RESUMEN
Purpose: Up to 1 million lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (i.e., sexual and gender minority, SGM) individuals in the United States have histories of cancer. This medically underserved population is diverse, with complex sexualities and gender identities, and distinct health concerns. SGM persons experience disproportionate risks for, and rates of, anal, breast, cervical, colorectal, endometrial, lung, and prostate cancers, in addition to cancers affecting transgender persons who have undergone sex-reassignment. SGM individuals are linked by shared experiences of stigmatization as a minority population for which little cancer research has been conducted. SGM cancer patients frequently report reluctance to seek healthcare, have poorer outcomes following diagnosis, engage in elevated risk behaviors (i.e. smoking and alcohol use) even after cancer diagnosis, have difficulty making emotional adjustment to illness, and experience higher rates of psychological distress. They report less satisfaction with cancer care, deficiencies in patient-centeredness and shared decision-making, gaps in care, and social isolation. Minority stress resulting from experiences of anti-SGM sentiment and discrimination affects cancer patients and their informal cancer caregivers. Our paper presents findings from a pilot study to identify gaps and opportunities to improve cancer care for SGM patients and caregivers at the University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center. Methods: Between June 2020 and July 2021, we used a multi-methods research design informed by ecological theory to collect qualitative and quantitative data regarding cancer patient and caregiver quality of life (QoL) and experiences of cancer and survivorship care. We used PROMIS measures distributed via REDCap to assess QoL (i.e., fatigue, pain interference, pain intensity, anxiety, depression, emotional support, social isolation, and companionship), and conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews. We recruited 10 SGM cancer patients and 8 heterosexual, cisgender (H/C) patient matches, and their self-identified informal cancer caregivers (n=36, dyad total n=18). Interviews ranged from 1 to 2 hours, were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis. The study was approved by the University of New Mexico Human Research Protections Office Institutional Review Board. Results: Results of the PROMIS QoL assessments indicated that SGM patients reported greater anxiety [mean (SD) = 54.5 (8.8)] and depression [mean (SD) = 49.3 (4.8)] than H/C patients [mean (SD)=51.6 (7.5) and 45.4 (6.8) respectively], while heterosexual, cisgender (H/C) patients reported higher fatigue [mean (SD) =52.04 (8.18)] and stronger pain intensity than SGM patients [mean (SD)=48.3 (9.1) and 37.8 (9.1) respectively]. SGM patients reported higher levels of social isolation [mean (SD) = 48.3 (7.3) vs. 42.1 (7.4) for H/C patients, whereas H/C patients reported more emotional support (mean (SD) =57.5 (9.3) vs. 53.0 (6.9)] and companionship [mean (SD) = 55.2 (8.6) vs. 51.5 (11.0)]. SGM and H/C differences in caregiver QoL were most notable with regards to higher levels of fatigue [mean (SD) = 47.1 (6.0) for SGM, and 42.4 (11.5) for H/C] and companionship [mean (SD) = 55.3 (6.0) for SGM, and 50.9 (5.5) for H/C]. Qualitative interviews supported our quantitative results. SGM patients and caregivers articulated experiences of anti-SGM stigma and discrimination contributing to minority stress that influenced their initial cancer care encounters. SGM dyads had more trepidation and/or medical mistrust during initial cancer care encounters when compared to H/C patients and caregivers. SGM patients questioned care that was not culturally responsive to SGM preferences, while H/C patients were more apt to identify gaps in communication and perceived lack of clarity regarding cancer care delivery. Although SGM patients experienced high satisfaction with their cancer care once they developed trust with their providers, they discussed desires to have more direct conversations with their oncologists about their sexual orientation and gender identities and sexual health. All patients and providers in the study (SGM and H/C) appreciated their oncology care teams. All patients and caregivers relied on social networks comprised of friends and family, although SGM patients and caregivers had smaller social networks and relied less on biological family, and single SGM individuals experienced challenges accessing cancer care and struggled with social isolation. We discovered too, that all caregivers, regardless of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI), perceived a lack of support and information pertaining to their loved one's treatment, side effects and best way to provide care. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that prior stigmatizing experiences contribute to minority stress and medical mistrust for SGM cancer patients and their informal caregivers across the cancer care experience. Findings point to specific gaps in SGM cancer patient care, including lack of conversation about patient SOGI, inadequate staff and oncology provider SGM specific knowledge and cultural competence/cultural humility training, and insufficient patient supports for those who lack social support during cancer care treatment. Further, this study reveals inadequacies in SGM specific support, and overall support services for informal cancer caregivers. Additional research is required to develop targeted interventions to address minority stress and clinic environment concerns to improve cancer care for SGM patients. Importantly, while there were differences between SGM and H/C experiences of cancer treatment, significant similarities also emerged. Caregiver expressed consensus about the current lack of support and guidance for informal caregivers of cancer patients. Future work should focus on providing caregiver-specific resources in the clinic setting and facilitating support groups for caregivers to network with one another, as well as for tailoring SGM specific caregiver support services. Our findings highlight areas for improving cancer care for the SGM community, as well as a broader population of patients and caregivers.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: : The optimal adjuvant therapy for women with stages III and IV endometrial cancer following surgical staging and cytoreductive surgery is controversial. We sought to determine the outcome of patients with advanced stage endometrial cancer treated with postoperative chemotherapy+/-radiation to determine whether there was an advantage to combining treatment modalities. METHODS: : A retrospective analysis of patients with surgical stages III and IV endometrial cancer from 1975 to 2006 was conducted at Duke University and the University of North Carolina. Inclusion criteria were comprehensive staging procedure including hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, +/-selective pelvic/aortic lymphadenectomy, surgical debulking, and treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: : 356 Patients with advanced stage endometrial cancer were identified who received postoperative adjuvant therapies; 48% (n=171) radiotherapy alone, 29% (n=102) chemotherapy alone, 23% (n=83) chemotherapy and radiation. The median age was 66 years; 38% had endometrioid tumors; and 83% were optimally debulked. There was a significant difference between the adjuvant treatment groups for both OS and PFS (p<0.001), with those receiving chemotherapy alone having poorer 3-year OS (33%) and PFS (19%) compared to either radiotherapy alone (70% and 59%) or combination therapy (79% and 62%). After adjusting for stage, age, grade, and debulking status the hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 1.60 (95% CI, 0.88 to 2.89; p=0.122) for chemotherapy alone and 2.01 (95% CI, 1.17 to 3.48; p=0.012) for radiotherapy alone, compared to combination therapy. When the analysis was restricted to optimally debulked patients the adjusted HR for patients who were treated with either chemotherapy or radiation alone indicated a significantly higher risk for disease progression [HR=1.84 (95% CI, 1.03 to 3.27; p=0.038); HR=1.80 (95% CI, 1.10 to 2.95; p=0.020)] and death [HR=2.33 (95% CI, 1.12 to 4.86; p=0.024); HR=2.64 (95% CI, 1.38 to 5.07; p=0.004)], respectively, compared to patients who received combination therapy. CONCLUSION: : Combined adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation was associated with improved survival in patients with advanced stage disease compared to either modality alone. Future clinical trials are needed to prospectively evaluate multi-modality adjuvant therapy in women with advanced staged endometrial cancer to determine the appropriate sequencing and types of chemotherapy and radiation.