Faculty Bibliography

Prior research indicates bisexual individuals have higher smoking and vaping rates and heightened vulnerability to negative health outcomes. Thus, we compared adult bisexual (n = 294) and heterosexual (n = 2412) participants enrolled in a smoking cessation trial on baseline smoking and vaping use behaviors, motivations, and expectancies/beliefs as well as follow-up smoking and vaping status. This is a secondary analysis of a large randomized controlled trial testing a smoking cessation intervention for dual users of combustible and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in the United States. Self-reported 7-day point prevalence smoking and vaping abstinence were collected at 3-, 12-, and 24-month assessments. Bisexual and heterosexual participants did not differ in sociodemographic variables or baseline smoking and vaping history and behavior. We found significant differences among bisexual and heterosexual individuals in smoking and vaping beliefs/expectancies. Specifically, bisexual participants expressed overall greater positive expectancies regarding smoking and vaping, such as smoking and vaping to reduce negative affect and stress. There were no differences in smoking at any follow-up assessment. Only at 3 months were bisexual individuals more likely to be abstinent from vaping and less likely to be dual users than heterosexual individuals. Despite similar smoking and vaping status over time, bisexual individuals reported greater positive expectancies regarding smoking and vaping. Our findings revealed few targets for tailoring cessation interventions to bisexual individuals; thus, it is possible that there may be greater utility in targeting the disparities in prevalence (i.e., via prevention efforts).

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:Lack of collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data in oncology practices limits assessment of sexual and gender minority (SGM) cancer patients' experiences and restricts opportunities to improve health outcomes of SGM patients. Despite national calls for routine SOGI data collection, individual-level and institutional barriers hinder progress. This study aimed to identify these barriers in oncology. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:An online survey of ASCO members and others assessed SOGI data collection in oncology practices, institutional characteristics related to SOGI data collection, respondents' attitudes about SOGI data and SGM patients, and respondent demographics. Logistic regression calculated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for factors associated with sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) data collection. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Less than half of 257 respondents reported institutional SO and GI data collection (40% and 46%, respectively), whereas over a third reported no institutional data collection (34% and 32%, respectively) and the remainder were unsure (21% and 17%, respectively). Most respondents felt that knowing both SO and GI was important for quality care (77% and 85%, respectively). Collection of SO and GI was significantly associated in separate models with leadership support (ORs = 8.01 and 6.02, respectively), having resources for SOGI data collection (ORs = 10.6 and 18.7, respectively), and respondents' belief that knowing patient SO and GI is important (ORs = 4.28 and 2.76, respectively). Themes from qualitative comments mirrored the key factors identified in our quantitative analysis. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Three self-reinforcing factors emerged as critical drivers for collecting SOGI data: leadership support, dedicated resources, and individual respondents' attitudes. Policy mandates, implementation science, and clinical reimbursement are strategies to advance meaningful data collection and use in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND:LGBT patients may have unique psychosocial cancer care needs, and healthcare providers should have knowledge and understanding of these unique needs to effectively address disparities through the delivery of personalized healthcare. As such, our group developed and piloted a web-based LGBT cultural competency training designed specifically for oncologists called the Curriculum for Oncologists on LGBT populations to Optimize Relevance and Skills (COLORS). We designed a randomized pragmatic trial for oncologists to compare the effectiveness of the COLORS training versus a general online LGBT cultural competency training in improving LGBT-related knowledge, attitudes, and clinical practices. METHODS/DESIGN/METHODS:Study procedures include an 8-step approach for recruitment, randomization, retention, and completion of the interventions. Oncologists of any subspecialty who are currently practicing physicians will be identified from the American Medical Association Masterfile. Approximately 5000 oncologists will be sent a FedEx envelope with an invitation letter and study timeline. Electronic consent is obtained using a secure REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) portal hosted at the Moffitt Cancer Center (Tampa, FL) where the oncologists will complete the eligibility questionnaire, pre-training assessments, and then will be randomized to complete the COLORS training or an online general healthcare training offered by the National LGBT Health Education Center. Effectiveness of both trainings will be assessed utilizing self-reported measures of LGBT-related knowledge, attitudes, and affirming clinical practices. The measures will be collected before and directly after training completion, as well as 3-month post-training completion. The primary outcomes are changes in knowledge, attitudes, and practice behaviors regarding LGBT cancer patients from pre-test to post-test training in the COLORS training vs. the comparison training. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:The overarching premise of this trial is to assess the effectiveness of the COLORS cultural competency training program. If successful, among oncologists who completed the COLORS training should yield statistically significantly improvements in knowledge, attitudes, and affirming practice.

Sexual and gender minorities (SGM) include persons identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/non-binary, and queer experience a greater cancer burden than their heterosexual or cisgender counterparts. Access to cancer care includes prevention and early detection, however despite known increased risk for various malignancies among SGM individuals, cancer screening rates remain low. This commentary outlines disparities in cancer screening for SGM individuals and provides the current evidence-based screening guidelines for these patients.

BACKGROUND:Gynecologic cancers standard treatment often requires the removal of some reproductive organs, making fertility preservation a complex challenge. Despite heightened oncofertility awareness, knowledge about fertility attitudes and decisions of young patients with gynecologic cancer is scarce. The aim of this systematic review was to highlight what is currently known about knowledge, attitudes, and decisions about fertility, fertility preservation, and parenthood among these patients. METHODS:Peer-reviewed journals published in English were searched in PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE from January 1, 2000 to July 1, 2020. Childbearing, fertility, fertility preservation, pregnancy, and parenthood attitudes/decisions after gynecologic cancer from women's perspective were evaluated. RESULTS:A total of 13 studies comprised the review. Most of the women valued fertility preservation procedures that could be regarded as a means to restore fertility. A unique feature identified was that fertility preservation was seen also as a way to restore gender identity perceived to be lost or threatened during diagnosis and treatment. Fertility counseling was suboptimal, with wide variability among studies reviewed. Comparisons between gynecologic cancers and other cancer types about fertility counseling rates were inconclusive. The potential negative impact of impaired fertility on patients' mental health and quality of life was also documented. CONCLUSIONS:Fertility and parenthood were important matters in patients' lives, with the majority of patients expressing positive attitudes toward future childbearing. Results confirm that the inclusion of patients with gynecologic cancer in research studies focusing on this topic still remains low. Additionally, the provision of fertility counseling and referral by health professionals is still suboptimal.

The use of planned oocyte cryopreservation for nonmedical need has been steadily increasing, especially since the experimental label on this procedure was lifted nearly 10 years ago. With this rise, patients' desires to postpone or conserve their reproductive potential have become increasingly nuanced, and the need for complex individualized counseling has grown. In addition, there are several ethical considerations, including risks, access, and patient comprehension that must be discussed with patients who are considering this procedure. In this review, we provide an in-depth discussion of these concepts, highlighting the need for individualized and comprehensive counseling that recognizes the gaps in knowledge that remains in this somewhat novel domain.

Cancer health disparities remain a significant problem in the USA, compounded by lack of access to care, language barriers and systemic biases in health care. These disparities are particularly evident in areas such as genetics/genomics. For example, Latinas at high risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) have extremely low rates of genetic counseling/testing. Long-standing barriers and inequities in access to services such as genetic counseling and testing require innovative solutions. One solution can involve training community outreach and education professionals (CORE-Ps) to bridge the gap between underserved communities and genetic specialists. We sought to develop and pilot test a training program for English-Spanish bilingual CORE-Ps to reduce disparities in access to and uptake of genetic services among Latino populations. Guided by Adult Learning Theory and with input from multiple stakeholders, we developed ÁRBOLES Familiares (Family Trees), an in-person and online training program for bilingual CORE-Ps to facilitate identification, referral, and navigation of Latinas to genetic counseling/testing. We conducted a pilot test of 24 CORE-Ps recruited from across the United States and assessed knowledge, genetic literacy, and self-efficacy at baseline and follow-up. At follow-up, participants in the pilot with complete baseline and follow-up data (N = 15) demonstrated significant improvements in HBOC knowledge, genetic literacy, self-efficacy and reports of fewer barriers to identify/navigate Latinas (ps < .05). Qualitative assessment identified ways to improve the training curriculum. Pilot results suggest ÁRBOLES is a promising approach for training CORE-Ps to identify and refer high-risk Latinas to genetic services. Next steps involve further refinement of ÁRBOLES, development of an online toolkit, and adaptation for virtual delivery.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:AYAs with cancer have unique psychosocial needs, with reproductive health being a primary concern. The ECHO training program provides reproductive health communication training to individuals providing care for AYAs with cancer. The purpose of this project is to describe the growth of ECHO and evaluate changes in learner engagement over a 5-year period. METHODS:ECHO is an 8-week online training program offered annually, with the program including learning modules, discussion topics and reflections, and synchronous discussions. Reflection quality scores and number of words were compared between the 5 cohorts using ANOVA with a p < .05 level of significance. Descriptive statistics summarized module topics, reflections, and synchronous discussions. RESULTS:The average number of reflections per unique learner increased each year (1.4 in cohort 1 vs 4.1 in cohort 5), as did average length and quality of reflections (72.1 words in cohort 1 vs 203.4 words in cohort 5, p < .0001; score of 1.21 in cohort 1 vs 4.46 in cohort 5, p < .0001). The percentage of learners in attendance at synchronous discussions increased between cohorts 4 and 5 (4.8% of learners in cohort 4 vs 18.8% of learners cohort 5). CONCLUSIONS:The ECHO program has seen significant growth and improvement in learner engagement over a 5-year period. This is particularly important given that student learning outcomes in online courses can be predicted by the level of engagement with online content. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS/CONCLUSIONS:As fertility and reproductive health remain a top life goal and discussion priority for AYAs surviving cancer, increasing clinical competencies of AHPs in oncofertility is essential.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Breast cancer survivors (BrCS) experience many psychosocial difficulties following treatment, leading to an increased risk of psychological distress compared to the general population. This is especially true for underserved BrCS whose unmet supportive care needs can result in worse physical and mental health outcomes. This qualitative study compared healthcare and support providers' perceptions of BrCS' needs to survivors' perceptions of their own needs. METHODS:Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 25 underserved BrCS and 20 cancer survivorship stakeholders identified using purposeful sampling. Using the constant comparison method and content analysis, data were analyzed via an iterative process of coding and discussion. Data were summarized according to three intermediate and proximal themes mentioned by both stakeholders and survivors: (1) psychosocial needs of cancer survivors, (2) support, and (3) benefit finding/positive feelings about cancer. Demographic data were analyzed by calculating descriptive statistics. RESULTS:There was consistency in providers' and survivors' perceptions of post-treatment mood changes, financial burden, familial stress, and physical changes. Providers and survivors differed in perceptions of BrCS' preferred sources of care and support, effects of cancer treatment on body image, the effects of fear of cancer recurrence on follow-up care, and benefit finding. CONCLUSIONS:This study provides valuable insight into areas in which healthcare and support providers' perceptions may differ from underserved BrCS' lived experiences. Results from this study can be used to develop interventions and inform healthcare and support providers on how to provide high-quality care to underserved BrCS.