Risk of adverse birth outcomes after adolescent and young adult cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many women diagnosed with cancer as adolescents and young adults (AYAs, age 15-39 years) want biological children after cancer but lack information on the potential impact of their cancer history on future reproductive outcomes. We investigated the risk of adverse birth outcomes among AYA cancer survivors. METHODS: We identified insured women diagnosed with AYA breast cancer, thyroid cancer, gynecologic cancers, lymphoma, or melanoma from 2003 to 2016 in the state of North Carolina or the Kaiser Permanente health care systems in northern and southern California. Post-diagnosis births to cancer survivors were each matched with up to 5 births to women without cancer. Risk ratios for preterm birth (<37 completed weeks), very preterm birth (<34 completed weeks), low birth weight (<2500 g), and small for gestational age (SGA, <10th percentile of weight for gestational age) were estimated using modified Poisson regression. RESULTS: Analyses included 1648 births to 1268 AYA cancer survivors and 7879 births to 6066 women without cancer. Overall, risk of preterm birth, very preterm birth, low birth weight, and SGA did not significantly differ between births to women with and without cancer. However, births to women with gynecologic cancers had a significantly increased risk of low birth weight (risk ratio = 1.82; 95% confidence interval: 1.03 to 3.21) and suggested increased risk of preterm birth (risk ratio = 1.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.99 to 2.54). Chemotherapy exposure was not associated with increased risk of adverse birth outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Women with gynecologic cancers, but not other cancers, had an increased risk of adverse birth outcomes compared to women without cancer.

A study protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic trial for comparing strategies for implementing primary HPV testing for routine cervical cancer screening in a large health care system.

BACKGROUND: Limited guidance exists regarding implementation strategies that best facilitate cancer screening practice substitution and achieve optimal stakeholder-centered outcomes. Here we describe the protocol for a randomized pragmatic trial comparing two implementation strategies to facilitate substitution of primary HPV screening for Pap and HPV co-testing to perform routine cervical cancer screening of women aged 30-65 years at Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC). METHODS: Twelve service areas within KPSC will be randomized to a "centrally-administered system-wide implementation + local-tailored implementation" strategy or a "centrally-administered system-wide implementation only" strategy. The centrally-administered strategy comprises clinician and staff educational activities. Sites in the local-tailored arm will then conduct a structured local needs assessment followed by site-specific selection and deployment of implementation interventions. Surveys and interviews will be conducted among women and providers from the primary care and ob/gyn departments prior to the system-wide transition, shortly after the transition, and after the completion of local-tailored interventions. A stakeholder advisory committee will assist with study design, defining stakeholder-centered outcomes, and developing data collection tools. RESULTS: The primary outcome of interest is uptake of primary HPV screening. Secondary provider-centered outcomes include provider knowledge, delivery of patient education, satisfaction with the practice substitution process, and resistance to primary HPV screening. Secondary patient-centered outcomes include patient knowledge, stigma, and satisfaction with the screening process. Intervention fidelity will also be measured via surveys. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study will help inform future use of a local-tailored implementation strategy for adopting primary HPV screening at large health care systems. Findings may also be applicable to other types of practice substitution.

Fertility Preservation and Financial Hardship among Adolescent and Young Adult Women with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Financial hardship among adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer who receive gonadotoxic treatments may be exacerbated by the use of fertility services. This study examined whether AYA women with cancer who used fertility preservation had increased financial hardship. METHODS: AYA women with cancer in North Carolina and California completed a survey in 2018-2019. Cancer-related financial hardship was compared between women who cryopreserved oocytes or embryos for fertility preservation after cancer diagnosis (n = 65) and women who received gonadotoxic treatment and reported discussing fertility with their provider, but did not use fertility preservation (n = 491). Multivariable log-binomial regression was used to estimate prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Women were a median age of 33 years at diagnosis and 7 years from diagnosis at the time of survey. Women who used fertility preservation were primarily ages 25 to 34 years at diagnosis (65%), non-Hispanic White (72%), and had at least a Bachelor's degree (85%). In adjusted analysis, use of fertility preservation was associated with 1.50 times the prevalence of material financial hardship (95% CI: 1.08-2.09). The magnitude of hardship was also substantially higher among women who used fertility preservation: 12% reported debt of ≥$25,000 versus 5% in the referent group. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new evidence that cryopreserving oocytes or embryos after cancer diagnosis for future family building is associated with increased financial vulnerability. IMPACT: More legislation that mandates insurance coverage to mitigate hardships stemming from iatrogenic infertility could improve access to fertility preservation for young women with cancer.

De-implementation and substitution of clinical care processes: stakeholder perspectives on the transition to primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: New cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for women age 30-65 years. Healthcare organizations are preparing to de-implement the previous recommended strategies of Pap testing or co-testing (Pap plus HPV test) and substitute primary HPV testing. However, there may be significant challenges to the replacement of this entrenched clinical practice, even with an evidence-based substitution. We sought to identify stakeholder-perceived barriers and facilitators to this substitution within a large healthcare system, Kaiser Permanente Southern California. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with clinician, administrative, and patient stakeholders regarding (a) acceptability and feasibility of the planned substitution; (b) perceptions of barriers and facilitators, with an emphasis on those related to the de-implementation/implementation cycle of substitution; and (c) perceived readiness to change. Our interview guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Using a team coding approach, we developed an initial coding structure refined during iterative analysis; the data were subsequently organized thematically into domains, key themes, and sub-themes using thematic analysis, followed by framework analysis informed by CFIR. RESULTS: We conducted 23 interviews: 5 patient and 18 clinical/administrative. Clinicians perceived that patients feel more tests equals better care, and clinicians and patients expressed fear of missed cancers ("…it'll be more challenging convincing the patient that only one test is…good enough to detect cancer."). Patients perceived practice changes resulting in "less care" are driven by the desire to cut costs. In contrast, clinicians/administrators viewed changing from two tests to one as acceptable and a workflow efficiency ("…It's very easy and half the work."). Stakeholder-recommended strategies included focusing on the increased efficacy of primary HPV testing and developing clinician talking points incorporating national guidelines to assuage "cost-cutting" fears. CONCLUSIONS: Substitution to replace an entrenched clinical practice is complex. Leveraging available facilitators is key to ease the process for clinical and administrative stakeholders-e.g., emphasizing the efficiency of going from two tests to one. Identifying and addressing clinician and patient fears regarding cost-cutting and perceived poorer quality of care is critical for substitution. Multicomponent and multilevel strategies for engagement and education will be required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, # NCT04371887.

The Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Horizon Study: An AYA Cancer Survivorship Cohort.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, >45,000 adolescent and young adult (AYA) women are diagnosed with cancer annually. Reproductive issues are critically important to AYA cancer survivors, but insufficient information is available to address their concerns. The AYA Horizon Study was initiated to contribute high-quality, contemporary evidence on reproductive outcomes for female cancer survivors in the United States. METHODS: The study cohort includes women diagnosed with lymphoma, breast, melanoma, thyroid, or gynecologic cancer (the five most common cancers among women ages 15-39 years) at three study sites: the state of North Carolina and the Kaiser Permanente health systems in Northern and Southern California. Detailed information on cancer treatment, fertility procedures, and pregnancy (e.g., miscarriage, live birth) and birth (e.g., birth weight, gestational length) outcomes are leveraged from state cancer registries, health system databases and administrative insurance claims, national data on assisted reproductive technology procedures, vital records, and survey data. RESULTS: We identified a cohort of 11,072 female AYA cancer survivors that includes >1,200 African American women, >1,400 Asian women, >1,600 Medicaid enrollees, and >2,500 Hispanic women using existing data sources. Active response to the survey component was low overall (N = 1,679), and notably lower among minority groups compared with non-Hispanic white women. CONCLUSIONS: Passive data collection through linkage reduces participant burden and prevents systematic cohort attrition or potential selection biases that can occur with active participation requirements. IMPACT: The AYA Horizon study will inform survivorship planning as fertility and parenthood gain increasing recognition as key aspects of high-quality cancer care.

Primary Care Provider Beliefs and Recommendations About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Four Healthcare Systems.

Primary care provider's (PCP) perceptions of colorectal cancer screening test effectiveness and their recommendations for testing intervals influence patient screening uptake. Few large studies have examined providers' perceptions and recommendations, including their alignment with evidence suggesting comparable test effectiveness and guideline recommendations for screening frequency. Providers (n = 1,281) within four healthcare systems completed a survey in 2017-2018 regarding their perceptions of test effectiveness and recommended intervals for colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for patients ages 40-49, 50-74, and ≥75 years. For patients 50-74 (screening eligible), 82.9% of providers rated colonoscopy as very effective versus 59.6% for FIT, and 26.3% rated colonoscopy as more effective than FIT. Also, for this age group, 77.9% recommended colonoscopy every 10 years and 92.4% recommended FIT annually. For patients ages 40-49 and ≥75, more than one-third of providers believed the tests were somewhat or very effective, although >80% did not routinely recommend screening by either test for these age groups. Provider screening test interval recommendations generally aligned with colorectal cancer guidelines; however, 25% of providers believed colonoscopy was more effective than FIT for mortality reduction, which differs from some modeling studies that suggest comparable effectiveness. The latter finding may have implications for health systems where FIT is the dominant screening strategy. Only one-third of providers reported believing these screening tests were effective in younger and older patients (i.e., <50 and ≥75 years). Evidence addressing these beliefs may be relevant if cancer screening recommendations are modified to include older and/or younger patients.