Transferring care to enhance access to early-phase cancer clinical trials: Protocol to evaluate a novel program.

Involving diverse populations in early-phase (phase I and II) cancer clinical trials is critical to informed therapeutic development. However, given the growing costs and complexities of early-phase trials, trial activation and enrollment barriers may be greatest for these studies at healthcare facilities that provide care to the most diverse patient groups, including those in historically underserved communities (e.g., safety-net healthcare systems). To promote diverse and equitable access to early-phase cancer clinical trials, we are implementing a novel program for the transfer of care to enhance access to early-phase cancer clinical trials. We will then perform a mixed-methods study to determine perceptions and impact of the program. Specifically, we will screen, recruit, and enroll diverse patients from an urban, integrated safety-net healthcare system to open and active early-phase clinical trials being conducted in a university-based cancer center. To evaluate this novel program, we will: (1) determine program impact and efficiency; and (2) determine stakeholder experience with and perceptions of the program. To achieve these goals, we will conduct preliminary cost analyses of the program. We will also conduct surveys and interviews with patients and caregivers to elucidate program impact, challenges, and areas for improvement. We hypothesize that broadening access to early-phase cancer trials conducted at experienced centers may improve equity and diversity. In turn, such efforts may enhance the efficiency and generalizability of cancer clinical research.

Erratum: Toward standardization, harmonization, and integration of social determinants of health data: A Texas Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions collaboration - CORRIGENDUM.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/cts.2024.2.].

Characteristics of Clinicians Caring for Transgender Men and Nonbinary Individuals and Guideline Concordance of Clinicians' Cervical Cancer Screening Counseling for Cisgender Individuals Versus Transgender Men and Nonbinary Individuals with a Cervix.

Purpose: We examined characteristics of clinicians caring for transgender men and nonbinary (TMNB) individuals and guideline concordance of clinicians' cervical cancer screening recommendations. Methods: Using a survey of clinicians who performed ≥10 cervical cancer screenings in 2019, we studied characteristics of clinicians who do versus do not report caring for TMNB individuals and guideline concordance of screening recommendations for TMNB individuals with a cervix versus cisgender women. Results: In our sample (N = 492), 49.2% reported caring for TMNB individuals, and 25.4% reported performing cervical cancer screening for TMNB individuals with a cervix. Differences in guideline concordance of screening recommendations for TMNB individuals with a cervix versus cisgender women (45.8% vs. 50% concordant) were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Sizable proportions of clinicians cared for and performed cervical cancer screening for TMNB individuals. Research is needed to better understand clinicians' identified knowledge deficits to develop interventions (e.g., clinician trainings) to improve gender-affirming cervical cancer prevention.

Accessibility to ERCP-performing hospitals among patients with pancreatic cancer living in SEER regions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The two most common interventions used to treat painless jaundice from pancreatic cancer are endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). Our study aimed to characterize the geographic distribution of ERCP-performing hospitals among patients with pancreatic cancer in the United States and the association between geographic accessibility to ERCP-performing hospitals and biliary interventions patients receive. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database for pancreatic cancer from 2005 to 2013. Multilevel models were used to examine the association between accessibility to ERCP hospitals within a 30- and 45-min drive from the patient's residential ZIP Code and the receipt of ERCP treatment. A two-step floating catchment area model was used to calculate the measure of accessibility based on the distribution across SEER regions. RESULTS: 7464 and 782 patients underwent ERCP and PTBD, respectively, over the study period. There were 808 hospitals in which 8246 patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in SEER regions from 2005 to 2013 received a procedure. Patients with high accessibility within both 30- and 45-min drive to an ERCP-performing hospital were more likely to receive an ERCP (30-min adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-2.01; 45-min aOR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.01-1.70). Furthermore, in the adjusted model, Black patients (vs. White) and patients with stage IV disease were less likely to receive ERCP than PTBD. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with pancreatic cancer and high accessibility to an ERCP-performing hospital were more likely to receive ERCP. Disparities in the receipt of ERCP persisted for Black patients regardless of their access to ERCP-performing hospitals.

Toward standardization, harmonization, and integration of social determinants of health data: A Texas Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions collaboration.

Introduction: The focus on social determinants of health (SDOH) and their impact on health outcomes is evident in U.S. federal actions by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. The disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on minorities and communities of color heightened awareness of health inequities and the need for more robust SDOH data collection. Four Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs comprising the Texas Regional CTSA Consortium (TRCC) undertook an inventory to understand what contextual-level SDOH datasets are offered centrally and which individual-level SDOH are collected in structured fields in each electronic health record (EHR) system potentially for all patients. Methods: Hub teams identified American Community Survey (ACS) datasets available via their enterprise data warehouses for research. Each hub's EHR analyst team identified structured fields available in their EHR for SDOH using a collection instrument based on a 2021 PCORnet survey and conducted an SDOH field completion rate analysis. Results: One hub offered ACS datasets centrally. All hubs collected eleven SDOH elements in structured EHR fields. Two collected Homeless and Veteran statuses. Completeness at four hubs was 80%-98%: Ethnicity, Race; < 10%: Education, Financial Strain, Food Insecurity, Housing Security/Stability, Interpersonal Violence, Social Isolation, Stress, Transportation. Conclusion: Completeness levels for SDOH data in EHR at TRCC hubs varied and were low for most measures. Multiple system-level discussions may be necessary to increase standardized SDOH EHR-based data collection and harmonization to drive effective value-based care, health disparities research, translational interventions, and evidence-based policy.

Trusting information on cancer varies by source of information and political viewpoint.

PURPOSE: This study investigated how trusting information on cancer varies by the source of information and political viewpoint. METHODS: This study used cross-sectional survey data from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). The study comprised a sample of 2949 adults 18 years and older. The outcome variable was measured by assessing respondents' trust in cancer-related information from various sources, including religious organizations and leaders, government health agencies, charitable organizations, family or friends, and doctors. Political viewpoint was measured as liberal, moderate, and conservative. Multivariate linear probability models were estimated and adjusted for individual-level characteristics. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis found that conservatives (73%, 95% CI = 68-78%) were significantly less likely to trust information on cancer from government health agencies compared to liberals (84%, 95% CI = 80-88%). There was no statistically significant difference in trusting government health agencies between liberals and moderates (80%, 95% CI = 76-84%). Both moderates (27%, 95% CI = 21-34%) and conservatives (34%, 95% CI = 29-39%) were more likely to trust information on cancer from religious organizations and leaders compared to liberals (19%, 95% CI = 13-24%). The relationship between political viewpoint and trust of doctors, family or friends, and charitable organizations were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Compared to liberals, conservatives are more likely to trust information on cancer from religious organizations and leaders and less likely to trust government health agencies when adjusting for other covariates. This finding emphasizes the role of political viewpoint in shaping individuals' perceptions of information sources and cancer-related information.

A pilot randomized controlled trial comparing nutritious meal kits and no-prep meals to improve food security and diet quality among food pantry clients.

BACKGROUND: Food pantry clients have high rates of food insecurity and greater risk for and prevalence of diet-related diseases. Many clients face time, resource, and physical constraints that limit their ability to prepare healthy meals using foods typically provided by pantries. We compared two novel approaches to alleviate those barriers and encourage healthier eating: meal kits, which bundle ingredients with a recipe on how to prepare a healthy meal, and nutritious no-prep meals, which can be eaten after thawing or microwaving. METHODS: Participants were adult pantry clients from a large food pantry in the Southern sector of Dallas, Texas. We conducted a repeated measures between-subjects study with 70 clients randomized to receive 14-days of meal kits (n = 35) or no-prep meals (n = 35). Participants completed questionnaires at baseline and two-week follow-up on demographics, hedonic liking of study meals, perceived dietary quality, and food security. Two-way repeated measures analysis of variance was used to examine group and time effects, and group by time interactions. We also describe feasibility and satisfaction outcomes to inform future implementation. RESULTS: Sixty-six participants completed the study (94%). Participants were predominantly Hispanic or Latino(a) (63%) and African American or Black (31%) women (90%). There was a significant interaction on hedonic liking of study meals (ηp²=0.16, F(1,64) = 11.78, p < .001), such that participants that received meal kits had greater improvements in hedonic liking over time than participants in the no-prep group. We observed significant improvements in perceived dietary quality (ηp²=0.36, F(1,64) = 36.38, p < .001) and food security (ηp²=0.36, F(1,64) = 36.38, p < .001) across both groups over time, but no between group differences or significant interactions indicating one intervention was more effective than the other. Program satisfaction was high across both groups, but higher among the meal kit group (ηp²=0.09, F(1,64) = 6.28, p = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest nutritious meal kits and no-prep meals may be desirable nutrition intervention strategies for pantry clients and have potential to increase food security and perceived dietary quality in the short-term. Our findings are limited by a small sample and short follow-up. Future studies should continue to test both interventions, and include longer follow-up, objective measures of dietary quality, and relevant clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered on 25/10/2022 on ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT05593510.

A pilot randomized controlled trial comparing nutritious meal kits and no-prep meals to improve food security and diet quality among food pantry clients.

Background: Food pantry clients have high rates of food insecurity and greater risk for and prevalence of diet-related diseases. Many clients face time, resource, and physical constraints that limit their ability to prepare healthy meals using foods typically provided by pantries. We compared two novel approaches to alleviate those barriers and encourage healthier eating: meal kits, which bundle ingredients with a recipe on how to prepare a healthy meal, and nutritious no-prep meals, which can be eaten after thawing or microwaving. Methods: Participants were adult pantry clients from a large food pantry in the Southern sector of Dallas, Texas. We conducted a repeated measures between-subjects study with 70 clients randomized to receive 14-days of meal kits (n=35) or no-prep meals (n=35). Participants completed questionnaires at baseline and twoweek follow-up on demographics, hedonic liking of study meals, perceived dietary quality, and food security. Two-way repeated measures analysis of variance was used to examine group and time effects, and group by time interactions. We also describe feasibility and satisfaction outcomes to inform future implementation. Results: Sixty-six participants completed the study (94%). Participants were predominantly Hispanic or Latino(a) (63%) and African American or Black (31%) women (90%). There was a significant interaction on hedonic liking of study meals (ηp2=0.16, F(1,64)=11.78, p<.001), such that participants that received meal kits had greater improvements in hedonic liking over time than participants in the no-prep group. We observed significant improvements in perceived dietary quality (ηp2=0.36, F(1,64)=36.38, p<.001) and food security (ηp2=0.36, F(1,64)=36.38, p<.001) across both groups over time, but no between group differences or significant interactions indicating one intervention was more effective than the other. Program satisfaction was high across both groups, but higher among the meal kit group (ηp2=0.09, F(1,64)=6.28, p=.015). Conclusions: Results suggest nutritious meal kits and no-prep meals may be desirable nutrition intervention strategies for pantry clients and have potential to increase food security and perceived dietary quality in the short-term. Our findings are limited by a small sample and short follow-up. Future studies should continue to test both interventions, and include longer follow-up, objective measures of dietary quality, and relevant clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: This trial was registered on 25/10/2022 on Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT05593510.

Redesigning Recruitment and Engagement Strategies for Virtual Culinary Medicine and Medical Nutrition Interventions in a Randomized Trial of Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes.

In-person culinary medicine (CM) can improve health behaviors, but its translation to virtual platforms and impact on diabetes outcomes are not well described. We designed a pragmatic trial comparing the effectiveness of virtual CM (eCM) to Medical Nutrition Therapy on diabetes outcomes among patients with uncontrolled diabetes within a safety-net healthcare system. All participants were provided cooking equipment and food from a food pantry. Due to low initial eCM participation, recruitment was paused, and eight semi-structured interviews were conducted to solicit feedback on study appeal, operations, and barriers to participation. Rapid thematic analysis was used to modify study operations. We found that participants were interested in the study and motivated by health concerns. While they valued food distribution and cooking equipment, they highlighted transportation barriers and conflicts with the pick-up time/location. Some eCM participants expressed discomfort with the virtual platform or preferred to observe rather than cook along. Study operations were modified by (1) moving supply pick-up to a familiar community clinic and diversifying food pick-up locations; (2) offering an in-person orientation to the program to increase comfort with the virtual platform; (3) emphasizing the credibility and relatability of the eCM instructor and encouraging participation of family members. This redesign led to the recruitment of 79 participants, of whom 75% attended at least one class. In conclusion, participant feedback informed pragmatic changes in study operations that increased engagement in this ongoing trial and may inform future eCM program design.

Birth Defects in Offspring of Adolescent and Young Adults with a History of Cancer: A Population-Based Study of 27,000 Women.

BACKGROUND: We examined birth defects in offspring of adolescent and young adult (AYA) women with a history of cancer (age 15-39 years at diagnosis). METHODS: We identified AYA women diagnosed with cancer between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2015 using population-based data from the Texas Cancer Registry; data were linked with live birth and fetal death certificates through December 31, 2016 to identify singleton births to AYA women after diagnosis. Birth defects in offspring through age 12 months were ascertained from the Texas Birth Defects Registry. We estimated risk of birth defects in offspring of AYA women and women without cancer (matched 3:1 by maternal race/ethnicity, maternal age, and offspring year of birth) and compared risk using log binomial regression models. RESULTS: There were 6,882 singleton births to AYA women after diagnosis. Common cancer types were thyroid (28.9%), lymphoma (12.5%), and breast (10.7%). Risk of any birth defect was higher in offspring of AYA women (6.0%) compared with offspring of women without cancer [n = 20,646; 4.8%; risk ratio (RR) 1.24; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.38]. Risk of eye or ear (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.90), heart and circulatory (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.09-1.60), genitourinary (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.69), and musculoskeletal (RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.13-1.66) defects was also higher. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of birth defects was elevated in liveborn and stillborn offspring of AYA women. IMPACT: Although birth defects are rare, AYA women making decisions about pregnancy and prenatal care should receive appropriate counseling and surveillance.

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.

An Updated Report on the Prevalence of Prior Cancer Among Persons Newly Diagnosed With Cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program.

This cohort study uses population-based data from the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program of cancer registries to estimate prevalence of prior cancer among adults diagnosed with an incident cancer in 2019.

Ethnic Disparities in Early-Onset Gastric Cancer Persist across Rural-Urban Geographies.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of noncardia gastric cancer is increasing in adults ages less than 50 years old. Early-onset gastric cancer (EOGC) is characterized by ethnic disparities occurring more in Hispanic persons than non-Hispanic persons. It is unknown whether rural-urban disparities exist in EOGC and if this intersects with ethnic disparities. METHODS: We utilized the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results 17 Census Tract-level Socioeconomic Status and Rurality Database from 2006 to 2018 to calculate incidence rates and incidence rate ratios of EOGC among Hispanic and non-Hispanic persons by census tract rural-urban location, age, gender, persistent poverty, and stage of disease. We used the Tiwari Method to estimate incidence rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Hispanic persons had higher incidence rates of EOGC compared with non-Hispanic persons in both rural [incident rate ratios (IRR), 2.12; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.64-2.73] and urban census tracts (IRR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.91-2.16). Similar findings were seen when comparing Hispanic to non-Hispanic persons in rural and urban census tracts by age, stage of disease, and persistent poverty. CONCLUSIONS: Higher incidence rates of EOGC among Hispanic persons persist across rural-urban locations. Further research is needed to understand the etiology of this elevated risk in young Hispanics and interventions that may help to modify their outcome. IMPACT: While other cancers have ethnic disparities which may differ by rural-urban location, the ethnic disparity in EOGC among Hispanic and non-Hispanic persons does not differ by rural-urban residence.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Cervical Cancer Screening From Three U.S. Healthcare Settings.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to characterize racial and ethnic disparities in cervical cancer screening and follow-up of abnormal findings across 3 U.S. healthcare settings. METHODS: Data were from 2016 to 2019 and were analyzed in 2022, reflecting sites within the Multi-level Optimization of the Cervical Cancer Screening Process in Diverse Settings & Populations Research Center, part of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process consortium, including a safety-net system in the southwestern U.S., a northwestern mixed-model system, and a northeastern integrated healthcare system. Screening uptake was evaluated among average-risk patients (i.e., no previous abnormalities) by race and ethnicity as captured in the electronic health record, using chi-square tests. Among patients with abnormal findings requiring follow-up, the proportion receiving colposcopy or biopsy within 6 months was reported. Multivariable regression was conducted to assess how clinical, socioeconomic, and structural characteristics mediate observed differences. RESULTS: Among 188,415 eligible patients, 62.8% received cervical cancer screening during the 3-year study period. Screening use was lower among non-Hispanic Black patients (53.2%) and higher among Hispanic (65.4%,) and Asian/Pacific Islander (66.5%) than among non-Hispanic White patients (63.5%, all p<0.001). Most differences were explained by the distribution of patients across sites and differences in insurance. Hispanic patients remained more likely to screen after controlling for a variety of clinical and sociodemographic factors (risk ratio=1.14, CI=1.12, 1.16). Among those receiving any screening test, Black and Hispanic patients were more likely to receive Pap-only testing (versus receiving co-testing). Follow-up from abnormal results was low for all groups (72.5%) but highest among Hispanic participants (78.8%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort receiving care across 3 diverse healthcare settings, cervical cancer screening and follow-up were below 80% coverage targets. Lower screening for Black patients was attenuated by controlling for insurance and site of care, underscoring the role of systemic inequity. In addition, it is crucial to improve follow-up after abnormalities are identified, which was low for all populations.

Revisiting Exclusion of Prior Cancer in Clinical Trials of Male Breast Cancer.

Background: Eligibility criteria for cancer clinical trials present challenges to enrollment. Many trials exclude patients with a prior cancer. This common practice may be especially detrimental to trials of rare cancers, such as male breast cancer, that struggle to accrue adequate numbers of participants. Objectives: To estimate prevalence of prior cancer among men newly diagnosed with breast cancer and describe characteristics of men with prior cancer compared to those without. Methods: We identified men diagnosed with breast cancer between 2011-2015 using population-based data from National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program of cancer registries. We used sequence number and diagnosis year to identify cancers diagnosed prior to breast cancer (inclusive of prior breast, different, and unknown types of cancer). We compared sociodemographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics of men with and without prior cancer using chi-square tests. Results: Among 2317 men, nearly one quarter (24.3%) had any prior cancer, and the majority (58.7%) of these were of a different cancer type. A higher proportion of men with a prior cancer of a different type were older, had smaller (≤ 2 cm) breast tumors, were diagnosed with stage 0-1 breast cancer, and did not receive surgery compared to men without any prior cancer; there were no statistically significant differences by race and ethnicity, county median income, hormone receptor status, or surgery type. Conclusion: Given prevalence of prior cancer in this rare and understudied population of men diagnosed with breast cancer, including men with prior cancer in clinical trials may improve accrual.

Adverse birth outcomes of adolescent and young adult women diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: We examined adverse birth outcomes among adolescent and young adult women diagnosed with cancer (AYA women, ages 15-39 years) during pregnancy. METHODS: We linked data from the Texas Cancer Registry, vital records, and Texas Birth Defects Registry to identify all singleton births to AYA women diagnosed during pregnancy from January 1999 to December 2016. We compared prevalence of adverse live birth outcomes between AYA women and women without cancer (matched 1:4 on age, race and ethnicity, and year). Among AYA women, we used log-binomial regression to identify factors associated with these outcomes. Statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: AYA women had 1271 singleton live births and 20 stillbirths. AYA women (n = 1291) were 33.3% Hispanic and 9.8% non-Hispanic Black and most commonly had breast (22.5%), thyroid (19.8%), and gynecologic (13.3%) cancers. Among live births, AYA women had a higher prevalence of low birth weight offspring (30.1% vs 9.0%), very preterm (5.7% vs 1.2%), and preterm birth (25.1% vs 7.2%); cesarean delivery (44.3% vs 35.2%); and low Apgar score (2.7% vs 1.5%), compared with women without cancer (n = 5084) (all P < .05). Prevalence of any birth defect by age 12 months did not statistically differ (5.2% vs 4.7%; P = .48), but live births to AYA women more often had heart and circulatory system defects (2.2% vs 1.3%; P = .01). In adjusted models, cancer type and chemotherapy were associated with adverse live birth outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: AYA women diagnosed during pregnancy have higher prevalence of adverse birth outcomes and face difficult decisions in balancing treatment risks and benefits.

Provider- and Facility-Level Variation in Precancerous Cervical Biopsy Diagnoses.

OBJECTIVES: Reproducibility of cervical biopsy diagnoses is low and may vary based on where the diagnostic test is performed and by whom. Our objective was to measure multilevel variation in diagnoses across colposcopists, pathologists, and laboratory facilities. METHODS: We cross-sectionally examined variation in cervical biopsy diagnoses within the 5 sites of the Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR I) consortium within levels defined by colposcopists, pathologists, and laboratory facilities. Patients aged 18 to 65 years with a colposcopy with biopsy performed were included, with diagnoses categorized as normal, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1), grade 2 (CIN2), and grade 3 (CIN3). Using Markov Chain Monte-Carlo methods, we fit mixed-effects logistic regression models for biopsy diagnoses and presented median odds ratios (MORs), which reflect the variability within each level. Median odds ratios can be interpreted as the average increased odds a patient would have for a given outcome (e.g., CIN2 or CIN3 vs normal or CIN1) when switching to a provider with higher odds of diagnosing that outcome. The MOR is always 1 or greater, and a value of 1 indicates no variation in outcome for that level, with higher values indicating greater variation. RESULTS: A total of 130,110 patients were included who received care across 82 laboratory facilities, 2,620 colposcopists, and 489 pathologists. Substantial variation in biopsy diagnoses was found at each level, with the most occurring between laboratory facilities, followed by pathologists and colposcopists. Substantial variation in biopsy diagnoses of CIN2 or CIN3 (vs normal or CIN1) was present between laboratory facilities (MOR: 1.26; 95% credible interval = 1.19-1.36). CONCLUSIONS: Improving consistency in cervical biopsy diagnoses is needed to reduce underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, and unnecessary treatment resulting from variation in cervical biopsy diagnoses.

Associations between perceived racial discrimination, racial residential segregation, and cancer screening adherence among low-income African Americans: a multilevel, cross-sectional analysis.

OBJECTIVES: African Americans suffer disproportionately from cancer compared to their White counterparts. Racism may be an important determinant, but the literature on its association with cancer screening is limited. We examine associations between racism and cancer screening among a sample of African Americans. DESIGN: Guided by the Public Health Critical Race Praxis and the Behavioral Model of Health Services Use, we conducted a multilevel, cross-sectional study using cancer risk assessment data collected from 405 callers to the 2-1-1 Texas helpline. We merged these data with contextual data from the U.S. Census Bureau. We assessed perceived racial discrimination using the Experiences of Discrimination Scale and racial residential segregation using the Location Quotient for Racial Residential Segregation. We used multilevel regression models to test hypothesized associations between each indicator of racism and four cancer screening adherence outcomes (Pap test, mammography, colorectal cancer screening [CRCS], and any cancer screening). RESULTS: Participants were 18-83 years old (mean = 45 years). Most (81%) were non-adherent to at least one recommended screening. Approximately 42% reported experiencing discrimination and 73% lived in a segregated neighborhood. Discrimination was non-significantly related to lower odds of mammography (aOR = 0.68; 95%CI: 0.38-1.22), CRCS (aOR = 0.79; 95%CI: 0.41-1.52), and any cancer screening adherence (aOR = 0.88; 95%CI: 0.59-1.32). Segregation was related to greater odds of mammography (non-significant; aOR = 1.43; 95%CI: 0.76-2.68) and CRCS (significant; aOR = 2.80; 95%CI: 1.21-6.46) but not associated with any cancer screening. Neither indicator of racism was associated with Pap test screening adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Racism has a nuanced association with cancer screening among low-income, medically underserved African Americans. Specifically, discrimination appears to be associated with lower odds of screening, while segregation may be associated with higher odds of screening in certain situations. Future research is needed to better explicate relations between indicators of racism and cancer screening among African Americans.

Dietary intake of individuals receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and food pantry assistance in North Texas.

OBJECTIVE: Food pantries and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are widely available resources for individuals facing food insecurity, yet the dietary quality of individuals using both programmes is not well characterised. We describe the dietary intake of individuals in North Texas who use both food pantries and SNAP to identify nutritional gaps and opportunities to improve food assistance programmes. DESIGN: We analysed baseline data from a randomised controlled trial examining food security and dietary intake. At baseline, we administered the validated, 26-item Dietary Screener Questionnaire (DSQ). We calculated descriptive statistics for dietary intake variables and compared with the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended intake values. SETTING: Two large food pantries in Dallas County, TX. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were English or Spanish speaking adults receiving SNAP benefits who had used the food pantry within the last 4 months. RESULTS: We analysed baseline DSQ data from 320 participants (mean age 47 years; 90% female; 45% Black or African American; 37% Hispanic or Latino). Despite receiving SNAP benefits and food pantry assistance, most participants did not meet the minimum recommended intake values for fruits (88.4%), vegetables (97.4%), fibre (90·7%), whole grains (99·7%), dairy products (98·4%) and Ca (83·4%). Furthermore, 73·2% of participants exceeded the maximum recommended intake for added sugar. Still, the gap between median daily intake and recommended daily intake could be partially bridged with food obtained through current food assistance programmes. CONCLUSIONS: Multilevel, coordinated approaches within both SNAP and food pantry networks are needed to improve diet quality in individuals receiving food assistance.