Advancing health equity in cancer survivorship research: National institutes of health 2017-2022 portfolio review.

BACKGROUND: Communities and researchers have called for a paradigm shift from describing health disparities to a health equity research agenda that addresses structural drivers. Therefore, we examined whether the cancer survivorship research portfolio has made this shift. METHODS: We identified grants focused on populations experiencing health disparities from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Cancer Survivorship Research Portfolio (N = 724), Fiscal Years 2017-2022. Grant characteristics were abstracted, drivers of health disparities were mapped onto the levels and domains of influence, and opportunities for future research were identified. RESULTS: A total of 147 survivorship grants focused on health disparities were identified, of which 73.5% of grants focused on survivors from racial and ethnic minoritized groups, 25.9% living in rural areas, 24.5% socioeconomically disadvantaged, and 2.7% sexual and gender minority groups. Study designs were 51.0% observational. 82.3% of grants measured or intervened on at least one individual-level of influence, compared to higher levels of influence (32.7% interpersonal, 41.5% institutional/community, and 12.2% societal). Behavioral and healthcare system domains of influence were commonly represented, especially at the individual level (47.6% and 36.1%, respectively). Less frequently represented was the physical/built environment (12.2%). CONCLUSIONS: NIH-funded cancer survivorship research on health disparities is still focused on individual-level of influence. However, the proportion of grants examining structural and social drivers as well as the mechanisms that drive disparities in healthcare and health outcomes among cancer survivors have increased over time. Gaps in funded research on specific populations, cancer types, and focus areas of survivorship science were identified and warrant priority.

Team complexity and care coordination for cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions: a mixed methods study.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the perceptions and experiences of care received from healthcare teams among cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). METHODS: Cancer survivors completed an online survey (N=441) of which 12 participated in an interview. Team complexity was operationalized based on team size, clinician specialties, and health system affiliation. Kilpatrick's Patient-Perceptions of Team Effectiveness (PTE) questionnaire measured team effectiveness. Constant comparative method was used to identify care coordination challenges and facilitators from interviews. RESULTS: Mean age at cancer diagnosis was 45 years (SD=14), 68% were 5 years from diagnosis, the most common cancer was breast (27%), and two-thirds had two or more pre-diagnosis comorbidities. Sixty percent rated both cancer and other condition(s) as taking priority. Team complexity varied from low (32%), moderate (49%), and high (20%). Eighty percent rated PTE overall as high, with variation by subscales: coordination (85%) and patient-family focus (47%). Higher team complexity was associated with lower PTE overall (p=0.049). Challenges were identified: sequential referrals with no integration across team members; no shared mental model among team; and cancer survivor having to "referee" conflicting care decisions. CONCLUSION: This mixed method study found an inverse relationship between team complexity and PTE-overall, where high-complexity teams had lower team effectiveness. Participants reported issues with the problem-solving abilities of their teams and felt like their contributions were not valued by their care team. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Improving team effectiveness offers one way to leverage the expertise of multiple specialties to deliver integrated, patient-centered care for the growing population of cancer survivors with MCC.

Understanding the Impact of Medicaid-Serving Primary Care Team Functioning and Clinical Context on Cancer Care Treatment Quality: Implications for Addressing Structural Inequities.

PURPOSE: Primary care factors related to Medicaid enrollees' receipt of guideline concordant cancer treatment is understudied; however, team structure and processes likely affect care disparities. We explore Medicaid-serving primary care teams functioning within multiteam systems to understand performance variations in quality of breast and colorectal cancer care. METHODS: We conducted a comparative case study, using critical case sampling of primary care clinics in New Jersey, to provide maximum variation on clinic-level care performance rates (Medicaid enrollees' receipt of guideline-concordant treatment). Site evaluations, conducted from 2019 to 2020, included observation (2-3 days) and interviews. Using a multistep analytic process, we explored contextual factors within primary care that may contribute to cancer care performance variations. RESULTS: We identified performance variations stemming from adaptations of multiteam system inputs and processes on the basis of contextual factors (ie, business model, clinic culture). Team 1 (average performer), part of a multisite safety-net clinic system, mainly teamed outside their organization, relying on designated roles, protocol-based care, and quality improvement informed by within-team metrics. Team 2 (high performer), part of a for-profit health system, remained mission-driven to improve urban health, teamed exclusively with internal teams through electronically enabled information exchange and health system-wide quality improvement efforts. Team 3 (low performer), a physician-owned private practice with minimal teaming, accepted Medicaid enrollees to diversify their payer mix and relied on referral-based care with limited consideration of social barriers. CONCLUSION: Primary care team structures and processes variations may (in part) explain performance variations. Future research aiming to improve care quality for Medicaid populations should consider primary care teams' capacity and context in relation to composite teams to support care quality improvements in subsequent prospective trials.

Clinical Multiteam System Composition and Complexity Among Newly Diagnosed Early-Stage Breast, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions: A SEER-Medicare Analysis.

PURPOSE: Sixty percent of adults have multiple chronic conditions at cancer diagnosis. These patients may require a multidisciplinary clinical team-of-teams, or a multiteam system (MTS), of high-complexity involving multiple specialists and primary care, who, ideally, coordinate clinical responsibilities, share information, and align clinical decisions to ensure comprehensive care needs are managed. However, insights examining MTS composition and complexity among individuals with cancer and comorbidities at diagnosis using US population-level data are limited. METHODS: Using SEER-Medicare data (2006-2016), we identified newly diagnosed patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer who had a codiagnosis of cardiopulmonary disease and/or diabetes (n = 75,201). Zaccaro's theory-based classification of MTSs was used to categorize clinical MTS complexity in the 4 months following cancer diagnosis: high-complexity (≥ 4 clinicians from ≥ 2 specialties) and low-complexity (1-3 clinicians from 1-2 specialties). We describe the proportions of patients with different MTS compositions and quantify the incidence of high-complexity MTS care by patient groups. RESULTS: The most common MTS composition was oncology with primary care (37%). Half (50.3%) received high-complexity MTS care. The incidence of high-complexity MTS care for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients with cancer was 6.7% (95% CI, -8.0 to -5.3) and 4.7% (95% CI, -6.3 to -3.0) lower than non-Hispanic White patients with cancer; 13.1% (95% CI, -14.1 to -12.2) lower for rural residents compared with urban; 10.4% (95% CI, -11.2 to -9.5) lower for dual Medicaid-Medicare beneficiaries compared with Medicare-only; and 16.6% (95% CI, -17.5 to -15.8) lower for colorectal compared with breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Incidence differences of high-complexity MTS care were observed among cancer patients with multiple chronic conditions from underserved populations. The results highlight the need to further understand the effects of and mechanisms through which care team composition, complexity, and functioning affect care quality and outcomes.

National Cancer Institute-Funded Social Risk Research in Cancer Care Delivery: Opportunities for Future Research.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients and survivors with food insecurity, housing instability, and transportation-related barriers face challenges in access and utilization of quality cancer care thereby adversely impacting their health outcomes. This portfolio analysis synthesized and described National Cancer Institute (NCI)-supported social risk research focused on assessing food insecurity, housing instability, and transportation-related barriers among individuals diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: We conducted a query using the National Institutes of Health iSearch tool to identify NCI-awarded extramural research and training grants (2010-2022). Grant abstracts, specific aims, and research strategies were coded for research characteristics, study population, and outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 30 grants included in this analysis, most assessed transportation-related barriers as patient-level social needs. Grants focused on community-level social risks, food insecurity, and housing instability were largely absent. Most grants included activities that identified the presence of social risks and/or needs (n = 24), connected patients to social care resources (n = 10), and engaged community members or organizations to inform the research study (n = 9). Of the grants, 18 focused on a single type of cancer, primarily breast cancer, and more than half focused on the treatment and survivorship phases. CONCLUSIONS: In the last decade, there has been limited NCI-funded social risk research grants focused on food insecurity and housing instability. Findings highlight opportunities for future cancer care delivery research, including community and health system-level approaches that integrate social and clinical care to address social risks and social needs. Such efforts can help improve outcomes of populations that experience cancer health and health-care disparities.

Team-Based Care for Cancer Survivors With Comorbidities: A Systematic Review.

Coordination of quality care for the growing population of cancer survivors with comorbidities remains poorly understood, especially among health disparity populations who are more likely to have comorbidities at the time of cancer diagnosis. This systematic review synthesized the literature from 2000 to 2022 on team-based care for cancer survivors with comorbidities and assessed team-based care conceptualization, teamwork processes, and outcomes. Six databases were searched for original articles on adults with cancer and comorbidity, which defined care team composition and comparison group, and assessed clinical or teamwork processes or outcomes. We identified 1,821 articles of which 13 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies occurred during active cancer treatment and nine focused on depression management. Four studies focused on Hispanic or Black cancer survivors and one recruited rural residents. The conceptualization of team-based care varied across articles. Teamwork processes were not explicitly measured, but teamwork concepts such as communication and mental models were mentioned. Despite team-based care being a cornerstone of quality cancer care, studies that simultaneously assessed care delivery and outcomes for cancer and comorbidities were largely absent. Improving care coordination will be key to addressing disparities and promoting health equity for cancer survivors with comorbidities.

Multilevel factors associated with inequities in multidisciplinary cancer consultation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess changes in the prevalence of multidisciplinary cancer consultations (MDCc) over the last decade and examine patient, surgeon, hospital, and neighborhood factors associated with receipt of MDCc among individuals diagnosed with cancer. DATA SOURCE: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data from 2006 to 2016. STUDY DESIGN: We used time-series analysis to assess change in MDCc prevalence from 2007 to 2015. We also conducted multilevel logistic regression with random surgeon- and hospital-level effects to assess associations between patient, surgeon, neighborhood, and health care organization-level factors and receipt of MDCc during the cancer treatment planning phase, defined as the 2 months following cancer diagnosis. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries >65 years of age with surgically resected breast, colorectal (CRC), or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) stages I-III (n = 103,250). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: From 2007 to 2015, the prevalence of MDCc increased from 35.0% to 61.2%. Overall, MDCc was most common among patients with breast cancer compared to CRC and NSCLC. Cancer patients who were Black, had comorbidities, had dual Medicare-Medicaid coverage, were residing in rural areas or in areas with higher Black and Hispanic neighborhood composition were significantly less likely to have received MDCc. Patients receiving surgery at disproportionate payment-sharing or rural-designated hospitals had 2% (95% CI: -3.55, 0.58) and 17.6% (95% CI: -21.45, 13.70), respectively, less probability of receiving MDCc. Surgeon- and hospital-level effects accounted for 15% of the variance in receipt of MDCc. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of MDCc has increased over the last decade, but significant geographical and health care organizational barriers continue to impede equitable access to and delivery of quality care across cancer patient populations. Multilevel and multicomponent interventions that target care coordination, health system, and policy changes may enhance equitable access to and receipt of MDCc.

Identifying and describing cancer survivors: Implications for cancer survivorship research and clinical care.

BACKGROUND: Gathering information directly from cancer survivors has advanced our understanding of the cancer survivorship experience. However, it is unknown whether surveys can distinguish important subgroups of cancer survivors. This study aimed to describe the current landscape of survey questions used to identify and describe cancer survivors in national cross-sectional studies. METHODS: Using publicly available databases, the authors identified national cross-sectional surveys used in the United States within the past 15 years that included a question on self-reported history of cancer. After abstracting questions and response items used to identify cancer survivors, they conducted a descriptive analysis. RESULTS: The authors identified 14 national cross-sectional surveys, with half administered to the general population and the other half administered to cancer survivors. The most common question used to identify cancer survivors was "Have you ever been told by a doctor or other health professional that you had cancer?" Most surveys had questions asking participants to identify a single cancer type (n = 11), multiple prior cancer diagnoses or types (n = 11), and the time from diagnosis (n = 12). Treatment questions varied from active treatment status to specific treatments received. Questions addressing cancer stage (n = 2), subtypes (n = 1), metastatic status (n = 3), and recurrence (n = 4) were less frequently included. CONCLUSIONS: There is no standard method for assessing self-reported cancer history, and this limits the ability to distinguish among potentially important subgroups of survivors. Future cross-sectional surveys that capture nuanced data elements, such as cancer types, stages/subtypes, metastatic/recurrent status, and treatments received, can help to fill important gaps in cancer survivorship research and clinical care.

Teamwork competencies for interprofessional cancer care in multiteam systems: A narrative synthesis.

Numerous teamwork competency frameworks are designed for co-located, procedure-driven teams delivering care in acute settings. Little is known about their applicability or evaluation among larger teams-of-teams, known as multiteam systems (MTS), involved in delivering care for complex chronic conditions like cancer. In this review we aimed to identify studies examining teamwork competencies or teamwork competency frameworks developed or tested in healthcare teams, identify the extent to which they have been applied or evaluated in cancer care, and understand their applicability to larger MTSs involved in coordinating cancer care. We identified 107 relevant original articles, consensus statements, and prior systematic reviews published from 2013-2019. Most original papers (n = 96) were intervention studies of inpatient acute care teams (52, 54%). Fifty-eight articles (60%) used existing frameworks to define competency domains. Four original articles and two consensus statements addressed teamwork competencies for cancer care. Few frameworks or interprofessional education (IPE) curricula specifically addressed teamwork among larger, distributed teams or examined competencies necessary to overcome care coordination challenges in cancer care MTSs. Research guiding the development of frameworks and IPE that consider challenges to effective coordination among larger MTSs and studies of their impact on patient and clinical outcomes is essential to optimal, high-quality care.

Cancer prevention, risk reduction, and control: opportunities for the next decade of health care delivery research.

In this commentary, we discuss opportunities to optimize cancer care delivery in the next decade building from evidence and advancements in the conceptualization and implementation of multi-level translational behavioral interventions. We summarize critical issues and discoveries describing new directions for translational behavioral research in the coming decade based on the promise of the accelerated application of this evidence within learning health systems. To illustrate these advances, we discuss cancer prevention, risk reduction (particularly precision prevention and early detection), and cancer treatment and survivorship (particularly risk- and need-stratified comprehensive care) and propose opportunities to equitably improve outcomes while addressing clinician shortages and cross-system coordination. We also discuss the impacts of COVID-19 and potential advances of scientific knowledge in the context of existing evidence, the need for adaptation, and potential areas of innovation to meet the needs of converging crises (e.g., fragmented care, workforce shortages, ongoing pandemic) in cancer health care delivery. Finally, we discuss new areas for exploration by applying key lessons gleaned from implementation efforts guided by advances in behavioral health.

Distribution of Genomic Testing Resources by Oncology Practice and Rurality: A Nationally Representative Study.

PURPOSE: Oncologists are increasingly using molecular profiling to inform personalized patient treatment decisions. Despite its promising utility, the integration of genomic testing into diverse clinical health care settings across geographic settings has been understudied. METHODS: We used data from the National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment, a nationally representative sample of practicing US oncologists, to assess the availability of six genomic testing resources, including on-site pathology, contracts with outside laboratories, on-site genetic counselors, internal policies or protocols for using genomic and biomarker testing, electronic medical record alerts, and genomic or molecular tumor boards. We used multivariate logistic regression models to examine differences in the availability of each genomic testing resource by practice type and rurality while adjusting for payer mix and patient volume. RESULTS: A larger proportion of multispecialty group and academic practices had genomic testing resources available compared with solo and nonacademic practices. Electronic medical record alerts were the least available resource, whereas contracts with outside laboratories were the most available resource. Compared with urban practices, there were significantly fewer practices located in rural areas that had on-site pathology, on-site genetic counselors, protocols for genomic tests, and molecular tumor boards. CONCLUSION: Genomic testing resources varied by practice type and geography among a nationally representative sample of practicing oncologists. This variation has important implications for the development of interventions and policies to support the more equitable delivery of precision oncology to patients with cancer.

Fragmentation of Care Among Black Women With Breast Cancer and Comorbidities: The Role of Health Systems.

PURPOSE: Black women are disproportionately burdened by comorbidities and breast cancer. The complexities of coordinating care for multiple health conditions can lead to adverse consequences. Care coordination may be exacerbated when care is received outside the same health system, defined as care fragmentation. We examine types of practice setting for primary and breast cancer care to assess care fragmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from a prospective cohort of Black women diagnosed with breast cancer in New Jersey who also had a prior diagnosis of diabetes and/or hypertension (N = 228). Following breast cancer diagnosis, we examined types of practice setting for first primary care visit and primary breast surgery, through medical chart abstraction, and identified whether care was used within or outside the same health system. We used multivariable logistic regression to explore sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with care fragmentation. RESULTS: Diverse primary care settings were used: medical groups (32.0%), health systems (29.4%), solo practices (23.7%), Federally Qualified Health Centers (8.3%), and independent hospitals (6.1%). Surgical care predominately occurred in health systems (79.8%), with most hospitals being Commission on Cancer-accredited. Care fragmentation was experienced by 78.5% of Black women, and individual-level factors (age, health insurance, cancer stage, and comorbidity count) were not associated with care fragmentation (P > .05). CONCLUSION: The majority of Black breast cancer survivors with comorbidities received primary care and surgical care in different health systems, illustrating care fragmentation. Strategies for care coordination and health care delivery across health systems and practice settings are needed for health equity.

Patterns of chronic disease management and health outcomes in a population-based cohort of Black women with breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Diabetes and hypertension are two common comorbidities that affect breast cancer patients, particularly Black women. Disruption of chronic disease management during cancer treatment has been speculated. Therefore, this study examined the implementation of clinical practice guidelines and health outcomes for these comorbidities before and during cancer treatment. METHODS: We used a population-based, prospective cohort of Black women diagnosed with breast cancer (2012-2016) in New Jersey (n = 563). Chronic disease management for diabetes and hypertension was examined 12 months before and after breast cancer diagnosis and compared using McNemar's test for matched paired and paired t tests. RESULTS: Among this cohort, 18.1% had a co-diagnosis of diabetes and 47.2% had a co-diagnosis of hypertension. Implementation of clinical practice guidelines and health outcomes that differed in the 12 months before and after cancer diagnosis included lipid screening (64.5% before versus 50.0% after diagnosis; p = 0.004), glucose screening (72.7% versus 90.7%; p < 0.001), and blood pressure control < 140/90 mmHg (57.6% versus 71.5%; p = 0.004) among patients with hypertension-only. For patients with diabetes, eye and foot care were low (< 35%) and optimal HbA1c < 8.0% was achieved for less than 50% of patients in both time periods. CONCLUSION: Chronic disease management continued during cancer treatment; however, eye and foot exams for patients with diabetes and lipid screening for patients with hypertension-only were inadequate. Given that comorbidities may account for half of the Black-White breast cancer survival disparity, strategies are needed to improve chronic disease management during cancer, especially for Black women who bear a disproportionate burden of chronic diseases.

Perceptions of care coordination among older adult cancer survivors: A SEER-CAHPS study.

OBJECTIVE: Care coordination reflects deliberate efforts to harmonize patient care. This study examined variables associated with patient-reported care coordination scores among Medicare beneficiaries with a history of cancer. METHODS: We utilized Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (SEER-CAHPS) linked data, which includes cancer registry data, patient experience surveys, and Medicare claims. We identified Medicare beneficiaries with a CAHPS survey ≤10 years after cancer diagnosis who reported seeing a personal doctor within six months. Multivariable regression models examined associations between cancer survivor characteristics and patient-reported care coordination, with higher scores indicating better coordination. RESULTS: Cancer site distribution of the 14,646 survey respondents was 33.7% prostate, 22.1% breast, 11.1% colorectal, 7.2% lung, and 25.9% other. Rural residence at diagnosis (versus urban, 1.1-point difference; p = 0.04) and reporting >4 visits with a personal doctor (versus 1-2 visits, 3.0-point difference; p < 0.001) were significantly associated with higher care coordination. Older age (p < 0.001) and seeing more specialists (p = 0.006) were associated with significantly lower care coordination. Patients with melanoma (women: 5.2-point difference, p < 0.001; men: 2.7 points, p = 0.01) or breast cancer (women: 2.4 points; p < 0.001) reported significantly lower care coordination scores than did men with prostate cancer (reference group). Time from diagnosis to survey, cancer stage, number of cancers, and comorbidities were not significantly associated with care coordination scores. DISCUSSION: Cancer site, rural residence, and number of physician interactions are associated with patient-reported care coordination scores. Future research should address multilevel influences that lead to worse care coordination for older adult cancer survivors.

Comorbidity Management in Black Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer: the Role of Primary Care in Shared Care.

BACKGROUND: Black women are more likely to have comorbidity at breast cancer diagnosis compared with White women, which may account for half of the Black-White survivor disparity. Comprehensive disease management requires a coordinated team of healthcare professionals including primary care practitioners, but few studies have examined shared care in the management of comorbidities during cancer care, especially among racial/ethnic minorities. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the type of medical team composition is associated with optimal clinical care management of comorbidities. DESIGN: We used the Women's Circle of Health Follow-up Study, a population-based cohort of Black women diagnosed with breast cancer. The likelihood of receiving optimal comorbidity management after breast cancer diagnosis was compared by type of medical team composition (shared care versus cancer specialists only) using binomial regression. PARTICIPANTS: Black women with a co-diagnosis of diabetes and/or hypertension at breast cancer diagnosis between 2012 and 2016 (N = 274). MAIN MEASURES: Outcome-optimal clinical care management of diabetes (i.e., A1C test, LDL-C test, and medical attention for nephropathy) and hypertension (i.e., lipid screening and prescription for hypertension medication). Main predictor-shared care, whether the patient received care from both a cancer specialist and a primary care provider and/or a medical specialist within the 12 months following a breast cancer diagnosis. KEY RESULTS: Primary care providers were the main providers involved in managing comorbidities and 90% of patients received shared care during breast cancer care. Only 54% had optimal comorbidity management. Patients with shared care were five times (aRR: 4.62; 95% CI: 1.66, 12.84) more likely to have optimal comorbidity management compared with patients who only saw cancer specialists. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal management of comorbidities during breast cancer care exists for Black women. However, our findings suggest that shared care is more beneficial at achieving optimal clinical care management for diabetes and hypertension than cancer specialists alone.

Pre-diagnostic allostatic load and health-related quality of life in a cohort of Black breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: To determine the association of pre-diagnostic allostatic load (AL) with health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among Black women with breast cancer. METHODS: In a sample of 409 Black women with non-metastatic breast cancer enrolled in the Women's Circle of Health Follow-Up Study (WCHFS), two pre-diagnostic AL measures were estimated using medical records data from up to 12 months prior to breast cancer diagnosis: AL-lipid/metabolic profile-based measure and AL-inflammatory profile-based measure. HRQOL was assessed approximately 24 months post diagnosis, using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer (FACT-B) instrument, including 5 subscale scores [presented by physical well-being (PWB), social & family well-being (SFWB), emotional well-being (EWB), functional well-being (FWB), and breast cancer-specific scale (BCS)] and 3 derived total scores [presented by trial outcome index (TOI), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and FACT-B]. We used multivariable logistic regression models, using dichotomized AL scores (lower AL: 0-3 points, higher AL: 4-8 points), to assess the associations between the two pre-diagnostic AL measures and HRQOL. RESULTS: Higher pre-diagnostic AL was associated with poorer FWB and lower FACT-G, but these associations were statistically significant for the AL-inflammatory profile-based measure (FWB: OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.04, 2.56; FACT-G: OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.04, 2.54), but not the AL-lipid/metabolic profile-based measure (FWB: OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.81, 2.59; FACT-G: OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.75, 2.37). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that higher AL, particularly when measured using the inflammatory profile-based measure, was associated with poorer HRQOL, namely FWB and FACT-G, among Black breast cancer survivors.

Patterns of HIV testing among women diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer in the New Jersey Medicaid Program.

PURPOSE: Practice-based guidelines recommend HIV testing during initial invasive cervical cancer (ICC) workup. Determinants of HIV testing during diagnosis of AIDS-defining cancers in vulnerable populations, where risk for HIV infection is higher, are under-explored. METHODS: We examine factors associated with patterns of HIV testing among Medicaid enrollees diagnosed with ICC. Using linked data from the New Jersey State Cancer Registry and New Jersey Medicaid claims and enrollment files, we evaluated HIV testing among 242 ICC cases diagnosed from 2012 to 2014 in ages 21-64 at (a) any point during Medicaid enrollment (2011-2014) and (b) during cancer workup 6 months pre ICC diagnosis to 6 months post ICC diagnosis. Logistic regression models identified factors associated with HIV testing. RESULTS: Overall, 13% of women had a claim for HIV testing during ICC workup. Two-thirds (68%) of women did not have a claim for HIV testing (non-receipt of HIV testing) while enrolled in Medicaid. Hispanic/NH-API/Other women had lower odds of non-receipt of HIV testing compared with NH-Whites (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.17-0.94). Higher odds of non-receipt of HIV testing were observed among cases with no STI testing (OR: 4.92; 95% CI 2.27-10.67) and < 1 year of Medicaid enrollment (OR: 3.07; 95% CI 1.14- 8.26) after adjusting for other factors. CONCLUSIONS: Few women had HIV testing claims during ICC workup. Opportunities for optimal ICC care are informed by knowledge of HIV status. Further research should explore if lack of HIV testing claims during ICC workup is an accurate indicator of ICC care, and if so, to assess testing barriers during workup.