Evolution of community outreach and engagement at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers, an evolving journey.

Cancer mortality rates have declined during the last 28 years, but that process is not equitably shared. Disparities in cancer outcomes by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation and gender identity, and geographic location persist across the cancer care continuum. Consequently, community outreach and engagement (COE) efforts within National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center (NCI-DCC) catchment areas have intensified during the last 10 years as has the emphasis on COE and catchment areas in NCI's Cancer Center Support Grant applications. This review article attempts to provide a historic perspective of COE within NCI-DCCs. Improving COE has long been an important initiative for the NCI, but it was not until 2012 and 2016 that NCI-DCCs were required to define their catchment areas rigorously and to provide specific descriptions of COE interventions, respectively. NCI-DCCs had previously lacked adequate focus on the inclusion of historically marginalized patients in cancer innovation efforts. Integrating COE efforts throughout the research and operational aspects of the cancer centers, at both the patient and community levels, will expand the footprint of COE efforts within NCI-DCCs. Achieving this change requires sustained commitment by the centers to adjust their activities and improve access and outcomes for historically marginalized communities.

Race/ethnic associations with comprehensive cancer center access and clinical trial enrollment for acute leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial participation at Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) is inequitable for minoritized race/ethnic groups with acute leukemia. CCCs care for a high proportion of adults with acute leukemia. It is unclear if participation inequities are due to CCC access, post-access enrollment, or both. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with acute leukemia (2010-2019) residing within Massachusetts, the designated catchment area of the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center (DF/HCC). Individuals were categorized as non-Hispanic Asian (NHA), Black (NHB), White (NHW), Hispanic White (HW), or Other. Decomposition analyses assessed covariate contributions to disparities in (1) access to DF/HCC care and (2) post-access enrollment. RESULTS: Of 3698 individuals with acute leukemia, 85.9% were NHW, 4.5% HW, 4.3% NHB, 3.7% NHA, and 1.3% Other. Access was lower for HW (age- and sex-adjusted OR 0.64 95%CI 0.45,0.90) and reduced post-access enrollment for HW (aOR 0.54 95%CI 0.34,0.86) and NHB (aOR 0.60 95%CI 0.39,0.92) compared to NHW. Payor and socioeconomic status (SES) accounted for 25.2% and 21.2% of the +1.1% absolute difference in HW access. Marital status and SES accounted for 8.0% and 7.0% of the -8.8% absolute disparity in HW enrollment; 76.4% of the disparity was unexplained. SES and marital status accounted for 8.2% and 7.1% of the -9.1% absolute disparity in NHB enrollment; 73.0% of the disparity was unexplained. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of race/ethnic inequities in acute leukemia trial enrollment at CCCs are from post-access enrollment, the majority of which was not explained by sociodemographic factors.

Women's Information Needs and Educational Preferences Regarding Lung Cancer Screening.

Background: Physicians are less likely to discuss lung cancer screening (LCS) with women, and women have lower awareness of LCS availability. The objective of this qualitative study was to determine information needs, patient-provider communication barriers, and preferences for LCS education among women. Materials and Methods: Eight semistructured qualitative focus groups were conducted with 28 self-identified women meeting LCS eligibility criteria. Participants were recruited through a large health system, from a community-based LCS program, and through a national online database between October 2020 and March 2021. Focus groups were led by a trained moderator via Zoom. Audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis by investigators. Results: LCS decision-making influences included: (1) Health care provider recommendation; (2) Self-advocacy; (3) Insurance coverage and cost; (4) Family; and (5) Interest in early detection. Participants preferred video and print materials, available at physician's office or shared by physician, without scare tactics or shaming about smoking, use clear language, with diverse participants and images. Preferred content focused on: (1) Benefits of early detection; (2) Lung cancer definition, statistics, and risk factors; (3) Benefits of quitting smoking; (4) Demonstration or explanation of how LCS is done; and (5) Availability of other tests and potential harms of screening. Conclusion: Women in our study had limited awareness of LCS and their eligibility and wanted recommendation and support for LCS from their health care providers. We identified addressable information needs about lung cancer and the screening process that can be used to improve LCS uptake in women and shared decision-making processes.

Use, variability, and justification of eligibility criteria for phase II and III clinical trials in acute leukemia.

Clinical trial eligibility criteria can unfairly exclude patients or unnecessarily expose them to known risks if criteria are not concordant with drug safety. There are few data evaluating the extent to which acute leukemia eligibility criteria are justified. We analyzed criteria and drug safety data for front-line phase II and/or III acute leukemia trials with start dates 1/1/2010-12/31/2019 registered on clinicaltrials.gov. Multivariable analyses assessed concordance between criteria use and safety data (presence of criteria with a safety signal, or absence of criteria without a signal), and differences between criteria and safety-based limits. Of 250 eligible trials, concordant use of ejection fraction criteria was seen in 34.8%, corrected QT level (QTc) in 22.4%, bilirubin in 68.4%, aspartate transaminase/alanine aminotransferase (AST/ALT) in 58.8%, renal function in 68.4%, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in 54.8%, and hepatitis B and C in 42.0% and 41.2%. HIV and hepatitis B and C criteria use was concordant with safety data (adjusted Odds Ratios 2.04 [95%CI: 1.13, 3.66], 2.64 [95%CI: 1.38, 5.04], 2.27 [95%CI: 1.20, 4.32]) but organ function criteria were not (all P>0.05); phase III trials were not more concordant. Bilirubin criteria limits were the same as safety-based limits in 16.0% of trials, AST/ALT in 18.1%, and renal function in 13.9%; in 75.7%, 51.4%, and 56.5% of trials, criteria were more restrictive, respectively, by median differences of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.5 times the upper limits of normal. We found limited drug safety justifications for acute leukemia eligibility criteria. These data define criteria use and limits that can be rationally modified to increase patient inclusion and welfare.

Sociodemographic associations with uptake of novel therapies for acute myeloid leukemia.

Inequitable uptake of novel therapies (NT) in non-cancer settings are known for patients with lower socioeconomic status (SES), People of Color (POC), and older adults. NT uptake equity in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is not well known. We performed a retrospective cohort study (1/2014-8/2022) of the United States nationwide Flatiron HealthTM electronic health record-derived, de-identified database. We estimated sociodemographic associations with AML NT receipt using incidence rate ratios (IRR). Odds ratios (OR) assessed differences in venetoclax (the most common NT) receipt at community sites and between site characteristics and NT adoption. Of 8081 patients (139 sites), 3102 (38%) received a NT. NT use increased annually (IRR 1.14, 95% confidence interval [1.07, 1.22]). NT receipt was similar between Non-Hispanic-Whites and POC (IRR 1.03, [0.91, 1.17]) and as age increased (IRR 1.02 [0.97, 1.07]). At community sites, Non-Hispanic-Whites were less likely to receive venetoclax (OR 0.77 [0.66, 0.91]); older age (OR 1.05 [1.04, 1.05]) and higher area-level SES were associated with venetoclax receipt (OR 1.23 [1.05, 1.43]). Early NT adopting sites had more prescribing physicians (OR 1.25 [1.13, 1.43]) and higher SES strata patients (OR 2.81 [1.08, 7.66]). Inequities in AML NT uptake were seen by SES; for venetoclax, differential uptake reflects its label indication for older adults and those with comorbidities.

The Colocation Model in Community Cancer Care: A Description of Patient Clinical and Demographic Attributes and Referral Pathways.

PURPOSE: Cancer disparities are well documented among Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, yet little is known about the characteristics of programs that serve these populations. Integrating specialized cancer care services within community settings is important for addressing the needs of historically marginalized populations. Our National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center initiated a clinical outreach program incorporating cancer diagnostic services and patient navigation within a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) to expedite evaluation and resolution of potential cancer diagnoses with the goal of collaboration between oncology specialists and primary care providers in a historically marginalized community in Boston, MA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were analyzed from patients who were referred to the program for cancer-related care between January 2012 and July 2018. RESULTS: The majority of patients self-identified as Black (non-Hispanic) followed by Hispanic (Black and White). Twenty-two percent of patients had a cancer diagnosis. Treatment and surveillance plans were established for those with and without cancer at a median time to diagnostic resolution of 12 and 28 days, respectively. The majority of patients presented with comorbid health conditions. There was a high prevalence of self-reported financial distress among patients seeking care through this program. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the wide spectrum of cancer care concerns in historically marginalized communities. This review of the program suggests that integrating cancer evaluation services within community-based primary health care settings offers promise for enhancing the coordination and delivery of cancer diagnostic services among historically marginalized populations and could be a method to address clinical access disparities.

Protocol for a randomized controlled trial of the Enhanced Smoking Cessation Approach to Promote Empowerment (ESCAPE) digitalized intervention to promote lung health in high-risk individuals who smoke.

Low dose computed tomography (LDCT) is an effective screening test to decrease lung cancer deaths. Lung cancer screening may be a teachable moment helping people who smoke to quit, which may result in increased benefit of screening. Innovative strategies are needed to engage high-risk individuals in learning about LDCT screening. More precise methods such as polygenic risk scores quantify genetic predisposition to tobacco use, and optimize lung health interventions. We present the ESCAPE (Enhanced Smoking Cessation Approach to Promote Empowerment) protocol. This study will test a smoking cessation intervention using personal stories and a lung cancer screening decision-aide compared to standard care (brief advice, referral to a quit line, and a lung cancer screening decision-aide), examine the relationship between a polygenic risk score and smoking abstinence, and describe perceptions about integration of genomic information into smoking cessation treatment. A randomized controlled trial followed by a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach will compare the efficacy of the interventions. Interviews will add insight into the use of genomic information and risk perceptions to tailor smoking cessation treatment. Two-hundred and fifty individuals will be recruited from primary care, community-based organizations, mailing lists and through social media. Data will be collected at baseline, 1, 3 and 6-months. The primary outcomes are 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence and stage of lung cancer screening at 6-months. The results from this study will provide information to refine the ESCAPE intervention and facilitate integration of precision health into future lung health interventions. Clinical trial registration number: NCT0469129T.

Inequities in Alliance Acute Leukemia Clinical Trial and Biobank Participation: Defining Targets for Intervention.

PURPOSE: Representativeness in acute leukemia clinical research is essential for achieving health equity. The National Cancer Institute's mandate for Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) to define and assume responsibility for cancer control and treatment across a geographic catchment area provides an enforceable mechanism to target and potentially remediate participatory inequities. METHODS: We examined enrollee characteristics across 15 Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance cooperative group adult acute leukemia clinical trials (N = 3,734) from 1998 to 2013, including participation in optional companion biobanks. We determined enrollment odds by race-ethnicity for all participants adjusted for national incidence, and for those enrolled at CCCs adjusted for catchment area incidence. We modeled biobank participation by sociodemographics using logistic regression. RESULTS: Non-Hispanic (NH)-White patients were more likely to be enrolled than NH-Black, NH-Asian, or Hispanic patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.75, 0.48, and 0.44, respectively; all P < .001), but less likely than NH-Native American patients (OR, 1.91; P < .001), adjusted for national incidence. Enrollment odds were lower for NH-Black, NH-Asian, and Hispanic patients at CCCs adjusted for catchment area incidence (OR, 0.57, 0.26, and 0.32, respectively; P < .001); differences were driven by overenrollment of NH-White patients from outside self-defined catchment areas (18.1% v 12.3%; χ2 P = .01) and by CCCs with less absolute enrollee diversity (rank sum P = .03). Among all enrollees, NH-White race-ethnicity and lower neighborhood deprivation correlated with biobank participation (OR, 1.81 and 1.45, respectively; P = .01 and .03). For CCC enrollees, the correlation of race-ethnicity with biobank participation was attenuated by a measure accounting for their site's degree of enrollment disparity but not neighborhood deprivation. CONCLUSION: Acute leukemia clinical research disparities are substantial and driven by structural trial enrollment barriers at CCCs. Real-time CCC access and enrollment monitoring is needed to better align research participation with local populations.

Racial disparities in treatment delay among younger men with prostate cancer.

Young men (≤55 years) with prostate cancer (PC) may experience treatment delays despite clinical consequences of delays beyond six months. Using the United States National Cancer Database (2004-2017), we employed multivariable logistic regression analysis to retrospectively examine racial disparities in localized PC treatment delays >6 months since diagnosis. Of the 89,196 men ≤55 years included, young Black men experienced treatment delays beyond six months more frequently than young White men (7.39% vs. 3.96%; AOR 1.95, 95% CI 1.81-2.09, p < 0.001), a disparity that was greater than that among men ages 56-64 (pinteraction < 0.001). This result persisted upon restricting the sample to men with private insurance/managed care. The finding that Black men with localized PC experienced treatment delays almost twice as frequently as White men underscores access barriers that may go beyond the direct costs of care.

Lung Cancer Strategist Program: A novel care delivery model to improve timeliness of diagnosis and treatment in high-risk patients.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer is challenged by complex diagnostic pathways and fragmented care that can lead to care disparities for vulnerable patients. METHODS: A multi-institutional, multidisciplinary conference was convened to address the complexity of lung cancer care particularly in patients at high-risk for treatment delay. The resulting care delivery model, called the Lung Cancer Strategist Program (LCSP), was led by a thoracic-trained advanced practice provider (APP) with emphasis on expedited surgery and early oncologic consultation in the assessment of a newly diagnosed suspicious lung nodule. We performed a retrospective review to evaluate care efficiency and oncologic outcomes in the first 100 LCSP patients compared to 100 concurrent patients managed via routine surgical referral. RESULTS: In the 78 LCSP and 41 routine referral patients managed via nodule surveillance, LCSP patients had a shorter time from suspicious finding to work-up (3 vs. 26 days, p < 0.001) and to surveillance decision (12.5 vs. 39 days, p < 0.001). In the 22 LCSP and 59 routine referral patients treated for intrathoracic malignancy, LCSP patients had fewer hospital visits (4 vs 6, p < 0.001), clinicians seen (1.5 vs. 2, p = 0.08), and diagnostic studies (4 vs 5, p = 0.01) with a shorter time to diagnosis (30.5 vs. 48 days, p = 0.02) and treatment (40.5 vs. 68.5 days, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patient triage through a thoracic-trained APP in consultation with surgical, medical, and radiation oncology facilitates rapid assessment of benign versus malignant lesions with reduced time to diagnosis and treatment, even among patients at high-risk for treatment delay.

Recommendations from a Dialogue on Evolving National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center Community Outreach and Engagement Requirements: A Path Forward.

While cancer mortality is declining in the United States, significant racial, ethnic, economic and geographic inequities persist. To help address inequities in cancer treatment, care, support and research, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) instituted the community outreach and engagement (COE) mandate for NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs). The Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation designed a convening and listening session on COE with NCI leaders and staff gathering representatives from CCCs and the broader cancer community. This paper captures recommendations from the listening session for the NCI and CCCs to further evolve the implementation and impact of the COE mandate on cancer control and outcomes.

Special Convening and Listening Session on Health Equity and Community Outreach and Engagement at National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers.

In recent years, the cancer research and care community has been more attuned to health equity, increasingly pursuing coordinated and comprehensive action to achieve equitable health outcomes. In addition to its support of a joint research agenda for health disparities in 2017, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has demonstrated its commitment to addressing health inequities with its 2012 requirement for cancer centers to define and address the needs of a local "catchment area" and the 2016 mandate for Community Outreach and Engagement (COE). With several years of experience with the COE requirements, there is an opportunity to reflect on the experience to-date and identify opportunities to bolster the impact of COE on equitable cancer outcomes for the future. To do so, the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation (BMSF) hosted a special convening and listening session in April 2019. The session agenda was cocreated by BMSF and NCI leaders and staff. It brought together 41 individuals, including representatives from the NCI Cancer Centers Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Health and Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities, 22 NCI-designated, emerging or affiliated comprehensive cancer centers, and the broader cancer community. This article captures key themes from that meeting, including an overview of current COE efforts, with a deeper look at how four cancer centers are embedding health equity and COE efforts into their institutions and work, and the successes and challenges they have encountered.

An Anatomical Site and Genetic-Based Prognostic Model for Patients With Nuclear Protein in Testis (NUT) Midline Carcinoma: Analysis of 124 Patients.

BACKGROUND: NUT midline carcinoma, renamed NUT carcinoma (NC), is an aggressive squamous cancer defined by rearrangement of the NUTM1 gene. Although a subset of patients can be cured, for the majority of patients the prognosis is grim. We sought to classify patients into risk groups based on molecular and clinicopathologic factors at the time of diagnosis. METHODS: Clinicopathologic variables and survival outcomes were extracted for a total of 141 NC patients from the NUT midline carcinoma Registry using questionnaires and medical records. Translocation type was identified by molecular analyses. Survival tree regression analysis was performed to determine risk factors associated with overall survival (OS). RESULTS: For 141 patients, the median age at diagnosis was 23.6 years. Fifty-one percent had thoracic origin compared with 49% nonthoracic sites (41% head and neck, 6% bone or soft tissue, 1% other). The median OS was 6.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.8 to 9.1 months). Most patients had the BRD4-NUTM1 fusion (78%), followed by BRD3-NUTM1 (15%) and NSD3-NUTM1 (6%). Survival tree regression identified three statistically distinct risk groups among 124 patients classified by anatomical site and genetics: group A is nonthoracic primary, BRD3-, or NSD3-NUT (n = 12, median OS = 36.5 months, 95% CI = 12.5 to not reported months); group B is nonthoracic primary, BRD4-NUT (n = 45, median OS = 10 months, 95% CI = 7 to 14.6 months); and group C is thoracic primary (n = 67, median OS = 4.4 months, 95% CI = 3.5 to 5.6 months). Only groups A and B had long-term (≥3 years, n = 12) survivors. CONCLUSIONS: We identify three risk groups defined by anatomic site and NUT fusion type. Nonthoracic primary with non-BRD4-NUT fusion confers the best prognosis, followed by nonthoracic primary with BRD4-NUT. Thoracic NC patients, regardless of the NUT fusion, have the worst survival.

ROS1-rearranged lung adenocarcinoma with peritoneal carcinomatosis on initial presentation.

Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is progression of the primary cancer to the peritoneum that is seen in only 1.2% of patients with lung cancer. It is associated with poor prognosis especially if present at the time of initial cancer diagnosis. The predisposing factors for peritoneal spread are not yet well understood. It has been suggested that the oncogene status of the tumour can influence the patterns of metastatic spread. There is not enough data about the role of c-ROS oncogene 1 (ROS1) mutation in the development of PC in non-small cell lung cancer. Here, we describe a case of a 56-year-old man who presented with new-onset ascites and was found to have PC. He was diagnosed with ROS1-rearranged lung adenocarcinoma. No obvious primary tumour was identified. Patient responded well to targeted therapy with crizotinib and remained 6 months free of disease progression.

Race and sex differences in patient provider communication and awareness of lung cancer screening in the health information National Trends Survey, 2013-2017.

Despite demonstrated reduction in lung cancer mortality, lung cancer screening uptake has been low. We investigated differences in discussions with physicians about lung cancer screening and awareness using repeated cross-sectional data from three cycles [4.2 (2013); 4.4(2014) and 5.1 (2017)] of the Health Information National Trends Survey. We included 4207 respondents age 55 to 80 who responded to this question: 'In the past year, have you talked with your doctor about having a test to check for lung cancer?'. We used logistic regression accounting for complex sample weighting to generate multivariable adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The proportion of participants reporting lung cancer screening discussions was low and did not increase over time. In the most recent cycle, 15.7% of current smokers and 9.9% of former smokers said they had discussed screening. Compared to males, females were 32% less likely to report a lung cancer screening discussion (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.50-0.93) and the association was strongest among non-Hispanic White females. Estimates were similar among never (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.43-1.20), current (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.39-1.36), and former (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.40-1.10) smokers. Females were 32% less likely than males to be aware of a lung cancer screening test (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.47-0.99) and this association was strongest for non-Hispanic Black females (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.19-0.77). Too few providers have discussed lung cancer screening with potentially eligible patients, particularly female patients. Further research is needed to evaluate possible causes for this finding.

New Treatment Options in Advanced Squamous Cell Lung Cancer.

The past few years have witnessed a rapid shift in the treatments for patients with squamous cell lung cancers (SQCLCs) after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of a number of immune checkpoint inhibitors as second-line therapies for patients with non-small cell lung cancers. These series of approvals marked the first substantial improvement in overall survival for patients with SQCLC in over a decade. Further gains have been made more recently with the incorporation of immune checkpoint inhibition in the first-line setting, either as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. These advances have, however, exposed existing deficiencies in the management of this disease. Despite a deeper understanding of the genomic alterations that characterize SQCLCs and years of trial work targeting these alterations, personalized therapies remain out of hand. Future studies will continue to focus on identifying targeted approaches to expand the treatment options for our patients.

Race, Poverty, and Initial Implementation of Precision Medicine for Lung Cancer.

Data are limited regarding whether the availability of biomarker-directed therapy for lung cancer exacerbates racial and socioeconomic disparities. Patients diagnosed with stage IV lung adenocarcinoma from 2008 to 2013 were identified using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program-Medicare. The primary outcome was a Medicare claim for molecular testing within 60 days of diagnosis, analyzed using multivariable logistic regression; the secondary outcome was overall survival, analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. All statistical tests were two-sided. Of 5556 patients, 1437 (25.9%) had molecular testing. Testing rates were 14.1% among black, 26.2% among white, and 32.8% among patients of Asian/other descent (adjusted P < .001); 20.6% among patients with Medicaid eligibility vs 28.4% among those without (adjusted P = .01); and 19.9% among patients in the highest census tract-level poverty rate quintile vs 30.7% among patients in the lowest quintile (for all quintiles, adjusted P = .18). Median survival from 60 days was 8.2 months among patients with molecular testing within 60 days of diagnosis and 6.1 months among those without (hazard ratio = 0.92, 95% confidence interval = 0.86 to 0.99; adjusted P = .02). Equitable precision medicine requires concerted implementation efforts.

Facilitators of and barriers to high-resolution anoscopy adherence among men who have sex with men: a qualitative study.

Background Anal cancer is a rare malignancy that disproportionately affects men who have sex with men (MSM) and HIV-infected people. Anal cancer is associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) in upward of 90% of cases and is preceded by pre-cancerous changes in cells of the anal canal. High-resolution anoscopy (HRA) is used for the detection, treatment and continued monitoring of anal dysplasia. Practice guidelines regarding anal cancer prevention vary by jurisdiction and institution, and patient engagement is low for high-risk populations such as MSM. The purpose of this study is to characterise perceptions among MSM of barriers to and facilitators of their adherence to HRA follow-up recommendations. METHODS: Surveys and in-person focus groups with MSM who were either adherent or non-adherent to HRA follow-up recommendations at a Federally Qualified Health Centre in Boston, MA, which specialises in sexual and gender minority care, were conducted. Facilitators of and barriers to follow-up were identified by deductive content analysis. RESULTS: Focus group participants identified the following barriers to and facilitators of HRA follow up: (1) patient-level beliefs about HPV-related disease or HRA, ability to engage in care, internalised stigma and physical discomfort; (2) provider-level knowledge and expertise, communication skills and relationship-building with patient; and (3) systems-level societal stigma and healthcare system inefficiencies. CONCLUSIONS: Reinforcing facilitators of and reducing barriers to HRA follow up may improve adherence among MSM. This includes improvements to: patient education, provider training to increase knowledge and cultural sensitivity, public awareness about HPV-related anal cancer, physical discomfort associated with HRA and systems inefficiencies.