Assessing the Correlation between Allostatic Load and False-Positive Image-Guided Breast Biopsies.

Background: Allostatic load (AL) is the accumulation of physiological dysregulation attributed to repeated activation of the stress response over a lifetime. We assessed the utility of AL as a prognostic measure for high-risk benign breast biopsy pathology results. Method: Eligible patients were women 18 years or older, with a false-positive outpatient breast biopsy between January and December 2022 at a tertiary academic health center. AL was calculated using 12 variables representing four physiological systems: cardiovascular (pulse rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein, and low-density lipoprotein); metabolic (body mass index, albumin, and hemoglobin A1C); renal (creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate); and immune (white blood cell count). Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between AL before biopsy and breast biopsy outcomes controlling for patients' sociodemographics. Results: In total, 170 women were included (mean age, 54.1 ± 12.9 years): 89.4% had benign and 10.6% had high-risk pathologies (radial scar/complex sclerosing lesion, atypical ductal or lobular hyperplasia, flat epithelial atypia, intraductal papilloma, or lobular carcinoma in-situ). A total of 56.5% were White, 24.7% Asian, and 17.1% other races. A total of 32.5% identified as Hispanic. The mean breast cancer risk score using the Tyrer-Cuzick model was 11.9 ± 7.0. In multivariable analysis, with every one unit increase in AL, the probability of high-risk pathology increased by 37% (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.03, 1.81; p = 0.03). No significant association was seen between high-risk pathology and age, ethnicity, breast cancer risk, or area deprivation index. Conclusion: Our findings support that increased AL, a biological marker of stress, is associated with high-risk pathology among patients with false-positive breast biopsy results.

Patient-Reported Adverse Events and Early Treatment Discontinuation Among Patients With Multiple Myeloma.

Importance: There is substantial interest in capturing cancer treatment tolerability from the patient's perspective using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Objective: To examine whether a PRO question, item 5 from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General General Physical Wellbeing Scale (GP5), was associated with early treatment discontinuation (ETD) due to adverse events. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective survey study was conducted from February to April 2023. Among participants in the ECOG-ACRIN E1A11 trial (a phase 3, parallel design trial conducted between 2013 and 2019), patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomized to receive bortezomib (VRd) or carfilzomib (KRd) plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone as induction therapy. The GP5 item was administered at baseline (pretreatment) and at 1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months postbaseline. Eligible participants included patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated at community oncology practices or academic medical centers in the US. Exposures: GP5 response options were "very much," "quite a bit," "somewhat," "a little bit," and "not at all." Responses at each assessment while undergoing treatment (1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months) were categorized as high adverse event bother (ie, "very much," and "quite a bit") and low adverse event bother (ie, "somewhat," "a little bit," or "not at all"). In addition, change from baseline to each assessment while undergoing treatment was calculated and categorized as worsening by 1 response category and 2 or more response categories. Main Outcome and Measure: ETD due to adverse events (yes vs no) was analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for treatment group, performance status, gender, race, and disease stage. Results: Of the 1087 participants in the original trial, 1058 (mean [SD] age 64 [9] years; 531 receiving VrD [50.2%]; 527 receiving KRd [49.8%]) responded to item GP5 and were included in the secondary analysis. A small proportion (142 patients [13.4%]) discontinued treatment early due to AEs. For those with high adverse-effect bother, GP5 while undergoing treatment was associated with ETD at 1 month (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.25-3.89), 2.8 months (aOR, 3.41; 95% CI, 2.01-5.80), and 5.5 months (aOR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.69-12.83). Worsening by 2 or more response categories on the GP5 was associated with ETD at 2.8 months (aOR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.64-5.54) and 5.5 months (aOR, 5.49; 95% CI, 1.45-20.76). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of the E1A11 trial, worse GP5 response was associated with ETD. These findings suggest that simple assessment of adverse-effect bother while receiving treatment is an efficient way to indicate treatment tolerability and ETD risk.

Disparities in Provider Ordering Practices of Image-Guided Interventions and Surgery for Patients With Low Back Pain: A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess individual- and neighborhood-level sociodemographic factors associating with providers' ordering of nonpharmacologic treatments for patients with low back pain (LBP), specifically physical therapy, image-guided interventions, and lumbar surgery. METHODS: Our cohort included all patients diagnosed with LBP from 2000 to 2017 in a statewide database of all hospitals and ambulatory surgical facilities within Utah. We compared sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of (1) patients with LBP who received any treatment with those who received none and (2) patients with LBP who received invasive LBP treatments with those who only received noninvasive LBP treatments using the Student's t test, Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests, and Pearson's χ2 tests, as applicable, and two separate multivariate logistic regression models: (1) to determine whether sociodemographic characteristics were risk factors for receiving any LBP treatments and (2) risk factors for receiving invasive LBP treatments. RESULTS: Individuals in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods were less likely to receive any nonpharmacologic treatment orders (odds ratio [OR] 0.74 for most disadvantaged, P < .001) and received fewer invasive therapies (0.92, P = .018). Individual-level characteristics correlating with lower rates of treatment orders were female sex, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander race (OR 0.50, P < .001), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 0.77, P < .001), single or unmarried status (OR 0.69, P < .001), and no insurance or self-pay (OR 0.07, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Neighborhood and individual sociodemographic variables associated with treatment orders for LBP with Area Deprivation Index, sex, race or ethnicity, insurance, and marital status associating with receipt of any treatment, as well as more invasive image-guided interventions and surgery.

Interventions addressing health-related social needs among patients with cancer.

Health-related social needs are prevalent among cancer patients; associated with substantial negative health consequences; and drive pervasive inequities in cancer incidence, severity, treatment choices and decisions, and outcomes. To address the lack of clinical trial evidence to guide health-related social needs interventions among cancer patients, the National Cancer Institute Cancer Care Delivery Research Steering Committee convened experts to participate in a clinical trials planning meeting with the goal of designing studies to screen for and address health-related social needs among cancer patients. In this commentary, we discuss the rationale for, and challenges of, designing and testing health-related social needs interventions in alignment with the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 5As framework. Evidence for food, housing, utilities, interpersonal safety, and transportation health-related social needs interventions is analyzed. Evidence regarding health-related social needs and delivery of health-related social needs interventions differs in maturity and applicability to cancer context, with transportation problems having the most maturity and interpersonal safety the least. We offer practical recommendations for health-related social needs interventions among cancer patients and the caregivers, families, and friends who support their health-related social needs. Cross-cutting (ie, health-related social needs agnostic) recommendations include leveraging navigation (eg, people, technology) to identify, refer, and deliver health-related social needs interventions; addressing health-related social needs through multilevel interventions; and recognizing that health-related social needs are states, not traits, that fluctuate over time. Health-related social needs-specific interventions are recommended, and pros and cons of addressing more than one health-related social needs concurrently are characterized. Considerations for collaborating with community partners are highlighted. The need for careful planning, strong partners, and funding is stressed. Finally, we outline a future research agenda to address evidence gaps.

Patient-Reported Financial Burden of Treatment for Colon or Rectal Cancer.

Importance: The longitudinal experience of patients is critical to the development of interventions to identify and reduce financial hardship. Objective: To evaluate financial hardship over 12 months in patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) undergoing curative-intent therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, longitudinal cohort study was conducted between May 2018 and July 2020, with time points over 12 months. Participants included patients at National Cance Institute Community Oncology Research Program sites. Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, newly diagnosed stage I to III CRC, not started chemotherapy and/or radiation, treated with curative intent, and able to speak English. Data were analyzed from December 2022 through April 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was financial hardship, measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST), which assesses the psychological domain of financial hardship (range, 0-44; higher score indicates better financial well-being). Participants completed 30-minute surveys (online or paper) at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: A total of 450 participants (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [12.0] years; 240 [53.3%] male) completed the baseline survey; 33 participants (7.3%) were Black and 379 participants (84.2%) were White, and 14 participants (3.1%) identified as Hispanic or Latino and 424 participants (94.2%) identified as neither Hispanic nor Latino. There were 192 participants (42.7%) with an annual household income of $60 000 or greater. There was an improvement in financial hardship from diagnosis to 12 months of 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.3) points per month (P < .001). Patients with better quality of life and greater self-efficacy had less financial toxicity. Each 1-unit increase in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (rapid version) score was associated with an increase of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9) points in COST score (P < .001); each 1-unit increase in self-efficacy associated with an increase of 0.6 (95% CI, 0.2 to 1.0) points in COST score (P = .006). Patients who lived in areas with lower neighborhood socioeconomic status had greater financial toxicity. Neighborhood deprivation index was associated with a decrease of 0.3 (95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1) points in COST score (P = .009). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that interventions for financial toxicity in cancer care should focus on counseling to improve self-efficacy and mitigate financial worry and screening for these interventions should include patients at higher risk of financial burden.

The effect of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage on smoking status, quit attempts, and receipt of cessation support among adults with cancer: Results from nine ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trials.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is associated with adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Socioeconomic determinants influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment; little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: A modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) was administered to patients enrolled in nine ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials. We examined associations of NSD with (1) smoking status, (2) receiving tobacco cessation assessment and support, and (3) cessation behaviors. NSD was classified by tertiles of the Area Deprivation Index. Associations between NSD and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 740 patients completing the C-TUQ were 70% male, 94% White, 3% Hispanic, mean age 58.8 years. Cancer diagnoses included leukemia 263 (36%), lymphoma 141 (19%), prostate 131 (18%), breast 79 (11%), melanoma 69 (9%), myeloma 53 (7%), and head and neck 4 (0.5%). A total of 402 (54%) never smoked, 257 (35%) had formerly smoked, and 81 (11%) were currently smoking. Patients in high disadvantaged neighborhoods were approximately four times more likely to report current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.69-7.54; p = .0009), and more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.64-10.98; p = .0029), but less likely to report receiving counseling (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.58; p = .0086) versus those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Greater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with smoking but less cessation support. Increased cessation support in cancer care is needed, particularly for patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Importance of Low- and Moderate-Grade Adverse Events in Patients' Treatment Experience and Treatment Discontinuation: An Analysis of the E1912 Trial.

PURPOSE: Despite defined grades of 1 to 5 for adverse events (AEs) on the basis of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events criteria, mild (G1) and moderate (G2) AEs are often not reported in phase III trials. This under-reporting may inhibit our ability to understand patient toxicity burden. We analyze the relationship between the grades of AEs experienced with patient side-effect bother and treatment discontinuation. METHODS: We analyzed a phase III Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network trial with comprehensive AE data. The Likert response Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-GP5 item, "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" was used to define side-effect bother. Bayesian mixed models were used to assess the impact of G1 and G2 AE counts on patient side-effect bother and treatment discontinuation. AEs were further analyzed on the basis of symptomatology (symptomatic or asymptomatic). The results are given as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible interval (CrI). RESULTS: Each additional G1 and G2 AEs experienced during a treatment cycle increased the odds of increased self-reported patient side-effect bother by 13% (95% CrI, 1.06 to 1.21) and 35% (95% CrI, 1.19 to 1.54), respectively. Furthermore, only AEs defined as symptomatic were associated with increased side-effect bother, with asymptomatic AEs showing no association regardless of grade. Count of G2 AEs increased the odds of treatment discontinuation by 59% (95% CrI, 1.32 to 1.95), with symptomatic G2 AEs showing a stronger association (OR, 1.75; 95% CrI, 1.28 to 2.39) relative to asymptomatic G2 AEs (OR, 1.45; 95% CrI, 1.12 to 1.89). CONCLUSION: Low- and moderate-grade AEs are related to increased odds of increased patient side-effect bother and treatment discontinuation, with symptomatic AEs demonstrating greater magnitude of association than asymptomatic. Our findings suggest that limiting AE capture to grade 3+ misses important contributors to treatment side-effect bother and discontinuation.

The Implications of Racialized Economic Segregation and Allostatic Load on Mortality in Patients with Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to examine the association between racialized economic segregation, allostatic load (AL), and all-cause mortality in patients with breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women aged 18+ years with stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed between 01/01/2012 and 31/12/2020 were identified in the Ohio State University cancer registry. Racialized economic segregation was measured at the census tract level using the index of concentration at the extremes (ICE). AL was calculated with biomarkers from the cardiac, metabolic, immune, and renal systems. High AL was defined as AL greater than the median. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses using restricted cubic splines examined the association between racialized economic segregation, AL, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Among 4296 patients, patients residing in neighborhoods with the highest racialized economic segregation (Q1 versus Q4) were more likely to be Black (25% versus 2.1%, p < 0.001) and have triple-negative breast cancer (18.2% versus 11.6%, p < 0.001). High versus low racialized economic segregation was associated with high AL [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21-1.61] and worse all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.41, 95% CI 1.08-1.83]. In dose-response analyses, patients in lower segregated neighborhoods (relative to the 95th percentile) had lower odds of high AL, whereas patients in more segregated neighborhoods had a non-linear increase in the odds of high AL. DISCUSSION: Racialized economic segregation is associated with high AL and a greater risk of all-cause mortality in patients with breast cancer. Additional studies are needed to elucidate the causal pathways and mechanisms linking AL, neighborhood factors, and patient outcomes.

Advancing Health Equity in Lung Cancer Screening and the Role of Humanomics.

Identifying and managing lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer-specific mortality, depend on multiple medical and sociodemographic factors. Humanomics is a model that acknowledges that negative societal stressors from systemic inequity affect individual health by altering pro-inflammatory gene expression. The same factors which may predispose individuals to lung cancer may also obstruct equitably prompt diagnosis and treatment. Increasing lung cancer screening access can lessen disparities in outcomes among disproportionately affected communities. Here, the authors describe several individual, provider, and health system-level obstacles to lung cancer screening and offer actionable solutions to increase access.

The Impact of Downstream Procedures on Lung Cancer Screening Adherence.

OBJECTIVE: (1) Evaluate downstream procedures after lung cancer screening (LCS), including imaging and invasive procedures, in screened individuals without screen-detected lung cancer. (2) Determine the association between repeat LCS and downstream procedures and patient characteristics. METHODS: Individuals receiving LCS between January 1, 2015, and November 30, 2020, from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database were included. Individuals with lung cancer after LCS were excluded. We determined frequency and costs of downstream procedures after LCS, including diagnostic imaging (chest CT, PET, or CT using fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose imaging) and invasive procedures (bronchoscopy, needle biopsy, thoracic surgery). A generalized estimating equation was used to model repeat LCS as a function of downstream procedures and patient characteristics. The primary outcome was repeat screening within 1 year of index LCS, and a secondary analysis evaluated the outcome of repeat screening with 2 years of index LCS. RESULTS: In all, 23,640 individuals receiving 30,521 LCS examinations were included in the primary analysis; 17.7% of LCS examinations (5,414 of 30,521) prompted downstream testing, with chest CT within 4 months being most common (9.1%, 2,769 of 30,521). At multivariable analysis adjusted for patient characteristics, the occurrence of a downstream diagnostic imaging test or invasive procedure was associated with a decreased likelihood of repeat annual LCS (adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.38, 0.34-0.44; adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.75, 0.63-0.90, respectively). DISCUSSION: Downstream imaging and invasive procedures after LCS are potential barriers to LCS adherence. Efforts to reduce false-positives at LCS and reduce patient costs from downstream procedures are likely necessary to ensure that downstream workup after LCS does not discourage screening adherence.

Assessment of financial screening and navigation capabilities at National Cancer Institute community oncology clinics.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related financial hardship is a side effect of cancer diagnosis and treatment, and affects both patients and caregivers. Although many oncology clinics have increased financial navigation services, few have resources to proactively provide financial counseling and assistance to families affected by cancer before financial hardship occurs. As part of an ongoing randomized study testing a proactive financial navigation intervention, S1912CD, among sites of the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), we conducted a baseline survey to learn more about existing financial resources available to patients and caregivers. METHODS: The NCORP sites participating in the S1912CD study completed a required 10-question survey about their available financial resources and an optional 5-question survey that focused on financial screening and navigation workflow and challenges prior to starting recruitment. The proportion of NCORP sites offering financial navigation services was calculated and responses to the optional survey were reviewed to determine current screening and navigation practices and identify any challenges. RESULTS: Most sites (96%) reported offering financial navigation for cancer patients. Sites primarily identified patients needing financial assistance through social work evaluations (78%) or distress screening tools (76%). Sites revealed challenges in addressing financial needs at the outset and through diagnosis, including lack of proactive screening and referral to financial navigation services as well as staffing challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Although most participating NCORP sites offer some form of financial assistance, the survey data enabled identification of gaps and challenges in providing services. Utilizing community partners to deliver comprehensive financial navigation guidance to cancer patients and caregivers may help meet needs while reducing site burden.

Utilization of Diagnostic Procedures After Lung Cancer Screening in the National Lung Screening Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine utilization patterns of diagnostic procedures after lung cancer screening among participants enrolled in the National Lung Screening Trial. METHODS: Using a sample of National Lung Screening Trial participants with abstracted medical records, we assessed utilization of imaging, invasive, and surgical procedures after lung cancer screening. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations. For each procedure type, we examined utilization within a year after the screening or until the next screen, whichever came first, across arms (low-dose CT [LDCT] versus chest X-ray [CXR]) and by screening results. We also explored factors associated with having these procedures using multivariable negative binomial regressions. RESULTS: After baseline screening, our sample had 176.5 and 46.7 procedures per 100 person-years for those with a false-positive and negative result, respectively. Invasive and surgical procedures were relatively infrequent. Among those who screened positive, follow-up imaging and invasive procedures were 25% and 34% less frequent in those screened with LDCT, compared with CXR. Postscreening utilization of invasive and surgical procedures was 37% and 34% lower at the first incidence screen compared with baseline. Participants with positive results at baseline were six times more likely to undergo additional imaging than those with normal findings. DISCUSSION: Use of imaging and invasive procedures to evaluate abnormal findings varied by screening modality, with a lower rate for LDCT than CXR. Invasive and surgical workup were less prevalent after subsequent screening examinations compared with baseline screening. Utilization was associated with older age but not gender, race or ethnicity, insurance status, or income.

Cigarette and Alternative Tobacco Product Use among Adult Cancer Survivors Enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: While cigarette smoking has declined among the U.S. general population, sale and use of non-cigarette alternative tobacco products (ATP; e.g., e-cigarettes, cigars) and dual use of cigarettes/ATPs are rising. Little is known about ATP use patterns in cancer survivors enrolled in clinical trials. We investigated prevalence of tobacco product use, and factors associated with past 30-day use, among patients with cancer in national trials. METHODS: Cancer survivors (N = 756) enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials (2017-2021) completed a modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) which assessed baseline cigarette and ATP use since cancer diagnosis and in the past 30 days. RESULTS: Patients were on average 59 years old, 70% male, and the mean time since cancer diagnosis was 26 months. Since diagnosis, cigarettes (21%) were the most common tobacco product used, followed by smokeless tobacco use (5%), cigars (4%), and e-cigarettes (2%). In the past 30 days, 12% of patients reported smoking cigarettes, 4% cigars, 4% using smokeless tobacco, and 2% e-cigarettes. Since cancer diagnosis, 5.5% of the sample reported multiple tobacco product use, and 3.0% reported multiple product use in the past 30 days. Males (vs. females; OR 4.33; P = 0 < 0.01) and individuals not living with another person who smokes (vs. living with; OR, 8.07; P = 0 < 0.01) were more likely to use ATPs only versus cigarettes only in the past 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with cancer, cigarettes were the most prevalent tobacco product reported. IMPACT: Regardless, ATPs and multiple tobacco product use should be routinely assessed in cancer care settings.

Beyond Survival: Adverse Events and Care Delivery Outcomes after Early Liver Cancer Treatment in a Nationally Representative Cohort.

PURPOSE: To compare secondary outcomes after ablation (AB), surgical resection (SR), and liver transplant (LT) for small hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), including resource utilization and adverse event (AE) rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)-Medicare, HCCs <5 cm that were treated with AB, SR, or LT in 2009-2016 (n = 1,067) were identified using Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes through Medicare claims. Index procedure length of stay, need for intensive care unit (ICU) level care, readmission rates, and AE rates at 30 and 90 days were compared using chi-square tests or Fisher exact tests. Examined AEs included hemorrhage, abscess formation, biliary injury, pneumonia, sepsis, liver disease-related AEs, liver failure, and anesthesia-related AEs, identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth/10th Revision, codes. RESULTS: The median length of stay for initial treatment was 1 day, 6 days, and 7 days for AB, SR, and LT, respectively (P < .001). During initial hospital stay, 5.0%, 40.8%, and 63.4% of AB, SR, and LT cohorts, respectively, received ICU-level care (P < .001). By 30 and 90 days, there were significant differences among the AB, SR, and LT cohorts in the rate of postprocedural hemorrhage, abscess formation, biliary injury, pneumonia, sepsis, liver disease-related AEs, and anesthesia-related AEs (P < .05). By 90 days, the readmission rates after AB, SR, and LT were 18.6%, 28.2%, and 40.6% (P < .001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AB results in significantly less healthcare utilization during the initial 90 days after procedure compared with that after SR and LT due to shorter length of stay, lower intensity care, fewer readmissions, and fewer AEs.

Social Genomics Model of Health Disparities.

Social stress such as financial scarcity, childhood trauma, and neighborhood violence has been associated with worse health outcomes. Furthemore, the social stress one experiences is not accidental. Rather, it can be the result of systematic economic and social marginalization through social policies, built environment and neighborhood underdevelopment from structural racism and discrimination. The psychological and physical stress associated with social exposure risk has been identified as possible explanatory variables for the disparities in health outcomes we have previously assigned to "race." We will use lung cancer as a use case to illustrate a novel model that links social exposure, behavioral risk and the stress response to outcomes.

Urbanicity, Income, and Mammography-Use Disparities Among American Indian Women.

INTRODUCTION: Reported breast cancer screening among American Indian women is consistently below that of White women. The last claims-based trends were from 1991 to 2001. This study updates mammography trends for American Indian women and examines the impact of race, urbanicity, and income on long-term mammography use. METHODS: This was a multi-year (2005-2019), retrospective study of women aged 40-89 years using a 5% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries residing in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Washington. This study used multivariable logistic regression to examine the impact of urbanicity and income on receiving mammography for American Indian women compared with that for White women. Analyses were conducted in 2022. RESULTS: Overall, annual age-adjusted mammography use declined from 205 per 1,000 in 2005 to 165 per 1,000 in 2019. The slope of these declines was significantly steeper (difference = -2.41, p<0.001) for White women (-3.06) than for American Indian women (-0.65). Mammography-use odds across all urbanicity categories were less for American Indian women than for White women compared with those of their respective metropolitan counterparts (e.g., rural: 0.96, 95% CI=0.77, 1.20 for American Indian women and 1.47, 99% CI=1.39, 1.57 for White women). Although residing in higher-income communities was not associated with mammography use for American Indian women, it was 31% higher for White women (OR=1.31, 99% CI=1.28, 1.34). CONCLUSIONS: The disparity in annual age-adjusted mammography use between American Indian and White women narrowed between 2005 and 2019. However, the association of urbanicity and community income on mammography use differs substantially between American Indian and White women. Policies to reduce disparities need to consider these differences.

Repeat Annual Lung Cancer Screening After Baseline Screening Among Screen-Negative Individuals: No-Cost Coverage Is Not Enough.

PURPOSE: Adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) is central to effective screening. The authors evaluated the likelihood of repeat annual LCS in a national commercially insured population and associations with individual characteristics, insurance characteristics, and annual out-of-pocket cost (OOPC) burden. METHODS: Using claims data from an employer-insured population (Clinformatics), individuals 55 to 80 years of age undergoing LCS between January 1, 2015, to September 30, 2019, with "negative" LCS were included. Repeat LCS was defined as low-dose chest CT occurring 10 to 15 months after the preceding LCS. Analysis was conducted over a 6-year period. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between repeat LCS and individual characteristics, insurance characteristics, and total OOPC incurred by the individual in the year of the index LCS, even if unrelated to LCS. RESULTS: Of 14,943 individuals with negative LCS, 4,561 (30.5%) underwent repeat LCS. Likelihood of repeat LCS was decreased for men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.97), Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.97), and indemnity insurance plans (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.25-0.53). Relative to New England, individuals in nearly all US geographic regions were less likely to undergo repeat LCS. Finally, individuals with total OOPC in the highest two quartiles were less likely to undergo repeat LCS (aOR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.77-0.92] for OOPC >$1,069.02-$2,475.09 vs $0-$351.82; aOR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.68-0.82] for OOPC >$2,475.09 vs $0-$351.82). CONCLUSIONS: Although federal policies facilitate LCS without cost sharing, individuals incurring high OOPC, even when unrelated to LCS, are less likely to undergo repeat LCS. Future policy design should consider the permeative burden of OOPC across the health continuum on preventive services use.

Long-Term Survival After Surgery Versus Ablation for Early Liver Cancer in a Large, Nationally Representative Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To compare survival outcomes (all-cause, cancer-specific, and disease-free) for small hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs), less than or equal to 5 cm, after ablation (AB) and surgical resection (SR) after adjusting for key confounders. Secondarily, to understand differential survival outcomes of liver transplant (TR) compared with SR and AB. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program-Medicare, HCCs less than 5 cm that were treated with AB, SR, or TR in 2009 to 2016 (n = 1,215) were identified using Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes through Medicare claims. The TR group was subdivided into two groups: TR with prior treatment and TR without prior treatment. All-cause survival, cancer-specific survival, and disease-free survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared between groups using log-rank tests and Cox regression analyses. Propensity score-matched comparison of AB and SR groups was performed, with groups matched on demographics, social determinants of health, medical comorbidities, and liver disease severity prognostic indicators. RESULTS: Median study follow-up time was 2.71 years (interquartile range 1.25-3.83). Unadjusted 1-, 3-, and 5-year cancer-specific survivals were 85.9%, 67.6%, and 56.3% for the AB group; 91.7%, 82.6%, and 81.7% for the SR group; 93.5%, 88.7%, and 79.4% for TR without prior treatment group; and 96.4%, 93.2%, and 93.2% for TR with prior treatment group (P < .0001). With SR as the reference group, the propensity-matched hazard ratios for AB were 2.04 (95% confidence interval: 1.51-2.77) for all-cause mortality, 2.44 (95% confidence interval: 1.56-3.80) for cancer-specific mortality, and 2.12 (95% confidence interval: 1.61-2.78) for disease recurrence. DISCUSSION: SR is superior to AB for small HCCs in a large, nationally representative, modern cohort, and in secondary analysis TR was superior to both.

"I need more knowledge": Qualitative analysis of oncology providers' experiences with sexual and gender minority patients.

Background: While societal acceptance for sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals is increasing, this group continues to face barriers to quality healthcare. Little is known about clinicians' experiences with SGM patients in the oncology setting. To address this, a mixed method survey was administered to members of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group. Materials and methods: We report results from the open-ended portion of the survey. Four questions asked clinicians to describe experiences with SGM patients, reservations in caring for them, suggestions for improvement in SGM cancer care, and additional comments. Data were analyzed using content analysis and the constant comparison method. Results: The majority of respondents noted they had no or little familiarity with SGM patients. A minority of respondents noted experience with gay and lesbian patients, but not transgender patients; many who reported experience with transgender patients also noted difficulty navigating the correct use of pronouns. Many respondents also highlighted positive experiences with SGM patients. Suggestions for improvement in SGM cancer care included providing widespread training, attending to unique end-of-life care issues among SGM patients, and engaging in efforts to build trust. Conclusion: Clinicians have minimal experiences with SGM patients with cancer but desire training. Training the entire workforce may improve trust with, outreach efforts to, and cancer care delivery to the SGM community.

Access to urologists for participation in research: An analysis of NCI's Community Oncology Research Program landscape survey.

Purpose: Urological cancer clinical trials face accrual challenges, which may stem from structural barriers within cancer programs. We sought to describe the extent to which urology cancer care providers are available within community cancer research programs and explore the role of oncology practice group ownership in their access to urology practices to participate in research. Materials and methods: We conducted secondary analysis of organizational survey data collected in 2017 among National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program practice groups. We used logistic regression to assess the association of self-reported access to urologists to participate in research and oncology practice group ownership type: independent, payor-provider, health-system, or public ownership. Results: Of the 209 community oncology practice groups in the analysis sample, 133 (63.6%) had access to urologists for research participation. Ownership was not statistically significantly associated with access to urology practices after controlling for other covariates (p = 0.4). Instead, having a hospital outpatient clinic (p = 0.008) and identifying as a safety-net hospital (p = 0.035) were both positively significantly associated with access to urologists to participate in research. Conclusions: Two-thirds of community cancer research groups have access to urology. Oncology ownership status was not associated with access to urologists for research. Research groups may need support to increase their capacity to engage non-oncology cancer care providers in research.