Cancer stage and consideration of cannabis use among adult cancer survivors in Southern California.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of cannabis in symptom management among cancer survivors are widely acknowledged; however, patterns of cannabis use by cancer stage at diagnosis are unknown. METHODS: Here, we examined the association between cancer stage at diagnosis and consideration of cannabis use since diagnosis. We analyzed cross-sectional survey data from 954 cancer survivors, weighted to be representative of a National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center's patient population. We used survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between cancer stage at diagnosis (advanced [III/IV] versus non-advanced [I/II]) and consideration of cannabis use (yes versus no) since diagnosis. RESULTS: Sixty percent of the population was diagnosed with non-advanced stages of cancer, and 42% had considered using cannabis since diagnosis. The odds of consideration of cannabis use were 63% higher (odds ratio = 1.63, 95% confidence interval = 1.06 to 2.49) among cancer survivors diagnosed at stages III/IV than among those diagnosed at stages I/II. CONCLUSION: Cancer stage may be a predictor of consideration of cannabis use after diagnosis.

The association of perceived cannabis risks and benefits with cannabis use since cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with cancer use cannabis to help alleviate untreated cancer symptoms and side effects. METHODS: We examined associations of perceived benefits and risks and postdiagnosis cannabis use in a weighted sample of adult cancer survivors through a 1-time survey. Fifteen perceived cannabis use benefits and 19 perceived risks were operationalized as both summary scores and report of any benefits or risks. Survey-weighted logistic regression provided covariate-adjusted odds of postdiagnosis cannabis use for each benefit-risk measure. RESULTS: Among the weighted population of 3785 survivors (mean [SD] age = 62.2 [13.5] years), one-third used cannabis after diagnosis. Perceiving any benefits increased the odds of postdiagnosis cannabis use more than 500%, and perceiving any risks lowered the odds by 59%. Each SD increase in endorsed benefits doubled the odds of postdiagnosis cannabis use, while each SD increase in endorsed risks reduced the odds by 36%. CONCLUSION: An accurate understanding of benefits and risks is critical for informed decision making.

Perceptions, prevalence, and patterns of cannabis use among cancer patients treated at 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: The legal climate for cannabis use has dramatically changed with an increasing number of states passing legislation legalizing access for medical and recreational use. Among cancer patients, cannabis is often used to ameliorate adverse effects of cancer treatment. Data are limited on the extent and type of use among cancer patients during treatment and the perceived benefits and harms. This multicenter survey was conducted to assess the use of cannabis among cancer patients residing in states with varied legal access to cannabis. METHODS: A total of 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers, across states with varied cannabis-access legal status, conducted surveys with a core questionnaire to assess cannabis use among recently diagnosed cancer patients. Data were collected between September 2021 and August 2023 and pooled across 12 cancer centers. Frequencies and 95% confidence intervals for core survey measures were calculated, and weighted estimates are presented for the 10 sites that drew probability samples. RESULTS: Overall reported cannabis use since cancer diagnosis among survey respondents was 32.9% (weighted), which varied slightly by state legalization status. The most common perceived benefits of use were for pain, sleep, stress and anxiety, and treatment side effects. Reported perceived risks were less common and included inability to drive, difficulty concentrating, lung damage, addiction, and impact on employment. A majority reported feeling comfortable speaking to health-care providers though, overall, only 21.5% reported having done so. Among those who used cannabis since diagnosis, the most common modes were eating in food, smoking, and pills or tinctures, and the most common reasons were for sleep disturbance, followed by pain and stress and anxiety with 60%-68% reporting improved symptoms with use. CONCLUSION: This geographically diverse survey demonstrates that patients use cannabis regardless of its legal status. Addressing knowledge gaps concerning benefits and harms of cannabis use during cancer treatment is critical to enhance patient-provider communication.

Partnering With Patients and Caregivers in Cancer Care: Lessons From Experiences With Transgender, Hispanic, and Pediatric Populations.

A cancer diagnosis thrusts patients and caregivers into a foreign world of health care with systems, protocols, and norms that can leave little room for individual needs and circumstances. Quality and efficacious oncology care requires clinicians to partner with patients and caregivers to understand and incorporate their needs, values, and priorities into information sharing, decision making, and care provision. This partnership is necessary for effective patient- and family-centered care and access to individualized and equitable information, treatment, and research participation. Partnering with patients and families also requires oncology clinicians to see that our personal values, preconceived ideas, and established systems exclude certain populations and potentially lead to poorer care for all patients. Furthermore, inequitable access to participation in research and clinical trials can contribute to an unequal burden of cancer morbidity and mortality. Leveraging the expertise of the authorship team with transgender, Hispanic, and pediatric populations, this chapter provides insights and suggestions for oncology care that are applicable across patient populations to mitigate stigma and discrimination and improve the quality of care for all patients.

HPV Vaccine Misperceptions Among Hispanics/Latinos in Southern California.

BACKGROUND: Cervical and other vaccine-preventable HPV-associated cancers disproportionately impact Hispanic/Latinos in the USA. HPV vaccine uptake may be impacted by community agreement with common HPV vaccine misperceptions. It is unknown whether Hispanics/Latinos have a greater agreement with these misperceptions relative to non-Hispanic whites. METHODS: HPV vaccine misperceptions were assessed through a 12-item Likert scale included in a population health assessment mailed to households in the southwest United States. Linear regression models assessed the association between identifying as Hispanic/Latino and summed misperception score. RESULTS: Among the 407 individuals in the analytic sample, 111 (27.3%) were Hispanic/Latino and 296 (72.7%) were non-Hispanic white. On average, Hispanics/Latinos had a 3.03-point higher HPV vaccine misperception sum score relative to non-Hispanic whites, indicating greater agreement with misperceptions (95% confidence interval: 1.16-4.88; p < 0.01). DISCUSSION: Culturally relevant interventions are needed to address HPV vaccine misperceptions among Hispanics/Latinos as part of efforts toward HPV-associated cancer health equity.

Neurocognitive test performance following cancer among middle-aged and older adults in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) and the SOL-Investigation of Neurocognitive Aging Ancillary Study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients and survivors often experience acute cognitive impairments; however, the long-term cognitive impact remains unclear particularly among Hispanics/Latinos. We examined the association between cancer history and neurocognitive test performance among middle-aged and older Hispanic/Latinos. METHODS: Participants included 9639 Hispanic/Latino adults from the community-based and prospective Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. At baseline (2008-2011; V1), participants self-reported their cancer history. At V1 and again at a 7-year follow-up (2015-2018; V2), trained technicians administered neurocognitive tests including the Brief-Spanish English Verbal Learning Test (B-SEVLT), Word Fluency Test (WF), and Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSS). We used survey linear regression to estimate the overall, sex-specific, and cancer site-specific [i.e., cervix, breast, uterus, and prostate] adjusted associations between cancer history and neurocognitive test performance at V1 and changes from V1 to V2. RESULTS: At V1, a history of cancer (6.4%) versus no history of cancer (93.6%) was associated with higher WF scores (ß = 0.14, SE = 0.06; p = 0.03) and global cognition (ß = 0.09, SE = 0.04; p = 0.04). Among women, a history of cervical cancer predicted decreases in SEVLT-Recall scores (ß = -0.31, SE = 0.13; p = 0.02) from V1 to V2, and among men, a history of prostate cancer was associated with higher V1 WF scores (ß = 0.29, SE = 0.12; p = 0.02) and predicted increases in SEVLT-Sum (ß = 0.46, SE = 0.22; p = 0.04) from V1 to V2. CONCLUSION: Among women, a history of cervical cancer was associated with 7-year memory decline, which may reflect the impacts of systemic cancer therapies. Among men, however, a history of prostate cancer was associated with improvements in cognitive performance, perhaps due in part to engaging in health promoting behaviors following cancer.

Improved survival in cervical cancer patients receiving care at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced cervical cancer (CC) remains lethal in the United States. We investigate the effect of receiving care at an National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center (NCICC) on survival. METHODS: Data for women diagnosed with CC from 2004 to 2016 who received radiation treatment were extracted from the California Cancer Registry (n = 4250). Cox proportional hazards regression models assessed whether (1) receiving care at NCICCs was associated with risk of CC-specific death, (2) this association remained after multivariable adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, and insurance status, and (3) this association was explained by receipt of guideline-concordant treatment. RESULTS: Median age was 50 years (interquartile range [IQR] 41-61 years), with median follow-up of 2.7 years (IQR 1.3-6.0 years). One-third of patients were seen at an NCICC, and 29% died of CC. The hazard of CC-specific death was reduced by 20% for those receiving care at NCICCs compared with patients receiving care elsewhere (HR = .80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.90). Adjustment for guideline-concordant treatment and other covariates minimally attenuated the association to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.95), suggesting that the survival advantage associated with care at NCICCs may not be due to receipt of guideline-concordant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates survival benefit for patients receiving care at NCICCs compared with those receiving care elsewhere that is not explained by differences in guideline-concordant care. Structural, organizational, or provider characteristics and differences in patients receiving care at centers with and without NCI designation could explain observed associations. Further understanding of these factors will promote equality across oncology care facilities and survival equity for patients with CC.

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.

Equitable COVID-19 Vaccination for Hispanics in the United States: A Success Story from California Border Communities.

The ongoing 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic continues to impact the health of individuals worldwide, including causing pauses in lifesaving cancer screening and prevention measures. From time to time, elective medical procedures, such as those used for cancer screening and early detection, were deferred due to concerns regarding the spread of the infection. The short- and long-term consequences of these temporary measures are concerning, particularly for medically underserved populations, who already experience inequities and disparities related to timely cancer care. Clearly, the way out of this pandemic is by increasing COVID-19 vaccination rates and doing so in an equitable manner so that communities most affected receive preferential access and administration. In this article, we provide a perspective on vaccine equity by featuring the experience of the California Hispanic community, who has been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. We first compared vaccination rates in two United States-Mexico border counties in California (San Diego County and Imperial County) to counties elsewhere in California with a similar Hispanic population size. We show that the border counties have substantially lower unvaccinated proportions of Hispanics compared to other counties. We next looked at county vaccination rates according to the California Healthy Places Index, a health equity metric and found that San Diego and Imperial counties achieved more equitable access and distribution than the rest of the state. Finally, we detail strategies implemented to achieve high and equitable vaccination in this border region, including Imperial County, an agricultural region that was California's epicenter of the COVID-19 crisis at the height of the pandemic. These United States-Mexico border county data show that equitable vaccine access and delivery is possible. Multiple strategies can be used to guide the delivery and access to other public health and cancer preventive services.

Brachytherapy utilization for cervical cancer in Western United States border counties: seeking to understand referral patterns for outcome improvement.

PURPOSE: Standard of care for definitive treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) is concurrent chemoradiation followed by a brachytherapy boost. Only 55.8% of women in the United States receive brachytherapy, with even lower proportions in San Diego and Imperial Counties. The purpose of this study was to investigate brachytherapy practice and referral patterns in Western United States border region. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A short survey was sent to 28 radiation oncologists in San Diego and Imperial Counties, who treat patients with gynecologic malignancies. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. RESULTS: Seventeen (61%) physicians responded to the survey. All physicians reported some training in cervical cancer brachytherapy during residency, with median 6 months. Only two physicians reported personally treating all cervical cancer patients with brachytherapy; however, 92% of remaining physicians would recommend brachytherapy for patients if given time and access. The most common reason for referral (78%) was patients deemed to require hybrid or interstitial brachytherapy implants. Barriers to referral included patients' preference, insurance status, their resources, or logistics. No changes were reported for brachytherapy practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, except the addition of pre-procedural testing for SARS-CoV-2. Ninety-two percent of physicians identified inadequate maintenance of skills as a barrier to performing brachytherapy, but 77% were not interested in additional training. External beam radiation therapy boosts were rarely recommended in case scenarios describing potentially curable patients. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of brachytherapy is widely recognized for conferring a survival benefit, but barriers to implementation include inadequate training or maintenance of skills, and larger systematic issues related to reimbursement policy, social support, and financial hardship. As most established providers were uninterested in additional brachytherapy training, future approaches to improve patients' access should be multidimensional and reflect the value of brachytherapy in definitive treatment of patients with LACC.

Age-related differences in breast cancer mortality according to race/ethnicity, insurance, and socioeconomic status.

BACKGROUND: We assessed breast cancer mortality in older versus younger women according to race/ethnicity, neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES), and health insurance status. METHODS: The study included female breast cancer cases 18 years of age and older, diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 in the California Cancer Registry. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to generate hazard ratios (HR) of breast cancer specific deaths and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for older (60+ years) versus younger (< 60 years) patients separately by race/ethnicity, nSES, and health insurance status. RESULTS: Risk of dying from breast cancer was higher in older than younger patients after multivariable adjustment, which varied in magnitude by race/ethnicity (P-interaction< 0.0001). Comparing older to younger patients, higher mortality differences were shown for non-Hispanic White (HR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.36-1.51) and Hispanic women (HR = 1.37; 95% CI, 1.26-1.50) and lower differences for non-Hispanic Blacks (HR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.31) and Asians/Pacific Islanders (HR = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.31). HRs comparing older to younger patients varied by insurance status (P-interaction< 0.0001), with largest mortality differences observed for privately insured women (HR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.43-1.59) and lowest in Medicaid/military/other public insurance (HR = 1.18; 95% CI, 1.10-1.26). No age differences were shown for uninsured women. HRs comparing older to younger patients were similar across nSES strata. CONCLUSION: Our results provide evidence for the continued disparity in Black-White breast cancer mortality, which is magnified in younger women. Moreover, insurance status continues to play a role in breast cancer mortality, with uninsured women having the highest risk for breast cancer death, regardless of age.