Representativeness of Patients With Lung Cancer in an Integrated Health Care Delivery System.

INTRODUCTION: Observational research is important for understanding the real-world benefits of advancements in lung cancer care. Integrated health care systems, such as Kaiser Permanente Northern California, have extensive electronic health records suitable for such research, but the generalizability of their populations is often questioned. METHODS: Leveraging data from the California Cancer Registry, the authors compared distributions of demographic and clinical characteristics, in addition to neighborhood and environmental conditions, between patients diagnosed with lung cancer from 2015 through 2019 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (NCICCs), and all other non-NCICC hospitals within the same catchment area. RESULTS: Of 20,178 included patients, 30% were from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, 8% from NCICCs, and 62% from other non-NCICC hospitals. Compared to NCICC patients, Kaiser Permanente Northern California patients were more similar to other non-NCICC patients on most characteristics. Compared to other non-NCICC patients, Kaiser Permanente Northern California patients were slightly older, more likely to be female, and less likely to be Hispanic or Asian/Pacific Islander and to reside in lower socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhoods. In contrast, NCICC patients were younger, less likely to be female or from non-Asian/Pacific Islander minoritized racial groups, and more likely to present with early-stage disease and adenocarcinoma and to reside in neighborhoods with higher SES and lower air pollution than Kaiser Permanente Northern California or other non-NCICC patients. DISCUSSION: Patients from Kaiser Permanente Northern California, compared to NCICCs, are more broadly representative of the underlying patient population with lung cancer. CONCLUSION: Research using electronic health record data from integrated health care systems can contribute generalizable real-world evidence to benchmark and improve lung cancer care.

Race and Ethnicity Representation in Phase 2/3 Oncology Clinical Trial Publications: A Systematic Review.

Importance: The five 1997 Office of Management and Budget races in the US include American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White, with Hispanic ethnicity. Despite the Affordable Care Act mandating Office of Management and Budget-based collecting and reporting standards, race and ethnicity publishing in medical journals is inconsistent, despite being necessary to achieve health equity. Objective: To quantify race and ethnicity reporting rates and calculate representation quotients (RQs) in published oncology clinical trials. Evidence Review: In this systematic review, PubMed and Embase were queried for phase 2/3 clinical trials of the 6 most common noncutaneous solid cancers, published between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, in 4 high-impact journals. Trial characteristics were recorded. The RQs for each race and ethnicity were calculated by dividing the percent of representation in each clinical trial publication by the percent of year-matched, site-specific incident cancers in the US, compared with Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni correction (BC). Reporting was compared between journal publications and ClinicalTrials.gov. Findings: Among 1202 publications evaluated, 364 met inclusion criteria: 16 JAMA, 241 Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19 Lancet, and 88 New England Journal of Medicine. Publications included 268 209 patients (171 132 women [64%]), with a median of 356 (IQR, 131-800) patients per publication. Reported race and ethnicity included American Indian or Alaska Native in 52 (14%) publications, Asian in 196 (54%), Black or African American in 215 (59%), Hispanic in 67 (18%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander in 28 (8%), and White in 254 (70%). Median RQ varied across race (P < .001 BC), with 1.04 (IQR, 0.09-4.77) for Asian, 0.98 (IQR, 0.86-1.06) for White, 0.42 (IQR, 0.12-0.75) for Black or African American, and 0.00 (IQR, 0.00-0.00) for both American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander patients. Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings on subset analysis for US-only clinical trials. There was significantly less race and ethnicity reporting in the clinical trial publications compared with ClinicalTrials.gov documentation for American Indian or Alaska Native (14% vs 45%; P < .001 per McNemar χ2 test with continuity correction [MC]) and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (8% vs 43%; P < .001 MC). Conclusions and Relevance: While most phase 2/3 oncology clinical trials published in high-impact journals report race and ethnicity, most did not report American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander racial categories. Our findings support a call to action for consistent journal policies and transparent race and ethnicity reporting, in alignment with Affordable Care Act-concordant race and ethnicity federal reporting requirements.

Access to Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing and Mortality Among Men With Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer is controversial but may be associated with benefit for certain high-risk groups. Objectives: To evaluate associations of county-level PSA screening prevalence with prostate cancer outcomes, as well as variation by sociodemographic and clinical factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from cancer registries based in 8 US states on Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White men aged 40 to 99 years who received a diagnosis of prostate cancer between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2015. Participants were followed up until death or censored after 10 years or December 31, 2018, whichever end point came first. Data were analyzed between September 2023 and January 2024. Exposure: County-level PSA screening prevalence was estimated using the Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System survey data from 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012 and weighted by population characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards regression, and competing risks models were fit to estimate adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and adjusted hazard ratios (AHR) for associations of county-level PSA screening prevalence at diagnosis with advanced stage (regional or distant), as well as all-cause and prostate cancer-specific survival. Results: Of 814 987 men with prostate cancer, the mean (SD) age was 67.3 (9.8) years, 7.8% were Hispanic, 12.2% were non-Hispanic Black, and 80.0% were non-Hispanic White; 17.0% had advanced disease. There were 247 570 deaths over 5 716 703 person-years of follow-up. Men in the highest compared with lowest quintile of county-level PSA screening prevalence at diagnosis had lower odds of advanced vs localized stage (AOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.85-0.88), lower all-cause mortality (AHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.85-0.87), and lower prostate cancer-specific mortality (AHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.81-0.85). Inverse associations between PSA screening prevalence and advanced cancer were strongest among men of Hispanic ethnicity vs other ethnicities (AOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.87), older vs younger men (aged ≥70 years: AOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.75-0.79), and those in the Northeast vs other US Census regions (AOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.79-0.84). Inverse associations with all-cause mortality were strongest among men of Hispanic ethnicity vs other ethnicities (AHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.85), younger vs older men (AHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.85), those with advanced vs localized disease (AHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.78-0.82), and those in the West vs other US Census regions (AHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.87-0.90). Conclusions and Relevance: This population-based cohort study of men with prostate cancer suggests that higher county-level prevalence of PSA screening was associated with lower odds of advanced disease, all-cause mortality, and prostate cancer-specific mortality. Associations varied by age, race and ethnicity, and US Census region.

Age at lung cancer diagnosis in females versus males who never smoke by race and ethnicity.

BACKGROUND: We characterized age at diagnosis and estimated sex differences for lung cancer and its histological subtypes among individuals who never smoke. METHODS: We analyzed the distribution of age at lung cancer diagnosis in 33,793 individuals across 8 cohort studies and two national registries from East Asia, the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). Student's t-tests were used to assess the study population differences (Δ years) in age at diagnosis comparing females and males who never smoke across subgroups defined by race/ethnicity, geographic location, and histological subtypes. RESULTS: We found that among Chinese individuals diagnosed with lung cancer who never smoke, females were diagnosed with lung cancer younger than males in the Taiwan Cancer Registry (n = 29,832) (Δ years = -2.2 (95% confidence interval (CI):-2.5, -1.9), in Shanghai (n = 1049) (Δ years = -1.6 (95% CI:-2.9, -0.3), and in Sutter Health and Kaiser Permanente Hawai'i in the US (n = 82) (Δ years = -11.3 (95% CI: -17.7, -4.9). While there was a suggestion of similar patterns in African American and non-Hispanic White individuals. the estimated differences were not consistent across studies and were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of sex differences for age at lung cancer diagnosis among individuals who never smoke.

Challenges and Solutions to Support Oncology Professionals Serving Underserved Populations With Cancer in the United States: Results From the ASCO Serving the Underserved Task Force.

PURPOSE: Little data exist regarding approaches to support oncology professionals who deliver cancer care for underserved populations. In response, ASCO developed the Serving the Underserved Task Force to learn from and support oncology professionals serving underserved populations. METHODS: The Task Force developed a 28-question survey to assess oncology professionals' experiences and strategies to support their work caring for underserved populations. The survey was deployed via an online link to 600 oncology professionals and assessed respondent and patient demographic characteristics, clinic-based processes to coordinate health-related social services, and strategies for professional society support and engagement. We used chi-square tests to evaluate whether there were associations between percent full-time equivalent (FTE) effort serving underserved populations (<50% FTE v ≥50% FTE) with responses. RESULTS: Of 462 respondents who completed the survey (77% response rate), 79 (17.1%) were Asian; 30 (6.5%) Black; 43 (9.3%) Hispanic or Latino/Latina; and 277 (60%) White. The majority (n = 366, 79.2%) had a medical doctor degree (MD). A total of 174 (37.7%) had <25% FTE, 151 (32.7%) had 25%-50% FTE, and 121 (26.2%) had ≥50% FTE effort serving underserved populations. Most best guessed patients' sociodemographic characteristics (n = 388; 84%), while 42 (9.2%) used data collected by the clinic. Social workers coordinated most health-related social services. However, in clinical settings with high proportions of underserved patients, there was greater reliance on nonclinical personnel, such as navigators (odds ratio [OR], 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07 to 4.33]) or no individual (OR, 2.55 [95% CI, 1.14 to 5.72]) for addressing mental health needs and greater reliance on physicians or advance practice practitioners (OR, 2.54 [95% CI, 1.11 to 5.81]) or no individual (OR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.09 to 3.35]) for addressing childcare or eldercare needs compared with social workers. Prioritization of solutions, which did not differ by FTE effort serving underserved populations, included a return-on-investment model to support personnel, integrated health-related social needs screening, and collaboration with the professional society on advocacy and policy. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight crucial strategies that professional societies can implement to support oncology clinicians serving underserved populations with cancer.

Correlates of supportive care needs among Asian Americans with colorectal, liver, or lung cancer from a web-based patient navigation portal intervention: The Patient COUNTS study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the leading cause of death among Asian Americans, who often face barriers to cancer care. Cancer supportive care needs among Asian Americans remain understudied. AIMS: We examined cancer supportive care needs and participant factors correlated with these needs, identified profiles of supportive care needs, and examined whether needs profiles are associated with quality of life among Asian American adults. METHODS AND RESULTS: We recruited 47 Asian American adults with colorectal, liver, or lung cancer who spoke Chinese, English, or Vietnamese, and were starting or undergoing cancer treatment. We assessed cancer supportive care needs in four domains: cancer information, daily living, behavioral health, and language assistance. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to identify clusters of participants based on their supportive need profiles to further examine the association between need profiles and quality of life (QoL) assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy. Participants (mean age = 57.6) included 72% males and 62% spoke English less than very well. Older participants (age ≥ 65) and those with annual income <$50K reported higher daily living needs. Men and younger participants (age < 50) reported higher behavioral health needs. We found three clusters displaying distinct cancer supportive need profiles: Cluster 1 (28% of the sample) displayed high needs across all domains; Cluster 2 (51%) had low needs across all domains; and Cluster 3 (21%) had high needs for cancer information and daily living. Cluster 1 participants reported the lowest QoL. CONCLUSION: Cancer supportive care needs among Asian American patients with colorectal, liver, and lung cancer were associated with patient characteristics and QoL. Understanding cancer supportive care needs will inform future interventions to improve care and QoL for Asian American patients with cancer. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT03867916.

Lessons Learned from Immigrant Health Cohorts: A Review of the Evidence and Implications for Policy and Practice in Addressing Health Inequities among Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders.

The health of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders (AANHPI) is uniquely impacted by structural and social determinants of health (SSDH) shaped by immigration policies and colonization practices, patterns of settlement, and racism. These SSDH also create vast heterogeneity in disease risks across the AANHPI population, with some ethnic groups having high disease burden, often masked with aggregated data. Longitudinal cohort studies are an invaluable tool to identify risk factors of disease, and epidemiologic cohort studies among AANHPI populations have led to seminal discoveries of disease risk factors. This review summarizes the limited but growing literature, with a focus on SSDH factors, from seven longitudinal cohort studies with substantial AANHPI samples. We also discuss key information gaps and recommendations for the next generation of AANHPI cohorts, including oversampling AANHPI ethnic groups; measuring and innovating on measurements of SSDH; emphasizing the involvement of scholars from diverse disciplines; and, most critically, engaging community members to ensure relevancy for public health, policy, and clinical impact.

Patient and physician perspectives on treatments for low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are confronted with a difficult decision regarding whether to undergo definitive treatment or to pursue an active surveillance protocol. This is potentially further complicated by the possibility that patients and physicians may place different value on factors that influence this decision. We conducted a qualitative investigation to better understand patient and physician perceptions of factors influencing treatment decisions for low-risk PCa. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted among 43 racially and ethnically diverse patients diagnosed with low-risk PCa, who were identified through a population-based cancer registry, and 15 physicians who were selected to represent a variety of practice settings in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. RESULTS: Patients and physicians both described several key individual (e.g., clinical) and interpersonal (e.g., healthcare communications) factors as important for treatment decision-making. Overall, physicians' perceptions largely mirrored patients' perceptions. First, we observed differences in treatment preferences by age and stage of life. At older ages, there was a preference for less invasive options. However, at younger ages, we found varying opinions among both patients and physicians. Second, patients and physicians both described concerns about side effects including physical functioning and non-physical considerations. Third, we observed differences in expectations and the level of difficulty for clinical conversations based on information needs and resources between patients and physicians. Finally, we discovered that patients and physicians perceived patients' prior knowledge and the support of family/friends as facilitators of clinical conversations. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the gap between patient and physician perceptions on the influence of clinical and communication factors on treatment decision-making is not large. The consensus we observed points to the importance of developing relevant clinical communication roadmaps as well as high quality and accessible patient education materials.

Advancing Social and Environmental Research in Cancer Registries Using Geomasking for Address-Level Data.

Understanding the social and environmental causes of cancer in the United States, particularly in marginalized communities, is a major research priority. Population-based cancer registries are essential for advancing this research, given their nearly complete capture of incident cases within their catchment areas. Most registries limit the release of address-level geocodes linked to cancer outcomes to comply with state health departmental regulations. These policies ensure patient privacy, uphold data confidentiality, and enhance trust in research. However, these restrictions also limit the conduct of high-quality epidemiologic studies on social and environmental factors that may contribute to cancer burden. Geomasking refers to computational algorithms that distort locational data to attain a balance between effectively "masking" the original address location while faithfully maintaining the spatial structure in the data. We propose that the systematic deployment of scalable geomasking algorithms could accelerate research on social and environmental contributions across the cancer continuum by reducing measurement error bias while also protecting privacy. We encourage multidisciplinary teams of registry officials, geospatial analysts, cancer researchers, and others engaged in this form of research to evaluate and apply geomasking procedures based on feasibility of implementation, accuracy, and privacy protection to accelerate population-based research on social and environmental causes of cancer.

Asian American Enclaves and Healthcare Accessibility: An Ecologic Study Across Five States.

INTRODUCTION: Access to primary care has been a long-standing priority for improving population health. Asian Americans, who often settle in ethnic enclaves, have been found to underutilize health care. Understanding geographic primary care accessibility within Asian American enclaves can help to ensure the long-term health of this fast-growing population. METHODS: U.S. Census data from five states (California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Texas) were used to develop and describe census-tract level measures of Asian American enclaves and social and built environment characteristics for years 2000 and 2010. The 2-step floating catchment area method was applied to National Provider Identifier data to develop a tract-level measure of geographic primary care accessibility. Analyses were conducted in 2022-2023, and associations between enclaves (versus nonenclaves) and geographic primary care accessibility were evaluated using multivariable Poisson regression with robust variance estimation, adjusting for potential area-level confounders. RESULTS: Of 24,482 census tracts, 26.1% were classified as Asian American enclaves. Asian American enclaves were more likely to be metropolitan and have less poverty, lower crime, and lower proportions of uninsured individuals than nonenclaves. Asian American enclaves had higher primary care accessibility than nonenclaves (adjusted prevalence ratio=1.23, 95% CI=1.17, 1.29). CONCLUSIONS: Asian American enclaves in five of the most diverse and populous states in the U.S. had fewer markers of disadvantage and greater geographic primary care accessibility. This study contributes to the growing body of research elucidating the constellation of social and built environment features within Asian American enclaves and provides evidence of health-promoting characteristics of these neighborhoods.

Assessing the Needs of Those Who Serve the Underserved: A Qualitative Study among US Oncology Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology established the 'Supporting Providers Serving the Underserved' (SUS) Task Force with a goal to develop recommendations to support cancer clinicians who deliver care for populations at risk for cancer disparities. As a first step, the Task Force explored barriers and facilitators to equitable cancer care delivery. METHODS: Clinicians across the United States who deliver care predominantly for low-income and racially and ethnically minoritized populations were identified based on lists generated by the Task Force and the Health Equity Committee. Through purposive sampling based on geographical location, clinicians were invited to participate in 30-60 min semi-structured interviews to explore experiences, barriers, and facilitators in their delivery of cancer care. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, imported into qualitative data management software, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thematic analysis revealed three major themes regarding barriers (lack of executive leadership recognition of resources; patient-related socio-economic needs; clinician burnout) and two major themes regarding facilitators (provider commitment, experiential training). CONCLUSIONS: Findings reveal modifiable barriers and potential solutions to facilitate equitable cancer care delivery for populations at risk for cancer disparities.

31-Gene Expression Profile Testing in Cutaneous Melanoma and Survival Outcomes in a Population-Based Analysis: A SEER Collaboration.

PURPOSE: The DecisionDx-Melanoma 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test is validated to classify cutaneous malignant melanoma (CM) patient risk of recurrence, metastasis, or death as low (class 1A), intermediate (class 1B/2A), or high (class 2B). This study aimed to examine the effect of 31-GEP testing on survival outcomes and confirm the prognostic ability of the 31-GEP at the population level. METHODS: Patients with stage I-III CM with a clinical 31-GEP result between 2016 and 2018 were linked to data from 17 SEER registries (n = 4,687) following registries' operation procedures for linkages. Melanoma-specific survival (MSS) and overall survival (OS) differences by 31-GEP risk category were examined using Kaplan-Meier analysis and the log-rank test. Crude and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox regression model to evaluate variables associated with survival. 31-GEP tested patients were propensity score-matched to a cohort of non-31-GEP tested patients from the SEER database. Robustness of the effect of 31-GEP testing was assessed using resampling. RESULTS: Patients with a 31-GEP class 1A result had higher 3-year MSS and OS than patients with a class 1B/2A or class 2B result (MSS: 99.7% v 97.1% v 89.6%, P < .001; OS: 96.6% v 90.2% v 79.4%, P < .001). A class 2B result was an independent predictor of MSS (HR, 7.00; 95% CI, 2.70 to 18.00) and OS (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.54 to 3.70). 31-GEP testing was associated with a 29% lower MSS mortality (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.94) and 17% lower overall mortality (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.99) relative to untested patients. CONCLUSION: In a population-based, clinically tested melanoma cohort, the 31-GEP stratified patients by their risk of dying from melanoma.

Germline Genetic Testing After Cancer Diagnosis.

Importance: Germline genetic testing is recommended by practice guidelines for patients diagnosed with cancer to enable genetically targeted treatment and identify relatives who may benefit from personalized cancer screening and prevention. Objective: To describe the prevalence of germline genetic testing among patients diagnosed with cancer in California and Georgia between 2013 and 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational study including patients aged 20 years or older who had been diagnosed with any type of cancer between January 1, 2013, and March 31, 2019, that was reported to statewide Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries in California and Georgia. These patients were linked to genetic testing results from 4 laboratories that performed most germline testing for California and Georgia. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was germline genetic testing within 2 years of a cancer diagnosis. Testing trends were analyzed with logistic regression modeling. The results of sequencing each gene, including variants associated with increased cancer risk (pathogenic results) and variants whose cancer risk association was unknown (uncertain results), were evaluated. The genes were categorized according to their primary cancer association, including breast or ovarian, gastrointestinal, and other, and whether practice guidelines recommended germline testing. Results: Among 1 369 602 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2013 and 2019 in California and Georgia, 93 052 (6.8%) underwent germline testing through March 31, 2021. The proportion of patients tested varied by cancer type: male breast (50%), ovarian (38.6%), female breast (26%), multiple (7.5%), endometrial (6.4%), pancreatic (5.6%), colorectal (5.6%), prostate (1.1%), and lung (0.3%). In a logistic regression model, compared with the 31% (95% CI, 30%-31%) of non-Hispanic White patients with male breast cancer, female breast cancer, or ovarian cancer who underwent testing, patients of other races and ethnicities underwent testing less often: 22% (95% CI, 21%-22%) of Asian patients, 25% (95% CI, 24%-25%) of Black patients, and 23% (95% CI, 23%-23%) of Hispanic patients (P < .001 using the χ2 test). Of all pathogenic results, 67.5% to 94.9% of variants were identified in genes for which practice guidelines recommend testing and 68.3% to 83.8% of variants were identified in genes associated with the diagnosed cancer type. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients diagnosed with cancer in California and Georgia between 2013 and 2019, only 6.8% underwent germline genetic testing. Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, rates of testing were lower among Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients.

Role of neighborhood context in ovarian cancer survival disparities: current research and future directions.

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer-associated mortality among US women with survival disparities seen across race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, even after accounting for histology, stage, treatment, and other clinical factors. Neighborhood context can play an important role in ovarian cancer survival, and, to the extent to which minority racial and ethnic groups and populations of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be segregated into neighborhoods with lower quality social, built, and physical environment, these contextual factors may be a critical component of ovarian cancer survival disparities. Understanding factors associated with ovarian cancer outcome disparities will allow clinicians to identify patients at risk for worse outcomes and point to measures, such as social support programs or transportation aid, that can help to ameliorate such disparities. However, research on the impact of neighborhood contextual factors in ovarian cancer survival and in disparities in ovarian cancer survival is limited. This commentary focuses on the following neighborhood contextual domains: structural and institutional context, social context, physical context represented by environmental exposures, built environment, rurality, and healthcare access. The research conducted to date is presented and clinical implications and recommendations for future interventions and studies to address disparities in ovarian cancer outcomes are proposed.

Antimicrobial exposure is associated with decreased survival in triple-negative breast cancer.

Antimicrobial exposure during curative-intent treatment of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) may lead to gut microbiome dysbiosis, decreased circulating and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and inferior outcomes. Here, we investigate the association of antimicrobial exposure and peripheral lymphocyte count during TNBC treatment with survival, using integrated electronic medical record and California Cancer Registry data in the Oncoshare database. Of 772 women with stage I-III TNBC treated with and without standard cytotoxic chemotherapy - prior to the immune checkpoint inhibitor era - most (654, 85%) used antimicrobials. Applying multivariate analyses, we show that each additional total or unique monthly antimicrobial prescription is associated with inferior overall and breast cancer-specific survival. This antimicrobial-mortality association is independent of changes in neutrophil count, is unrelated to disease severity, and is sustained through year three following diagnosis, suggesting antimicrobial exposure negatively impacts TNBC survival. These results may inform mechanistic studies and antimicrobial prescribing decisions in TNBC and other hormone receptor-independent cancers.

Epidemiology of Gastric Malignancies 2000-2018 According to Histology: A Population-Based Analysis of Incidence and Temporal Trends.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gastric cancer (GC) remains a leading cause of cancer and cancer-related mortality. Recent reports suggest noncardia GC is increasing in certain U.S. POPULATIONS: However, whether these trends are driven by gastric adenocarcinoma (GA) or other histologies, including neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), lymphoma, or gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), is unclear. METHODS: We analyzed the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-18 cancer registry (2000-2018) to determine age-standardized incidence rates (ASIR) and annual percentage change (APC) trends for histologically-confirmed GCs, stratified by anatomic location (noncardia vs cardia), age group (20-49 vs 50+ years), sex, race, and ethnicity. Joinpoint regression modeling estimated the statistical significance of trend comparisons. RESULTS: Of 74,520 individuals with noncardia GC, most (66.2%) were GA, with the next largest categories being non-mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (non-MALT) lymphomas (6.9%), GIST (6.7%), NET (6.4%), and MALT lymphoma (5.6%). Noncardia GA ASIR was significantly higher than other histologies and demonstrated the greatest differences by race and ethnicity. APCs for GA and MALT, both Helicobacter pylori-associated cancers, declined significantly over time, which was driven primarily by trends among individuals ≥50 years-old. NET and GIST APCs significantly increased irrespective of age group, with the highest APCs observed among non-Hispanic white individuals. Cardia GC was rarer than noncardia GC and comprised primarily by GA (87.9%). Cardia GC incidence fell during the study period, which was primarily driven by decline in cardia GA. CONCLUSIONS: GA was the most common histology. On the basis of our findings, the rise in noncardia GC among certain U.S. populations appears predominantly driven by NET and GIST, not GA. Further studies are needed to clarify underlying etiologies for these findings.

Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening by Time in the U.S. and Race/Ethnicity, 2010-2018.

INTRODUCTION: Longer time lived in the U.S. has been associated with worse health outcomes, especially preventable diseases, among racially and ethnically diverse groups of foreign-born individuals. This study evaluated the association between time lived in the U.S. and colorectal cancer screening adherence and whether this relationship differed by race and ethnicity. METHODS: Data from the National Health Interview Survey for 2010-2018 among adults aged 50-75 years were used. Time in the U.S. was categorized as U.S.-born, foreign-born ≥15 years, and foreign-born <15 years. Colorectal cancer screening adherence was defined according to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. Generalized linear models with Poisson distribution were used to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios and 95% CIs. Analyses were conducted in 2020-2022, were stratified by race and ethnicity, accounted for the complex sampling design, and were weighted to be representative of the U.S. RESULTS: Prevalence of colorectal cancer screening adherence was 63% overall, 64% for U.S.-born, 55% for foreign-born ≥15 years, and 35% for foreign-born <15 years. In fully adjusted models for all individuals, only foreign-born <15 years had lower adherence than U.S.-born (foreign-born ≥15 years: prevalence ratio=0.97 [0.95, 1.00], foreign-born <15 years: prevalence ratio=0.79 [0.71, 0.88]). Results differed by race and ethnicity (p-interaction=0.002). In stratified analyses, findings for non-Hispanic White individuals (foreign-born ≥15 years: prevalence ratio=1.00 [0.96, 1.04], foreign-born <15 years: prevalence ratio=0.76 [0.58, 0.98]) and non-Hispanic Black individuals (foreign-born ≥15 years: prevalence ratio=0.94 [0.86, 1.02], foreign-born <15 years: prevalence ratio=0.61 [0.44, 0.85]) were similar to all individuals. Disparities by time in the U.S. were not observed among Hispanic/Latino individuals (foreign-born ≥15 years: prevalence ratio=0.98 [0.92, 1.04], foreign-born <15 years: prevalence ratio=0.86 [0.74, 1.01]) but persisted among Asian American/Pacific Islander individuals (foreign-born ≥15 years: prevalence ratio=0.84 [0.77, 0.93], foreign-born <15 years: prevalence ratio=0.74 [0.60, 0.93]). CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between colorectal cancer screening adherence and time in the U.S. varied by race and ethnicity. Culturally and ethnically tailored interventions are needed to improve colorectal cancer screening adherence among foreign-born people, especially among the most recently immigrated individuals.

Factors that influence treatment decisions: A qualitative study of racially and ethnically diverse patients with low- and very-low risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Factors that influence prostate cancer treatment decisions are complex, multifaceted, and personal, and may vary by race/ethnicity. Although research has been published to quantify factors involved in decision-making, these studies have been limited to primarily white, and to a lesser extent, Black patients, and quantitative studies are limited for discerning the cultural and contextual processes that shape decision-making. METHODS: We conducted 43 semi-structured interviews with a racially and ethnically diverse sample of patients diagnosed with low- and very-low risk prostate cancer who had undergone treatment for their prostate cancer. Interviews were transcribed, independently coded, and analyzed to identify themes salient for decision-making, with attention to sociocultural differences. RESULTS: We found racial and ethnic differences in three areas. First, we found differences in how socialized masculinity influenced patient's feelings about different treatment options. Second, we found that for some men, religion and spirituality alleviated anxiety associated with the active surveillance protocol. Finally, for racially and ethnically minoritized patients, we found descriptions of how historic and social experiences within the healthcare system influenced decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Our study adds to the current literature by expounding on racial and ethnic differences in the multidimensional, nuanced factors related to decision-making. Our findings suggest that factors associated with prostate cancer decision-making can manifest differently across racial and ethnic groups, and provide some guidance for future research.