Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Research on social determinants of genetic testing uptake is limited, particularly among unaffected patients with inherited cancer susceptibility. METHODS:We conducted a secondary analysis of the Broadening the Reach, Impact, and Delivery of Genetic Services (BRIDGE) trial at University of Utah Health and NYU Langone Health, involving 2,760 unaffected patients meeting genetic testing criteria for inherited cancer susceptibility and who were initially randomized to either an automated chatbot or an enhanced standard of care (SOC) genetic services delivery model. We used encounters from the electronic health record (EHR) to measure the uptake of genetic counseling and testing, including dichotomous measures of (1) whether participants initiated pre-test cancer genetic services, (2) completed pre-test cancer genetic services, (3) had genetic testing ordered, and (4) completed genetic testing. We merged zip codes from the EHR to construct census tract-weighted social measures of the Social Vulnerability Index. Multilevel models estimated associations between social vulnerability and genetic services utilization. We tested whether intervention condition (i.e., chatbot vs. SOC) moderated the association of social vulnerability with genetic service utilization. Covariates included study arm, study site, age, sex, race/ethnicity, language preference, rural residence, having a recorded primary care provider, and number of algorithm criteria met. RESULTS:Patients living in areas of medium socioeconomic status (SES) vulnerability had lower odds of initiating pre-test genetic services (adjusted OR [aOR] = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.98) compared to patients living in low SES vulnerability areas. Patients in medium household vulnerability areas had a lower likelihood of completing pre-test genetic services (aOR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66-0.97) and having genetic testing ordered (aOR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99) relative to patients in low household vulnerability areas. We did not find that social vulnerability associations varied by intervention condition. CONCLUSIONS:These results underscore the importance of investigating social and structural mechanisms as potential pathways to increasing genetic testing uptake among patients with increased inherited risk of cancer. Census information is publicly available but seldom used to assess social determinants of genetic testing uptake among unaffected populations. Existing and future cohort studies can incorporate census data to derive analytic insights for clinical scientists. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:BRIDGE was registered as NCT03985852 on June 6, 2019 at clinicaltrials.gov.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Stronger Together is a peer mentoring model that seeks to address the severe lack of mental health and psychosocial support for patients with cancer in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This article presents the results of the Stronger Together pilot study among patients with breast and gynecologic cancer in Viet Nam (VN). METHODS:Eligible participants comprised women age 25 years or older with a diagnosis of breast or gynecologic cancers and receiving treatment at four participating hospitals. Participants were asked whether they wanted to proceed with usual care or be matched with a trained and supervised peer mentor (a cancer survivor). Surveys were administered at baseline (0) and 2, 4, and 6 months and assessed depression, anxiety, stress, mental health and physical health components of quality of life (QOL), self-efficacy, and social support. We computed and compared 2-, 4-, and 6-month changes in scores from baseline and conducted difference-in-difference analyses to estimate the intervention effect at 6 months. RESULTS:The sample size included N = 186 participants. Mentees (n = 91) exhibited improvements in depression, anxiety, stress, and mental health QOL across all time points, whereas usual care participants (n = 95) experienced these improvements at later periods (4 and 6 months). Compared with usual care participants, mentees reported greater improvements in depression at 2 and 4 months, mental health QOL at all time points, and self-efficacy and social support at 4 and 6 months. Greater improvements in stress were also seen in the breast cancer subsample. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Stronger Together is a promising model to improve mental health and psychosocial outcomes among patients with breast and gynecologic cancer in VN and can help fill gaps in cancer peer support interventions in many LMICs.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Stronger Together is a peer mentoring model that seeks to address the severe lack of mental health and psychosocial support for patients with cancer in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This article presents the results of the Stronger Together pilot study among patients with breast and gynecologic cancer in Viet Nam (VN). METHODS:Eligible participants comprised women age 25 years or older with a diagnosis of breast or gynecologic cancers and receiving treatment at four participating hospitals. Participants were asked whether they wanted to proceed with usual care or be matched with a trained and supervised peer mentor (a cancer survivor). Surveys were administered at baseline (0) and 2, 4, and 6 months and assessed depression, anxiety, stress, mental health and physical health components of quality of life (QOL), self-efficacy, and social support. We computed and compared 2-, 4-, and 6-month changes in scores from baseline and conducted difference-in-difference analyses to estimate the intervention effect at 6 months. RESULTS:The sample size included N = 186 participants. Mentees (n = 91) exhibited improvements in depression, anxiety, stress, and mental health QOL across all time points, whereas usual care participants (n = 95) experienced these improvements at later periods (4 and 6 months). Compared with usual care participants, mentees reported greater improvements in depression at 2 and 4 months, mental health QOL at all time points, and self-efficacy and social support at 4 and 6 months. Greater improvements in stress were also seen in the breast cancer subsample. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Stronger Together is a promising model to improve mental health and psychosocial outcomes among patients with breast and gynecologic cancer in VN and can help fill gaps in cancer peer support interventions in many LMICs.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Increasing numbers of unaffected individuals could benefit from genetic evaluation for inherited cancer susceptibility. Automated conversational agents (ie, chatbots) are being developed for cancer genetics contexts; however, randomized comparisons with standard of care (SOC) are needed. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To examine whether chatbot and SOC approaches are equivalent in completion of pretest cancer genetic services and genetic testing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This equivalence trial (Broadening the Reach, Impact, and Delivery of Genetic Services [BRIDGE] randomized clinical trial) was conducted between August 15, 2020, and August 31, 2023, at 2 US health care systems (University of Utah Health and NYU Langone Health). Participants were aged 25 to 60 years, had had a primary care visit in the previous 3 years, were eligible for cancer genetic evaluation, were English or Spanish speaking, had no prior cancer diagnosis other than nonmelanoma skin cancer, had no prior cancer genetic counseling or testing, and had an electronic patient portal account. INTERVENTION/UNASSIGNED:Participants were randomized 1:1 at the patient level to the study groups at each site. In the chatbot intervention group, patients were invited in a patient portal outreach message to complete a pretest genetics education chat. In the enhanced SOC control group, patients were invited to complete an SOC pretest appointment with a certified genetic counselor. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:Primary outcomes were completion of pretest cancer genetic services (ie, pretest genetics education chat or pretest genetic counseling appointment) and completion of genetic testing. Equivalence hypothesis testing was used to compare the study groups. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:This study included 3073 patients (1554 in the chatbot group and 1519 in the enhanced SOC control group). Their mean (SD) age at outreach was 43.8 (9.9) years, and most (2233 of 3063 [72.9%]) were women. A total of 204 patients (7.3%) were Black, 317 (11.4%) were Latinx, and 2094 (75.0%) were White. The estimated percentage point difference for completion of pretest cancer genetic services between groups was 2.0 (95% CI, -1.1 to 5.0). The estimated percentage point difference for completion of genetic testing was -1.3 (95% CI, -3.7 to 1.1). Analyses suggested equivalence in the primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:The findings of the BRIDGE equivalence trial support the use of chatbot approaches to offer cancer genetic services. Chatbot tools can be a key component of sustainable and scalable population health management strategies to enhance access to cancer genetic services. TRIAL REGISTRATION/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03985852.

BACKGROUND:We examined neighborhood characteristics concerning breast cancer screening annual adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:We analyzed 6673 female patients aged 40 or older at increased inherited cancer risk in 2 large health care systems (NYU Langone Health [NYULH] and the University of Utah Health [UHealth]). Multinomial models were used to identify predictors of mammogram screening groups (non-adherent, pre-pandemic adherent, pandemic period adherent) in comparison to adherent females. Potential determinants included sociodemographic characteristics and neighborhood factors. RESULTS:Comparing each cancer group in reference to the adherent group, a reduced likelihood of being non-adherent was associated with older age (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95, 0.99), a greater number of relatives with cancer (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.75, 0.86), and being seen at NYULH study site (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.29, 0.60). More relatives with cancer were correlated with a lesser likelihood of being pandemic period adherent (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81, 0.97). A lower likelihood of being pre-pandemic adherent was seen in areas with less education (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.62, 0.96) and NYULH study site (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.55). Finally, greater neighborhood deprivation (OR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.08, 2.01) was associated with being non-adherent. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Breast screening during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with being older, having more relatives with cancer, residing in areas with less educational attainment, and being seen at NYULH; non-adherence was linked with greater neighborhood deprivation. These findings may mitigate risk of clinically important screening delays at times of disruptions in a population at greater risk for breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Nurses play a crucial role in cancer control. Prior reviews presented the effectiveness of nursing interventions such as tobacco cessation counseling and cervical cancer screening but did not focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This scoping review addresses a gap in the literature by describing the roles and activities of nurses in cancer prevention and early detection in LMICs. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Following Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, we searched seven databases using subject headings and keywords from 1990 to January 2021 and updated in April 2022. The reference lists of relevant studies were also searched. Two reviewers independently screened the relevance of studies through Rayyan, assessed full text articles, and extracted data using a Google Form. Conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: ​= ​9). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:This scoping review provides a comprehensive picture of nurses' role in cancer prevention and early detection in LMICs, across all six World Health Organization regions. Additional cancer workforce data sources at the country level are needed to fully understand the activities of nurses in cancer prevention. Future research is also needed to measure the impact of nursing educational and other interventions in both primary and secondary cancer prevention.

Objectives: Family history is an important tool for assessing disease risk, and tailoring recommendations for screening and genetic services referral. This study explored barriers to family history collection with Spanish-speaking patients. Methods: This qualitative study was conducted in two US healthcare systems. We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical assistants, physicians, and interpreters with experience collecting family history for Spanish-speaking patients. Results: The most common patient-level barrier was the perception that some Spanish-speaking patients had limited knowledge of family history. Interpersonal communication barriers related to dialectical differences and decisions about using formal interpreters vs. Spanish-speaking staff. Organizational barriers included time pressures related to using interpreters, and ad hoc workflow adaptations for Spanish-speaking patients that might leave gaps in family history collection. Conclusions: This study identified multi-level barriers to family history collection with Spanish-speaking patients in primary care. Findings suggest that a key priority to enhance communication would be to standardize processes for working with interpreters. Innovation: To improve communication with and care provided to Spanish-speaking patients, there is a need to increase healthcare provider awareness about implicit bias, to address ad hoc workflow adjustments within practice settings, to evaluate the need for professional interpreter services, and to improve digital tools to facilitate family history collection.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Research is a critical pillar in national cancer control planning. However, there is a dearth of evidence for countries to implement affordable strategies. The WHO and various Commissions have recommended developing stakeholder-based needs assessments based on objective data to generate evidence to inform national and regional prioritisation of cancer research needs and goals. METHODOLOGY/METHODS:Bibliometric algorithms (macros) were developed and validated to assess cancer research outputs of all 54 African countries over a 12-year period (2009-2020). Subanalysis included collaboration patterns, site and domain-specific focus of research and understanding authorship dynamics by both position and sex. Detailed subanalysis was performed to understand multiple impact metrics and context relative outputs in comparison with the disease burden as well as the application of a funding thesaurus to determine funding resources. RESULTS:African countries in total published 23 679 cancer research papers over the 12-year period (2009-2020) with the fractional African contribution totalling 16 201 papers and the remaining 7478 from authors from out with the continent. The total number of papers increased rapidly with time, with an annual growth rate of 15%. The 49 sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries together published just 5281 papers, of which South Africa's contribution was 2206 (42% of the SSA total, 14% of all Africa) and Nigeria's contribution was 997 (19% of the SSA total, 4% of all Africa). Cancer research accounted for 7.9% of all African biomedical research outputs (African research in infectious diseases was 5.1 times than that of cancer research). Research outputs that are proportionally low relative to their burden across Africa are paediatric, cervical, oesophageal and prostate cancer. African research mirrored that of Western countries in terms of its focus on discovery science and pharmaceutical research. The percentages of female researchers in Africa were comparable with those elsewhere, but only in North African and some Anglophone countries. CONCLUSIONS:There is an imbalance in relevant local research generation on the continent and cancer control efforts. The recommendations articulated in our five-point plan arising from these data are broadly focused on structural changes, for example, overt inclusion of research into national cancer control planning and financial, for example, for countries to spend 10% of a notional 1% gross domestic expenditure on research and development on cancer.

Importance:Clinical decision support (CDS) algorithms are increasingly being implemented in health care systems to identify patients for specialty care. However, systematic differences in missingness of electronic health record (EHR) data may lead to disparities in identification by CDS algorithms. Objective:To examine the availability and comprehensiveness of cancer family history information (FHI) in patients' EHRs by sex, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and language preference in 2 large health care systems in 2021. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective EHR quality improvement study used EHR data from 2 health care systems: University of Utah Health (UHealth) and NYU Langone Health (NYULH). Participants included patients aged 25 to 60 years who had a primary care appointment in the previous 3 years. Data were collected or abstracted from the EHR from December 10, 2020, to October 31, 2021, and analyzed from June 15 to October 31, 2021. Exposures:Prior collection of cancer FHI in primary care settings. Main Outcomes and Measures:Availability was defined as having any FHI and any cancer FHI in the EHR and was examined at the patient level. Comprehensiveness was defined as whether a cancer family history observation in the EHR specified the type of cancer diagnosed in a family member, the relationship of the family member to the patient, and the age at onset for the family member and was examined at the observation level. Results:Among 144 484 patients in the UHealth system, 53.6% were women; 74.4% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino and 67.6% were White; and 83.0% had an English language preference. Among 377 621 patients in the NYULH system, 55.3% were women; 63.2% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino, and 55.3% were White; and 89.9% had an English language preference. Patients from historically medically undeserved groups-specifically, Black vs White patients (UHealth: 17.3% [95% CI, 16.1%-18.6%] vs 42.8% [95% CI, 42.5%-43.1%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.0%-24.8%] vs 33.8% [95% CI, 33.6%-34.0%]), Hispanic or Latino vs non-Hispanic or non-Latino patients (UHealth: 27.2% [95% CI, 26.5%-27.8%] vs 40.2% [95% CI, 39.9%-40.5%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.1%-24.7%] vs 31.6% [95% CI, 31.4%-31.8%]), Spanish-speaking vs English-speaking patients (UHealth: 18.4% [95% CI, 17.2%-19.1%] vs 40.0% [95% CI, 39.7%-40.3%]; NYULH: 15.1% [95% CI, 14.6%-15.6%] vs 31.1% [95% CI, 30.9%-31.2%), and men vs women (UHealth: 30.8% [95% CI, 30.4%-31.2%] vs 43.0% [95% CI, 42.6%-43.3%]; NYULH: 23.1% [95% CI, 22.9%-23.3%] vs 34.9% [95% CI, 34.7%-35.1%])-had significantly lower availability and comprehensiveness of cancer FHI (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance:These findings suggest that systematic differences in the availability and comprehensiveness of FHI in the EHR may introduce informative presence bias as inputs to CDS algorithms. The observed differences may also exacerbate disparities for medically underserved groups. System-, clinician-, and patient-level efforts are needed to improve the collection of FHI.

BACKGROUND:The early COVID-19 literature suggested that people with cancer may be more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 or develop COVID-19 than people without cancer, due to increased health services contact and/or immunocompromise. While some studies were criticised due to small patient numbers and methodological limitations, they created or reinforced concerns of clinicians and people with cancer. These risks are also important in COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation decisions. We performed a systematic review to critically assess and summarise the early literature. METHODS AND FINDINGS/RESULTS:We conducted a systematic search of Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases including peer-reviewed journal articles, letters/commentaries, and non-peer-reviewed pre-print articles for 1 January-1 July 2020. The primary endpoints were diagnosis of COVID-19 and positive SARS-CoV-2 test. We assessed risk of bias using a tool adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Twelve studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. All four studies of COVID-19 incidence (including 24,181,727 individuals, 125,649 with pre-existing cancer) reported that people with cancer had higher COVID-19 incidence rates. Eight studies reported SARS-CoV-2 test positivity for > 472,000 individuals, 48,370 with pre-existing cancer. Seven of these studies comparing people with any and without cancer, were pooled using random effects [pooled odds ratio 0.91, 95 %CI: 0.57-1.47; unadjusted for age, sex, or comorbidities]. Two studies suggested people with active or haematological cancer had lower risk of a positive test. All 12 studies had high risk of bias; none included universal or random COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 testing. CONCLUSIONS:The early literature on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer is characterised by pervasive biases and limited data. To provide high-quality evidence to inform decision-making, studies of risk of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer should control for other potential modifiers of infection risk, including age, sex, comorbidities, exposure to the virus, protective measures taken, and vaccination, in addition to stratifying analyses by cancer type, stage at diagnosis, and treatment received.