Cancer screening and management in the transgender population: Review of literature and special considerations for gender affirmation surgery.

BACKGROUND: Literature focused on cancer screening and management is lacking in the transgender population. AIM: To action to increase contributions to the scientific literature that drives the creation of cancer screening and management protocols for transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of PubMed on January 5th, 2022, with the following terms: "TGNC", OR "transgender", OR "gender non-conforming", OR "gender nonbinary" AND "cancer screening", AND "breast cancer", AND "cervical cancer", AND "uterine cancer", AND "ovarian cancer", AND "prostate cancer", AND "testicular cancer", AND "surveillance", AND "follow-up", AND "management". 70 unique publications were used. The findings are discussed under "Screening" and "Management" categories. RESULTS: Screening: Current cancer screening recommendations default to cis-gender protocols. However, long-term gender-affirming hormone therapy and loss to follow-up from the gender-specific specialties contribute to a higher risk for cancer development and possible delayed detection. The only known screening guidelines made specifically for this population are from the American College of Radiology for breast cancer. Management: Prior to undergoing Gender Affirmation Surgery (GAS), discussion should address cancer screening and management in the organs remaining in situ. Cancer treatment in this population requires consideration for chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and/or reconstruction. Modification of hormone therapy is decided on a case-by-case basis. The use of prophylactic vs aesthetic techniques in surgery is still debated. CONCLUSION: When assessing transgender individuals for GAS, a discussion on the future oncologic risk of the sex-specific organs remaining in situ is essential. Cancer management in this population requires a multidisciplinary approach while the care should be highly individualized with considerations to social, medical, surgical and gender affirming surgery related specifications. Special considerations have to be made during planning for GAS as surgery will alter the anatomy and may render the organ difficult to sample for screening purposes. A discussion with the patient regarding the oncologic risk of remaining organs is imperative prior to GAS. Other special considerations to screening such as the conscious or unconscious will to unassociated with their remaining organs is also a key point to address. We currently lack high quality studies pertinent to the cancer topic in the gender affirmation literature. Further research is required to ensure more comprehensive and individualized care for this population.

Timing of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefits and Families' Home Food Environments.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits are designed to buffer families from food insecurity, but studies suggest that most benefits are used by midmonth. In this study, we examined whether the home food environment varies across the SNAP benefits cycle among participating families . METHODS: Participants in this mixed-methods study were 30 SNAP participants who were primary caregivers of a child ages 4-10 years. The home food environment was measured 1 week before SNAP benefit replenishment and again within 1 week after replenishment by using the Home Food Inventory. Household food insecurity was assessed by using the US Department of Agriculture Household Food Security Survey. Wilcoxon rank tests were used to evaluate changes in median Home Food Inventory subscales and food insecurity pre- to post-replenishment. Qualitative interviews with participating caregivers were conducted to explore contextual factors influencing the home food environment across the benefits cycle. RESULTS: Participants had significantly fewer types of vegetables (median: 7.0 vs 8.5, median difference 1.73, 95% confidence interval: 0.5-2.5, P = .03) and higher food insecurity pre- versus post-replenishment (median: 4.0 vs 2.0, median difference 1, 95% confidence interval: 0.1-1.5, P = .03). Caregivers described employing a variety of intentional strategies to reduce cyclic variation in food availability. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that there is relatively limited cyclic variation in the home food environment among families participating in SNAP. This may be explained by a number of assistance programs and behavioral strategies caregivers used to make food last and buffer against scarcity. Future research should evaluate the relationship between the degree of home food environment changes and child health outcomes.

Brief Report: Willingness to Accept HIV-Infected and Increased Infectious Risk Donor Organs Among Transplant Candidates Living With HIV.

BACKGROUND: HIV-infected (HIV+) donor to HIV+ recipient (HIV D+/R+) transplantation might improve access to transplantation for people living with HIV. However, it remains unknown whether transplant candidates living with HIV will accept the currently unknown risks of HIV D+/R+ transplantation. METHODS: We surveyed transplant candidates living with HIV from 9 US transplant centers regarding willingness to accept HIV+ donor organs. RESULTS: Among 116 participants, the median age was 55 years, 68% were men, and 78% were African American. Most were willing to accept HIV+ living donor organs (87%), HIV+ deceased donor organs (84%), and increased infectious risk donor organs (70%). Some (30%) were concerned about HIV superinfection; even among these respondents, 71% were willing to accept an HIV D+ organ. Respondents from centers that had already performed a transplant under an HIV D+/R+ transplantation research protocol were more willing to accept HIV+ deceased donor organs (89% vs. 71%, P = 0.04). Respondents who chose not to enroll in an HIV D+/R+ transplantation research protocol were less likely to believe that HIV D+/R+ transplantation was safe (45% vs. 77%, P = 0.02), and that HIV D+ organs would work similar to HIV D- organs (55% vs. 77%, P = 0.04), but more likely to believe they would receive an infection other than HIV from an HIV D+ organ (64% vs. 13%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Willingness to accept HIV D+ organs among transplant candidates living with HIV does not seem to be a major barrier to HIV D+/R+ transplantation and may increase with growing HIV D+/R+ transplantation experience.