understand the experiences, perceptions, and knowledge base of healthcare providers regarding cancer screening for LGBTQ+ patients. A 20-item IRB-approved survey was distributed to physicians through professional organizations. The survey assessed experiences and education regarding the LGBTQ+ community and perceptions of patient concerns with different cancer screenings on a 5-point Likert scale. Complete responses were collected from 355 providers. Only 100 (28%) reported past LGBTQ+-related training and were more likely to be female (p = 0.020), have under ten years of practice (p = 0.014), or practice family/internal medicine (p < 0.001). Most (85%) recognized that LGBTQ+ subpopulations experience nuanced health issues, but only 46% confidently understood them, and 71% agreed their clinics would benefit from training. Family/internal medicine practitioners affirmed the clinical relevance of patients' sexual orientation (94%; 62% for medical/radiation oncology). Prior training affected belief in the importance of sexual orientation (p < 0.001), confidence in understanding LGBTQ+ health concerns (p < 0.001), and willingness to be listed as "LGBTQ+-friendly" (p = 0.005). Our study suggests that despite a paucity of formal training, most providers acknowledge that LGBTQ+ patients have unique health needs. Respondents had a lack of consensus regarding cancer screenings for lesbian and transgender patients, indicating the need for clearer screening standards for LGBTQ+ subpopulations and educational programs for providers.

Engaging community members in cancer research: an assessment of an NCI-designated cancer center.

PURPOSE: Despite the importance of engaging community members in research, multiple barriers exist. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation to understand the opportunities and challenges of engaging community members in basic, clinical, translational, and population science research. METHODS: We designed a survey and an interview guide based on the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Surveys were distributed electronically to all cancer center investigators and interviews were conducted virtually with a select group of basic, clinical, and population science investigators. Survey data (n = 77) were analyzed across all respondents using frequency counts and mean scores; bivariate analyses examined differences in responses by research program affiliation, gender, race, and faculty rank. Interviews (n = 16) were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using a reflective thematic approach. RESULTS: There was strong agreement among investigators that "Community engagement in research will help the SKCC address cancer disparities in the catchment area" (M 4.2, SD 0.9) and less agreement with items such as "I know how to find and connect with community members who I can engage in my research" (M 2.5, SD 1.3). Investigators mentioned challenges in communicating complex science to a lay audience but were open to training and workshops to acquire skills needed to integrate community members into their research. CONCLUSION: Cancer centers should develop and promote training and collaborative opportunities for investigators and community members. Overcoming challenges will lead to more patient- and community-centered cancer research in the future.

Impact of Head and Neck Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment on Patient-Partner Intimacy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma diagnosis and treatment on patient- and partner-perceived intimacy and to understand if a diagnosis of HPV-related head and neck squamous cell carcinoma influences patient-partner intimacy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational. SETTING: Single tertiary care center. METHODS: An investigator-developed questionnaire was used to prospectively survey patients and partners in 2 groups based on human papillomavirus (HPV) status: HPV+ and HPV- at diagnosis (visit 1) and after treatment (visit 2). Surveys were scored on a 60-point scale, and results were categorized as follows: loss of intimacy (0-30), stable relationship (31-41), or improvement in intimacy (42-60). Responses of couples who participated together were assessed for concordance. Responses were considered discordant if patient and partner scores equated to different levels of perceived intimacy. Median patient and partner scores were compared via Mann-Whitney U test, and concordance was assessed with a chi-square test. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients and 28 partners completed surveys at visit 1 and 28 patients and 15 partners at visit 2. Median scores among patients and partners were similar at the first time point (HPV+, 45 vs 45, P = .64; HPV-, 42.6 vs 40.8, P = .29) and the second (HPV+, 44.5 vs 44, P = .87; HPV-, 40.2 vs 39.6, P = .90). Concordance rates between HPV+ and HPV- couples were 63% vs 44% (P = .43) for the first time point and 89% vs 50% (P = .24) for the second. CONCLUSION: Patients and partners reported stable or improved intimacy at both time points, and most couples tended to agree on their levels of perceived intimacy. A diagnosis of HPV did not appear to significantly affect intimacy scores.

Predictors of consenting to participate in a clinical trial among urban cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Patient participation in clinical trials is influenced by demographic and other individual level characteristics. However, there is less research on the role of geography and neighborhood-level factors on clinical trial participation. This study identifies the demographic, clinical, geographic, and neighborhood predictors of consenting to a clinical trial among cancer patients at a large, urban, NCI-designated cancer center in the Mid-Atlantic region. METHODS: We used demographic and clinical data from patients diagnosed with cancer between 2015 and 2017. We geocoded patient addresses and calculated driving distance to the cancer center. Additionally, we linked patient data to neighborhood-level educational attainment, social capital and cancer prevalence. Finally, we used generalized linear mixed-effects conditional logistic regression to identify individual and neighborhood-level predictors of consenting to a clinical trial. RESULTS: Patients with higher odds of consenting to trials were: Non-Hispanic White, aged 50-69, diagnosed with breast, GI, head/neck, hematologic, or certain solid tumor cancers, those with cancers at regional stage, never/former tobacco users, and those with the highest neighborhood social capital index. Patients who lived further from the cancer center had higher odds of consenting to a trial. With every 1-km increase in residential distance, there was a 4% increase in the odds that patients would consent to a trial. Neither of the additional neighborhood-level variables predicted consenting to a clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies important demographic, patient-level, and geographic factors associated with consenting to cancer clinical trials, and lays the groundwork for future research exploring the role of neighborhood-level factors in clinical trial participation.

Increasing equitable access to telehealth oncology care in the COVID-19 National Emergency: Creation of a telehealth task force.

INTRODUCTION: Telehealth (TH) utilization in cancer care prior to COVID-19 was variable. Research highlights disparities in access determined by socioeconomic factors including education, income, race, and age. In response to COVID-19 and these disparities, we assessed the impact of a personalized digital support structure, the Telehealth Task Force (TTF), to reduce disparities in TH. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of cohorts between January 1, 2020 and August 30, 2020: Pre (TH use with basic telephone support), Intervention (TH access with TTF), and Post (TH access after TTF initiation and educational material dissemination). Data collected included successful TH access, health literacy (HL), and Area Deprivation Index, a ranking of neighborhoods by socioeconomic disadvantage (ADI). The data were analyzed in univariate ordinary least squares model and adjacent categories ratio model using statistical software R to understand the relationship between TTF, HL, ADI, and TH access. RESULTS: We included 555 patients from January 1, 2020 to August 30, 2020 (90 preintervention, 194 intervention, and 271 postintervention), excluding patients without ADI/HL. TTF support successfully engaged older, racially, and socioeconomically diverse patients in TH; ADI is significantly higher in the postintervention group vs. preintervention (mean difference = 7.66, 95% CI 1.00-4.32, p = 0.024) and more patients had low HL during intervention compared with preintervention (adjacent categories ratio = 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.93, p = 0.021). DISCUSSION: COVID-19 created an immediate need for TH. Implementation of the TTF helped close the digital divide, increasing TH access for vulnerable patients. Attention to digital readiness can mitigate disparities in access to care. Future research should explore the implementation of widespread routine digital support initiatives.

A Prioritized Patient-Centered Research Agenda to Reduce Disparities in Telehealth Uptake: Results from a National Consensus Conference.

Introduction: We hosted a national consensus conference with a diverse group of stakeholders to develop a patient-centered research agenda focused on reducing disparities in telehealth use. Methods: Attendees were purposively invited to participate in a 2-day virtual conference. The group developed a prioritized research agenda focused on reducing disparities in telehealth uptake, with discussion informed by findings from a scoping review. All work was conducted in partnership with a Steering Committee of national experts in telehealth and patient-centered care (n = 5) and a community-based Telehealth Advisory Board with experience with telehealth use and barriers (n = 8). Results: Sixty individuals participated in the conference and discussion resulted in a final list of 20 questions. Fifty-two attendees voted on the final prioritization of these questions. Results were aggregated for all voters (n = 52) and patient-only voters (n = 8). The top question identified by both groups focused on patient and family perspectives on important barriers to telehealth use. The entire group voting identified telehealth's impact on patient outcomes as the next most important questions, while the patient-only group identified trust-related considerations and cultural factors impacting telehealth use as next priorities. Conclusions: This project involved extensive patient and stakeholder engagement. While voting varied between patients only and the entire group of conference attendees, top identified priorities included patient and family perspectives on important barriers to telehealth, trust and cultural barriers and facilitators to telehealth, and assessment of telehealth's impact on patient outcomes. This research agenda can inform design of future research focused on addressing disparities in telehealth use.

The impact of HPV vaccine narratives on social media: Testing narrative engagement theory with a diverse sample of young adults.

Rates of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection are highest in young adults, who can be vaccinated against HPV if they were not vaccinated as adolescents. Since young adults increasingly access health information on social media, we tested the impact of a social media campaign with narrative-based health information on intentions related to HPV vaccination. We also aimed to understand which ads resonated most with young adults and led to higher survey completion rates. We created social media posts featuring videos promoting HPV vaccination. We launched a sponsored ad campaign on Facebook to reach young women, ages 18-26, across the country. Participants were randomly assigned one of 6 videos and then completed a brief survey about video engagement and intentions to: talk with a health care professional, talk with friends or family, and vaccinate against HPV. A descriptive correlational design and a test for moderation were used to explore hypothesized relationships. Across all ads, 1332 link clicks led to 991 completed surveys that were reduced to 607 surveys (95 % ages 18-26, 63 % non-Caucasian; 58 % sexually active). Higher video engagement was associated with stronger intentions to talk with a health care professional (r = 0.44, p =.01), talk with friends/family (r = 0.52, p =.01), and vaccinate against HPV (r = 0.43, p =.01). Young adults were receptive to watching narrative-based health information videos on social media. When promoting HPV vaccination, more engaging information leads to greater intentions to talk about the vaccine and get vaccinated.

Insight into how patients with prostate cancer interpret and communicate genetic test results: implications for families.

Patients with prostate cancer (PCA) are increasingly being offered germline genetic testing for precision therapy, precision management, and clinical trial options. Genetic test results also have implications for family members. How men with PCA perceive their genetic test results and decide whether to share recommendations with family members is not well studied. We interviewed 12 patients who had PCA and genetic testing and received a positive variant/likely positive variant (PV/LPV) (n = 7) or a variant of unknown significance (VUS) (n = 5) result. The semi-structured interview had five sections: genetic testing experience, impact, and interpretation of the test result, deciding whether to communicate test results to family members, impact of communication on family members, and suggestions for genetic counselors and other PCA patients. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was completed using NVivo software v10. Receipt of PV/LPV or VUS genetic test results was not as emotional as receiving the diagnosis of PCA itself. Seven of the 12 participants chose to share their test results with all relevant family members, 4 chose to share with select family members, and one chose to not disclose to any family members. The majority of family members who were aware of participants' genetic results have not undergone cascade genetic testing or sought cancer screening. Participants with PCA and positive or VUS genetic test results typically share their results with at least immediate family members, but some communication barriers exist. Understanding the best way to provide actionable and relevant information about genetic testing to family members remains a challenge.

Technology-enhanced AcceleRation of Germline Evaluation for Therapy (TARGET): A randomized controlled trial of a pretest patient-driven webtool vs. genetic counseling for prostate cancer germline testing.

BACKGROUND: Germline testing has an increasingly important role in prostate cancer care. However, a relative shortage of genetic counselors necessitates alternate strategies for delivery of pre-test education for germline testing. This study, funded by the Prostate Cancer Foundation, seeks to address the need for novel methods of delivery of pre-test germline education beyond traditional germline counseling to facilitate informed patient decision-making for germline testing. METHODS: This is a two-armed randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a target enrollment of 173 participants with prostate cancer per study arm (total anticipated n = 346). Patients who meet criteria for germline testing based on tumor features, family history or Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry are being recruited from 5 US sites including academic, private practice and Veterans healthcare settings. Consenting participants are randomized to the interactive pretest webtool or germline counseling with assessment of key patient-reported outcomes involved in informed decision-making for germline testing. RESULTS: Participants complete surveys at baseline, after pretest education/counseling, and following disclosure of germline results. The primary outcome of the study is decisional conflict for germline testing. Secondary outcomes include genetic knowledge, satisfaction, uptake of germline testing, and understanding of results. CONCLUSION: Our hypothesis is that the web-based genetic education tool is non-inferior to traditional genetic counseling regarding key patient-reported outcomes involved in informed decision-making for germline testing. If proven, the results would support deploying the webtool across various practice settings to facilitate pre-test genetic education for individuals with prostate cancer and developing collaborative care strategies with genetic counseling. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT04447703.

Examining the Association of Food Insecurity and Being Up-to-Date for Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screenings.

BACKGROUND: Food insecurity (FI) has been associated with poor access to health care. It is unclear whether this association is beyond that predicted by income, education, and health insurance. FI may serve as a target for intervention given the many programs designed to ameliorate FI. We examined the association of FI with being up-to-date to colorectal cancer and breast cancer screening guidelines. METHODS: Nine NCI-designated cancer centers surveyed adults in their catchment areas using demographic items and a two-item FI questionnaire. For the colorectal cancer screening sample (n = 4,816), adults ages 50-75 years who reported having a stool test in the past year or a colonoscopy in the past 10 years were considered up-to-date. For the breast cancer screening sample (n = 2,449), female participants ages 50-74 years who reported having a mammogram in the past 2 years were up-to-date. We used logistic regression to examine the association between colorectal cancer or breast cancer screening status and FI, adjusting for race/ethnicity, income, education, health insurance, and other sociodemographic covariates. RESULTS: The prevalence of FI was 18.2% and 21.6% among colorectal cancer and breast cancer screening participants, respectively. For screenings, 25.6% of colorectal cancer and 34.1% of breast cancer participants were not up-to-date. In two separate adjusted models, FI was significantly associated with lower odds of being up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening [OR, 0.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.5-0.99)] and breast cancer screening (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: FI was inversely associated with being up-to-date for colorectal cancer and breast cancer screening. IMPACT: Future studies should combine FI and cancer screening interventions to improve screening rates.