Oncogenic Oral Human Papillomavirus Clearance Patterns over 10 Years.

BACKGROUND: Effective screening for oropharyngeal cancer is lacking. Four oncogenic HPV clearance definitions were explored to understand long-term natural history for persistent oncogenic oral HPV (oncHPV), the precursor of oropharyngeal cancer. METHODS: Prospective multicenter cohort of participants living with/at-risk for HIV, with oral rinse and gargle samples collected every 6 to 12 months for up to 10 years and tested for oncHPV. HPV clearance definitions included 1 (clear1), 2 (clear2), 3 (clear3) consecutive negatives, or being negative at last two visits (clearlast). RESULTS: Median time to clearance of oncHPV exceeded 2 years for conservative definitions (clear3: 2.38, clearlast: 2.43), but not lenient (clear1: 0.68, clear2: 1.15). By clear3, most incident infections cleared at 2, 5, 8 years (55.1%, 75.6%, 79.1%), contrary to prevalent infections (37.1%, 52.5%, 59.5%, respectively). In adjusted analysis, prevalent oncHPV, older age, male sex, and living with HIV were associated with reduced clearance. Of 1,833 subjects screened, 13.8% had prevalent oncHPV and 47.5% of those infections persisted ≥5 years, representing 6.5% of persons screened. Two men with prevalent oral HPV16 developed incident oropharyngeal cancer [IR = 1.62 per 100 person-years; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.41-6.4]. Many with oral HPV16 persisted ≥5 years (and/or developed HPV-oropharyngeal cancer) among those with 2 (72.2%), ≥2 of first 3 (65.7%), or 3 (80.0%) consecutive positive oHPV16 tests, but not after 1 (39.4%). CONCLUSIONS: In our 10-year study, most incident infections cleared quickly. However, half of prevalent oncHPV persisted ≥5 years, suggesting increased risk with persistent oncHPV at >2 visits. IMPACT: We identified groups with persistent oncHPV at increased risk of oropharyngeal cancer and contextualized risk levels for those with oral HPV16 infection.

Prevalence of oral and blood oncogenic human papillomavirus biomarkers among an enriched screening population: Baseline results of the MOUTH study.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV)-related oropharyngeal cancer screening is being explored in research studies, but strategies to identify an appropriate population are not established. The authors evaluated whether a screening population could be enriched for participants with oncogenic HPV biomarkers using risk factors for oral HPV. METHODS: Participants were enrolled at Johns Hopkins Hospitals and Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine. Eligible participants were either men aged 30 years or older who had two or more lifetime oral sex partners and a personal history of anogenital dysplasia/cancer or partners of patients who had HPV-related cancer. Oral rinse and serum samples were tested for oncogenic HPV DNA, RNA, and E6 or E7 antibodies, respectively. Participants with any biomarker were considered at-risk. RESULTS: Of 1108 individuals, 7.3% had any oncogenic oral HPV DNA, and 22.9% had serum antibodies for oncogenic HPV E6 or E7. Seventeen participants (1.5%) had both oral and blood biomarkers. HPV type 16 (HPV16) biomarkers were rarer, detected in 3.7% of participants, including 20 with oral HPV16 DNA and 22 with HPV16 E6 serum antibodies (n = 1 had both). In adjusted analysis, living with HIV (adjusted odds ratio, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.60-4.40) and older age (66-86 vs. 24-45 years; adjusted odds ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.07-2.70) were significant predictors of being at risk. Compared with the general population, the prevalence of oral HPV16 (1.8% vs. 0.9%), any oncogenic oral HPV DNA (7.3% vs. 3.5%), and HPV16 E6 antibodies (2.2% vs. 0.3%) was significantly elevated. CONCLUSIONS: Enrichment by the eligibility criteria successfully identified a population with higher biomarker prevalence, including HPV16 biomarkers, that may be considered for screening trials. Most in this group are still expected to have a low risk of oropharyngeal cancer.

Feasibility of clinical evaluation of individuals with increased risk for HPV-associated oropharynx cancer.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus-associated oropharynx squamous cell carcinoma (HPV-OPSCC) has no known pre-malignant lesion. While vaccination offers future primary prevention, there is current interest in secondary prevention. The feasibility of clinical evaluation of individuals at increased risk for HPV-OPSCC is unclear. METHODS: Individuals with risk factors for HPV-OPSCC were enrolled in a prospective study (MOUTH). Participants positive for biomarkers associated with HPV-OPSCC were eligible for a clinical evaluation which comprised a head and neck examination and imaging with ultrasound and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This study was designed to evaluate feasibility of clinical evaluation in a screening study. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-four participants were eligible for clinical evaluation. Of the 384, 204 (53%) completed a head and neck examination or imaging. Of these, 66 (32%) completed MRI (n = 51) and/or ultrasound (n = 64) studies. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical evaluations, including head and neck examination and imaging, are feasible in the context of a screening study for HPV-OPSCC.

Prevalence of human papillomavirus in head and neck cancers at tertiary care centers in the United States over time.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is responsible for a growing proportion of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCCs) among men and White individuals. Whether similar trends apply to women, non-Whites, and non-oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (non-OPSCCs) is unknown. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis combining 2 multi-institutional case series of incident head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) cases. Incident HNSCCs from 1995 to 2012 were enrolled retrospectively using banked tumor samples and medical record abstraction. Incident HNSCCs from 2013 to 2019 were enrolled prospectively. The prevalence of tumor HPV biomarkers was tested over 3 time periods (1995-2003, 2004-2012, and 2013-2019). Centralized testing was done for p16 immunohistochemistry (p16) and oncogenic HPV in situ hybridization (ISH). RESULTS: A total of 1209 incident cases of HNSCC were included. Prevalence of p16- and ISH-positive tumors increased significantly for oropharynx cancers over time. The majority were positive after 2013 for White patients (p16, 92%; P < .001; ISH 94%; P < .001), Black patients (p16, 72%; P = .021; ISH 67%; P = .011), and Hispanic patients (p16, 100%; P = .04; ISH 100%; P = .013). For women with OPSCC, the prevalence of p16- and ISH-positive tumors increased significantly to 82% (P < .001) and 78% (P = .004), respectively. For non-OPSCCs, there was increased p16 and ISH positivity overall with 24% p16 and 16% ISH positivity in the most recent time period (P < .001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of OPSCCs in US tertiary care centers are now p16 and ISH positive for all sex and race groups. In some populations in the United States, 91% of OPSCCs are now caused by HPV. Few non-OPSCCs are p16 and ISH positive.

Biologic and behavioral associations of estrogen receptor alpha positivity in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: Tumor HPV status is an established independent prognostic marker for oropharynx cancer (OPC). Recent studies have reported that tumor estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) positivity is also associated with prognosis independent of HPV. Little is known about the biologic and behavioral predictors of ERα positivity in head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC). We therefore explored this in a multicenter prospective cohort study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with HNSCC completed a survey and provided a blood sample. Tumor samples were tested for ERα using immunohistochemistry. ERα positivity was defined as ≥1%, standardized by the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists in breast cancer. Characteristics were compared with χ2 and Fisher's exact test. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 318 patients with HNSCC, one third had ERα positive tumors (36.2%, n = 115). Odds of ERα expression were significantly increased in those with HPV-positive tumors (OR = 27.5, 95% confidence interval[CI] 12.1-62), smaller tumors (≤T2, OR = 3.6, 95% CI 1.9-7.1), male sex (OR = 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.6), overweight/obesity (BMI ≥ 25, OR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.3), and those married/living with a partner (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.0-3.0). In a multivariate model, HPV-positivity (aOR = 27.5, 95% CI 11.4-66) and small tumor size (≤T2, aOR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.0-4.8) remained independently associated with ERα status. When restricted to OPC (n = 180), tumor HPV status (aOR = 17.1, 95% CI 2.1-137) and small tumor size (≤T2, aOR = 4.0 95% CI 1.4-11.3) remained independently associated with ERα expression. CONCLUSION: Tumor HPV status and small tumor size are independently associated with ERα expression in HNSCC.

RTOG-0129 risk groups are reproducible in a prospective multicenter heterogeneously treated cohort.

BACKGROUND: Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) from the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG)-0129 has identified a low-risk group of patients with oropharynx cancer (OPC) who might benefit from therapeutic de-intensification. These risk groups have not yet been reproduced in an independent cohort treated heterogeneously. Therefore, the objective of this analysis was to validate the RPA risk groups and examine the prognostic impact of novel factors. METHODS: Patients with OPC were enrolled in a prospective study at 3 academic medical centers from 2013 to 2018. Medical record abstraction was used to ascertain clinical variables including staging and survival according to the 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual. Human papillomavirus-positive tumor status was determined by p16 immunohistochemistry and/or HPV RNA in situ hybridization. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods were used to compare survival. Cox proportional hazards were used to generate univariate and multivariable hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 3.2 years. The low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups had significant differences in 2-year overall survival (OS, 99.1%; 95% CI, 94.4%-99.9% vs OS, 93.0%; 95% CI, 74.7%-98.2% vs OS, 80.0%; 95% CI, 40.9%-94.6%; Poverall = .0001) and 2-year progression-free survival (PFS, 97.5%; 95% CI, 92.4%-99.2% vs PFS, 89.3%; 95% CI, 70.3%-96.4% vs PFS, 80.0%; 95% CI, 40.9%-94.6%; Poverall < .002). After adjustment for age, sex, and level of educational attainment, OS and PFS were significantly lower for the intermediate- (OS adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 5.0; 95% CI, 1.0-23.0; PFS aHR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.0-11.5), and high- (OS aHR, 7.3; 95% CI, 1.4-39; PFS aHR, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.2-21.6) risk groups compared with the low-risk group. Lower education was also independently significantly associated with worse OS (aHR, 8.9; 95% CI, 1.8-44.3) and PFS (aHR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.0-9.6). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with OPC, the RTOG-0129 RPA model is associated with OS and PFS in a heterogeneously treated cohort.

Timing, number, and type of sexual partners associated with risk of oropharyngeal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Case-control studies from the early 2000s demonstrated that human papillomavirus-related oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC) is a distinct entity associated with number of oral sex partners. Using contemporary data, we investigated novel risk factors (sexual debut behaviors, exposure intensity, and relationship dynamics) and serological markers on odds of HPV-OPC. METHODS: HPV-OPC patients and frequency-matched controls were enrolled in a multicenter study from 2013 to 2018. Participants completed a behavioral survey. Characteristics were compared using a chi-square test for categorical variables and a t test for continuous variables. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were calculated using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 163 HPV-OPC patients and 345 controls were included. Lifetime number of oral sex partners was associated with significantly increased odds of HPV-OPC (>10 partners: odds ratio [OR], 4.3 [95% CI, 2.8-6.7]). After adjustment for number of oral sex partners and smoking, younger age at first oral sex (<18 vs >20 years: aOR, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.1-3.2]) and oral sex intensity (>5 sex-years: aOR, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.1-7.5]) remained associated with significantly increased odds of HPV-OPC. Type of sexual partner such as older partners when a case was younger (OR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.1-2.6]) or having a partner who had extramarital sex (OR, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.1-2.4]) was associated with HPV-OPC. Seropositivity for antibodies to HPV16 E6 (OR, 286 [95% CI, 122-670]) and any HPV16 E protein (E1, E2, E6, E7; OR, 163 [95% CI, 70-378]) was associated with increased odds of HPV-OPC. CONCLUSION: Number of oral sex partners remains a strong risk factor for HPV-OPC; however, timing and intensity of oral sex are novel independent risk factors. These behaviors suggest additional nuances of how and why some individuals develop HPV-OPC.

Long-term Persistence of Oral HPV Over 7 Years of Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus-related oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC) incidence is increasing, but the natural history of the precursor-oral HPV-has not been well described. METHODS: This observational cohort study of people living with HIV and at-risk HIV uninfected people evaluated participants semiannually using 30-second oral rinse and gargle specimens over 7 years. Initially, 447 participants were followed for 4 years as part of the Persistent Oral Papillomavirus Study, and a subset of 128 who showed persistent infections at the last Persistent Oral Papillomavirus Study visit had an additional visit, as part of the Men and Women Understanding Throat HPV Study, on average 2.5 years later. Extracted DNA from oral rinse and gargle specimens was amplified using polymerase chain reaction and type specification of 13 oncogenic HPV types. Risk factors for oncogenic oral HPV clearance were evaluated using Cox models. RESULTS: The majority of oncogenic oral HPV infections cleared quickly, with a median time to clearance of 1.4 years (interquartile range = 0.5-3.9 years). After 7 years of follow-up, 97% of incident and 71% of prevalent infections had cleared. Lower HPV-16 viral load was statistically significantly associated with clearance (per 10-fold decrease in copy number: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 2.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20 to 5.26; P = .01). Adjusted analyses showed that oncogenic oral HPV clearance was lower among prevalent than incident-detected infections (aHR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.55), among men than women (aHR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.91), for older participants (aHR per 10 years increasing age = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.74 to 0.89), and among people living with HIV (aHR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.95). One participant who had oral HPV-16 consistently detected at 10 study visits over 4.5 years was subsequently diagnosed with HPV-OPC. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study of oncogenic oral HPV infection is the longest and largest quantification of oral HPV-16 infections to date.

Risk factors for human papillomavirus-positive nonoropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC) is distinct from HPV-unassociated head and neck cancer. However, whether risk factors for HPV-positive oropharyngeal and nonoropharyngeal squamous cell cancer are the same is unclear. METHODS: Incident cases of HPV-positive head and neck cell cancer and matched non-cancer controls were enrolled in a multi-institutional, prospective study examining risk factors, biomarkers, and survival. RESULTS: HPV-nonOPC (n = 20) were more likely to be ever smokers than controls (n = 80, OR 3.49, 95%CI 1.11-10.9) and HPV-OPC (n = 185, OR 3.28, 95%CI 1.10-10.2). Compared with HPV-OPC, HPV-nonOPC were less likely to have had over 3 oral sexual partners (OR 0.29, 95%CI 0.06-0.9), more likely to have multimorbidity (OR 3.30, 95%CI 1.04-10.5), and less likely to have antibodies to HPV16 E6 (90% vs 28%, OR 0.05, 95%CI 0.02-0.2). HPV-nonOPC had worse 4-year OS (77% vs 96%, P = .001) and RFS (69% vs 94%, P < .001) than HPV-OPC. CONCLUSIONS: HPV-positive nonoropharyngeal are distinct from HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancers.

Distinct biomarker and behavioral profiles of human papillomavirus-related oropharynx cancer patients by age.

BACKGROUND: HPV-positive oropharynx squamous cell cancer (HPV-OPC) patients were initially described as younger, however incidence has increased among older age-groups. It is unknown why some patients present at a younger age and others at a later age. METHODS: Multi-institutional prospective study of HPV-OPC cases (n = 163) and matched controls (n = 345) with detailed behavioral survey, and serum tested for HPV antibodies by fluorescent bead-based technology. Age at diagnosis was used to stratify patients into younger (≤50 years), middle-age (51-65), and older (>65). RESULTS: By age, demographic characteristics were largely similar, but HPV biomarkers and sexual acts differed. Younger cases were more likely to be HPV16-positive than older cases (100% vs 77%, p = 0.009). Similarly, younger cases were more likely to be HPV16 E6 or E7 seropositive (100% vs 82%, p = 0.03). Younger cases had a higher number of oral sex partners per year, a marker of sexual intensity (sex-years, p = 0.003), but a similar number of lifetime oral sex partners (measure of cumulative sexual exposure), compared to older cases. While sex-years were higher for younger cases and controls, cases had significantly higher sex-years than matched controls in each age-group (p < 0.001). Younger patients were also more likely to perform oral sex at sexual debut, and were younger at sexual debut (each p < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Younger, middle-age and older HPV-OPC have distinct biomarker and behavioral profiles. Younger HPV-OPC cases have higher intensity of sexual exposure than older cases and controls, which may in part explain earlier disease onset. The distribution of HPV16-positive tumors among HPV-OPC differs by age group.

Evaluating the Utility and Prevalence of HPV Biomarkers in Oral Rinses and Serology for HPV-related Oropharyngeal Cancer.

Performance of commercially available human papillomavirus (HPV) assays (approved for cervical HPV detection) is unknown for detecting HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC). Assays for detection of HPV DNA [ELISA (DEIA) and Cobas], and RNA (Aptima) in oral rinse samples, and serum HPV oncogene antibodies were evaluated. Sensitivity and specificity of each test was explored among HPV-OPC cases and controls. Biomarker prevalence was evaluated among 294 "at-risk" people (screening) and 133 "high-risk" people [known to previously have oral oncogenic HPV (oncHPV) DNA and/or HPV16 E6/E7 antibodies detected]. HPV16 E6 antibodies had the best overall test performance with sensitivity of 88%, compared with oral HPV16 DNA sensitivity of 51% by DEIA and 43% by Cobas (each P < 0.001). Specificity was comparable in each of these tests (≥98%). When positivity for any oncHPV type was compared with HPV16 for the same test, sensitivity was comparable (60% vs. 51%, 40% vs. 43%, and 92% vs. 88% for DEIA, Cobas, and E6 antibodies, respectively), but specificity was reduced (93%-97%). Aptima had poor sensitivity (23%). Sensitivity decreased when cotesting HPV16 oral rinse DNA and E6 antibodies (37%-48%), or multiple E antibodies (69%-72%). HPV16 DNA were detected in ∼2% of the at-risk by either DEIA or Cobas and up to 15% of the high-risk population. HPV16 E6 seroprevalence was 2.3% and 2.4% in the at-risk and high-risk populations, respectively. Oral rinse HPV testing had moderate-to-poor sensitivity for HPV-OPC, suggesting many true positives would be missed in a potential screening scenario. HPV16 E6 serum antibody was the most promising biomarker evaluated.

Priorities of human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer patients at diagnosis and after treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known regarding how human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (HPV-OPC) patient goals change with treatment. This study evaluates whether patient ranking of non-oncologic priorities relative to cure and survival shift after treatment as compared to priorities at diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective study of HPV-OPC patient survey responses at diagnosis and after treatment. The relative importance of 12 treatment-related priorities was ranked on an ordinal scale (1 as highest). Median rank (MR) was compared using Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank tests. Prevalence of high concern for 11 treatment-related issues was compared using paired t-test. The effect of patient characteristics on change in priority rank and concern was evaluated using linear regression. RESULTS: Among 37 patients, patient priorities were generally unchanged after treatment compared with at diagnosis, with cure and survival persistently ranked top priority. Having a moist mouth uniquely rose in importance after treatment. Patient characteristics largely did not affect change in priority rank. Concerns decreased after treatment, except concern regarding recurrence. DISCUSSION: Treatment-related priorities are largely similar at diagnosis and after treatment regardless of patient characteristics. The treatment experience does not result in a shift of priorities from cure and survival to non-oncologic domains over cure and survival. The rise in importance of moist mouth implies that xerostomia may have been underappreciated as a sequelae of treatment. A decrease in most treatment-related concerns is encouraging, whereas the persistence of specific areas of concern may inform patient counseling.

Priorities, concerns, and regret among patients with head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the era of deintensification, little data are available regarding patients' treatment preferences. The current study evaluated treatment-related priorities, concerns, and regret among patients with head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC). METHODS: A total of 150 patients with HNSCC ranked the importance of 10 nononcologic treatment goals relative to the oncologic goals of cure and survival. The level of concern regarding 11 issues and decision regret was recorded. Median rank was reported overall, and factors associated with odds of rank as a top 3 priority were modeled using logistic regression. RESULTS: Among the treatment effects analyzed, the odds of being a top 3 priority was especially high for cure (odds, 9.17; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 5.05-16.63), followed by survival and swallow (odds, 1.26 [95% CI, 0.88-1.80] and odds, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.59-1.21], respectively). Prioritization of cure, survival, and swallow was similar based on human papillomavirus (HPV) tumor status. By increasing decade of age, older participants were found to be significantly less likely than younger individuals to prioritize survival (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.52-1.00). Concerns regarding mortality (P = .04) and transmission of HPV to the patient's spouse (P = .03) were more frequent among participants with HPV-associated HNSCC. Regret increased with additional treatment modalities (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HNSCC overwhelming prioritize cure, followed by survival and swallow. The decreased prioritization of survival by older age supports further examination of treatment preference by age. The precedence of oncologic over nononcologic priorities among patients regardless of HPV tumor status supports the conservative adoption of deintensification regimens until the interplay between competing oncologic and nononcologic treatment goals is better understood.

Sex differences in HPV immunity among adults without cancer.

The incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated head and neck cancers is rising, particularly among men. Whether observed epidemiological differences in sex are explained by differences in sexual exposure and/or by immune response is unclear. In this cross-sectional, multi-institutional study, seroprevalence of antibodies to HPV L1 capsid antigen was compared by patient characteristics among 374 adult patients without cancer. A significantly higher seroprevalence was observed among women compared with men for HPV16 (OR = 2.96, 95% CI = 1.21-7.21) and HPV18 (OR = 2.84, 95% CI = 1.06-7.60) L1 antibodies. This difference persisted for HPV16 after controlling for lifetime and recent sexual behavior. After controlling for sex, HPV16 and HPV18 L1 seroprevalence was also significantly associated with higher number of lifetime (HPV16 OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01-1.08; HPV18 OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.01-1.08) and recent (HPV16 OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.15-2.07; HPV18 OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.07-1.82) oral but not vaginal sexual partners. These findings potentially suggest a more robust immune response to HPV16/18 among women compared with men that may not be explained by differences in number of sexual partners, and thereby presumably HPV exposure. The independent association of HPV16/18 L1 seroprevalence with higher number of oral sexual partners suggests a possible role for site of mucosal exposure in the HPV immune response.

Overweight adolescents and asthma: Revealing motivations and challenges with adolescent-provider communication.

OBJECTIVE: Among teens with asthma, challenges of disease management may be greater in those with a body mass index (BMI) >85th percentile compared to youth within the parameters for normal weight-for-age. This mixed-methods study assessed teens' awareness of the link between weight and asthma management, and perspectives on how medical providers might open a discussion about managing weight. METHOD: Teens aged 13-18, having BMI >85 percentile and chronic asthma, identified using health system databases and a staff email message board, were invited to complete a semi-structured, in-depth phone interview. Interviews were audio taped, transcribed, and qualitatively analyzed, using the Framework Method. Responses were summarized and themes identified. Descriptive summaries were generated for a 16-item survey of weight conversation starters. RESULTS: Of 35 teens interviewed, 24 (69%) were girls, 11 (31%) boys, 20 (63%) African-American. All teens reported having "the weight conversation" with their doctors, and preferred that parents be present. Half knew from their doctor about the link between being overweight and asthma, others knew from personal experience. Nearly all expressed the importance of providers initiating a weight management conversation. Most preferred conversation starters that recognized challenges and included parents' participation in weight management; least liked referred to "carrying around too much weight." CONCLUSIONS: Most teens responded favorably to initiating weight loss if it impacted asthma management, valued their provider addressing weight and family participation in weight management efforts. Adolescents' views enhance program development fostering more effective communication targeting weight improvement within the overall asthma management plan.

Teen, Parent, and Clinician Expectations About Obesity and Related Conditions During the Annual Well-Child Visit.

PURPOSE: To examine family (patient and parent/guardian) and clinician preferences for identification and management of obesity and obesity-related conditions during the well-child visit. METHODS: Four focus groups with teen patients (n=16), four focus groups with parents (n=15), and one focus group with providers (n=12) were conducted using a structured moderator guide tailored to each specific population. Eligible patients had a well-child visit during the past 12 months and a diagnosis of overweight, obesity, hyperlipidemia, or elevated blood pressure. Parents who attended their child's well-child visit and had a child meeting these same criteria were eligible. Teen focus groups were divided by gender (male/female) and age (14-15y/16-17y). Focus group transcripts were coded for concepts and themes using qualitative data and thematic analysis. Analysis was performed across groups to determine common themes and domains of intersect. RESULTS: Teens and parents expect weight to be discussed at well-child visits, and prefer discussions to come from a trusted clinician who uses serious, consistent language. Teens did not recognize the health implications from excess weight, and both parents and teens express the need for more information on strategies to change behavior. Providers recognize several challenges and barriers to discussing weight management in the well-child visit. CONCLUSION: A clinician-teen-family relationship built on trust, longevity, teamwork, support, and encouragement can create a positive atmosphere and may improve understanding for weight-related messages for teens and families during a well-child visit.