Inclusion and Reporting of Transgender and Nonbinary Persons in Clinical Trials and Tumor Registries-The Time Is Now

The Impact of a Breast Cancer Risk Assessment on the Decision for Gender-Affirming Chest Masculinization Surgery in Transgender and Gender-Diverse Individuals: A Pilot Single-Arm Educational Intervention Trial

BACKGROUND

Persons assigned female or intersex at birth and identify as transgender and/or gender-diverse (TGD) may undergo gender-affirming chest masculinization surgery (GACMS); however, GACMS is not considered equivalent to risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM). This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of elevated breast cancer (BC) risk in TGD persons, compare self-perceived versus calculated risk, and determine how risk impacts the decision for GACMS versus RRM.

METHODS

A prospective single-arm pilot educational intervention trial was conducted in individuals assigned female or intersex at birth, age ≥ 18 years, considering GACMS, without a BC history or a known pathogenic variant. BC risk was calculated using the Tyrer-Cuzik (all) and Gail models (age ≥ 35 years). Elevated risk was defined as ≥ 17%.

RESULTS

Twenty-five (N = 25) participants were enrolled with a median age of 24.0 years (interquartile range, IQR 20.0-30.0 years). All were assigned female sex at birth, most (84%) were Non-Hispanic (NH)-White, 48% identified as transgender and 40% as nonbinary, and 52% had a first- and/or second-degree family member with BC. Thirteen (52%) had elevated risk (prevalence 95% confidence interval (CI) 31.3-72.2%). Median self-perceived risk was 12% versus 17.5% calculated risk (p = 0.60). Of the 13 with elevated risk, 5 (38.5%) underwent/are scheduled to undergo GACMS, 3 (23%) of whom underwent/are undergoing RRM.

CONCLUSIONS

Over half of the cohort had elevated risk, and most of those who moved forward with surgery chose to undergo RRM. A BC risk assessment should be performed for TGD persons considering GACMS. Future work is needed to examine BC incidence and collect patient-reported outcomes. Trial Registration Number ClinicalTrials.gov (No. NCT06239766).

Tumors, Treatments, and Trust: Cancer Characteristics, Outcomes, and Screening Uptake in Transgender and Gender-Diverse Patients

BACKGROUND

More than 2.5 million adults in the United States identify as transgender or gender-diverse (TGD), but little data exist on cancer screening and care for this population. We examined cancer characteristics, screening adherence, genetic testing, and provider inclusive language for TGD patients with cancer.

METHODS

This single institution retrospective cohort study identified TGD patients with cancer between 2000 and 2022. Demographic, clinicopathological, treatment, and screening data were collected, as well as data on gender-affirming care (GAC) and use of patients' personal pronouns in medical records. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were used to report outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty unique patients with 69 cancer diagnoses were included: 63.3% were transgender women, 21.7% transgender men, 6.7% nonbinary, and 8.3% were genderqueer. Sixty-five percent had a family history of cancer. Only 46.2% of those who met genetic testing criteria were referred. On review of recommended cancer screening, colorectal screening had the greatest uptake (62%), followed by breast (48.3%), lung (35.7%), cervical (33.3%), and prostate (32%); 8.5% of cancers were diagnosed on screening. Individuals with Medicare had reduced odds of screening uptake (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.58) versus private insurance. With respect to GAC, 73.3% used gender-affirming hormone therapy and 41% had gender-affirming surgery. After initiating GAC and asserting personal pronouns, 75% were referred to by incorrect name/pronouns in provider documentation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our TGD cancer patient cohort had low rates of disease-specific cancer screening and inadequate genetic referrals. Many providers did not use appropriate patient names/pronouns. Provider and patient interventions are needed to ensure inclusive preventative and oncologic care for this marginalized population.

Cancer in people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or gender-nonconforming

BACKGROUND

Individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or gender-nonconforming (LGBTQ+) experience discrimination and minority stress that may lead to elevated cancer risk.

METHODS

In the absence of population-based cancer occurrence information for this population, this article comprehensively examines contemporary, age-adjusted cancer risk factor and screening prevalence using data from the National Health Interview Survey, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and National Youth Tobacco Survey, and provides a literature review of cancer incidence and barriers to care.

RESULTS

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults are more likely to smoke cigarettes than heterosexual adults (16% compared to 12% in 2021-2022), with the largest disparity among bisexual women. For example, 34% of bisexual women aged 40-49 years and 24% of those 50 and older smoke compared to 12% and 11%, respectively, of heterosexual women. Smoking is also elevated among youth who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (4%) or transgender (5%) compared to heterosexual or cisgender (1%). Excess body weight is elevated among lesbian and bisexual women (68% vs. 61% among heterosexual women), largely due to higher obesity prevalence among bisexual women (43% vs. 38% among lesbian women and 33% among heterosexual women). Bisexual women also have a higher prevalence of no leisure-time physical activity (35% vs. 28% among heterosexual women), as do transgender individuals (30%-31% vs. 21%-25% among cisgender individuals). Heavier alcohol intake among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals is confined to bisexual women, with 14% consuming more than 7 drinks/week versus 6% of heterosexual women. In contrast, prevalence of cancer screening and risk reducing vaccinations in LGBTQ+ individuals is similar to or higher than their heterosexual/cisgender counterparts except for lower cervical and colorectal cancer screening among transgender men.

CONCLUSIONS

People within the LGBTQ+ population have a higher prevalence of smoking, obesity, and alcohol consumption compared to heterosexual and cisgender people, suggesting a higher cancer burden. Health systems have an opportunity to help inform these disparities through the routine collection of information on sexual orientation and gender identity to facilitate cancer surveillance and to mitigate them through education to increase awareness of LGBTQ+ health needs.

Systematic Review on Gender-Affirming Testosterone Therapy and the Risk of Breast Cancer: A Challenge for Physicians Treating Patients from Transgender and Gender-Diverse Populations

Conflicting evidence exists about the risk of breast cancer in transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) patients treated with testosterone. This review aimed to summarize current knowledge regarding the risk of breast cancer associated with gender-affirming testosterone treatment (GATT). A systematic literature search using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis checklist was conducted in January 2023 through Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. English-language, peer-reviewed articles evaluating breast cancer in TGD patients after GATT that met the inclusion criteria were included. This review included 22 articles, with 14 case reports, 4 case series, and 4 retrospective cohort studies. The review identified 26 TGD patients who developed breast cancer post-GATT therapy, with inconclusive evidence on the relationship between testosterone and the risk of breast cancer in TGD patients. This uncertainty in part arises from the mechanisms governing testosterone's effects within breast tissue, with contrasting theories proposing both proliferative and antiproliferative impacts. Considering this ambiguity, it is imperative for healthcare providers to engage in informed discussions with patients prior to initiating hormone therapy to discuss potential adverse effects, including the possibility of breast cancer development in TGD individuals. Patient education and shared decision-making are essential components of responsible care in this context.

Position paper of the Italian association of medical oncology on health disparities among transgender and gender-diverse people: the Assisi recommendations

Transgender and gender-diverse individuals experience substantial health disparities across the cancer care continuum. Despite well recognized unique healthcare needs, there are barriers in accessing cancer prevention and treatment services, influenced by disadvantages in key social-economic determinants of health which result in worse clinical outcomes, as compared to the general population. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) acknowledges the critical relevance of this issue. The "Assisi Recommendations" here summarize the outcomes of the "AIOM Oncology Ethics Day" dedicated to gender differences in oncology and cancer care of transgender and gender-diverse people. The recommendations generated during a 2-day multidisciplinary discussion address the various aspects of cancer care experience of transgender and gender-diverse people. The promotion of research in this field, through the generation of new evidence and the collection of prospective data, has been identified as a priority action to mitigate these disparities. By acknowledging the challenges of cancer care in transgender and gender-diverse people and recognizing the need for dedicated policy and clinical recommendations, AIOM demonstrates its commitment to improving the health and well-being of all patients with cancer, regardless of their gender identity or any other personal or social circumstances, as part of health-for-all societal vision.

Improving access for and experience of transgender and non-binary patients in clinical research: Insights from a transgender patient focus group and targeted literature reviews

INTRODUCTION

The transgender and non-binary communities make up a significant, growing proportion of the population, but, to date, few clinical trials report including transgender and non-binary individuals.

METHODS

As part of a mixed-method approach, multiple literature searches for articles published from January 2018 to July 2022 and a Patient Advisory Council (a semi-structured patient focus group) meeting were conducted to identify challenges faced by the transgender and non-binary communities when accessing healthcare and participating in clinical research. A set of guidelines to promote inclusivity in clinical research was developed using these findings.

RESULTS

During this time period, only 107 (0.08%) of 141,661 published articles of clinical trials reported participation of transgender or non-binary patients. A targeted search identified only 48 articles reporting specific barriers to inclusion in clinical research, while an expanded search identified 290 articles reporting barriers to healthcare access for transgender and non-binary patients. Several key considerations to promote study inclusivity emerged from the literature searches and Patient Advisory Council: adjust clinical protocols, informed consent documents, and data collection forms to distinguish sex assigned at birth from gender identity; involve members of the transgender and non-binary communities in research whenever possible; provide communication training to personnel involved in clinical research; and maximize accessibility for potential participants.

CONCLUSION

Future research on investigational drug dosing and drug interactions in transgender and non-binary patients, along with regulatory guidance, are recommended to ensure clinical trials' processes, designs, systems, and technologies are transgender and non-binary patient-friendly, inclusive, and welcoming.

Perceptions of Transgender and Nonbinary Persons Toward Breast and Cervical Cancer Development, Screening, and Potential Impact on Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy

PURPOSE

Approximately 1.6% of adult Americans identify as transgender (TG) or nonbinary (NB) and many take gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT). Little data exist to inform breast and cervical cancer risks, gender-specific screening guidelines, and inclusive cancer treatment algorithms that consider GAHT. We aimed to assess TGNB persons' perceptions on breast and cervical cancer development, screening knowledge and practices, and attitude toward GAHT in the setting of a hormone receptor-positive breast cancer diagnosis.

METHODS

This single-institution survey study was conducted through an LGBTQ+ focused clinic from 2021 to 2022. Noncisgender patients age ≥ 18 years who were English speaking were eligible to participate. A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess concern of developing breast (all participants) and cervical cancer (those assigned female sex at birth). Demographic and quantitative variables were examined in comparison with responses via chi-squared tests.

RESULTS

Eighty-six participants completed the survey: 43% TG men, 24% TG women, and 20% NB persons. Most (84.9%) were age < 40 years, and 86% were non-Hispanic White. The majority were unaware of breast (77%) or cervical (60%) cancer screening recommendations for their sex assigned at birth or their gender. Approximately 35% reported concern regarding breast cancer development and of those age > 40 years; only 50% had undergone screening mammography. Of those assigned female sex at birth with an intact cervix, 47% were concerned about cervical cancer development and 46.6% had a Papanicolaou smear within the past 5 years. Nearly all (87.2%) were on GAHT, and 35.1% reported they would not consider stopping GAHT if diagnosed with a hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.

CONCLUSION

The findings support the need for patient and provider education on screening options and large prospective cohort data to elucidate optimal gender-specific screening guidelines and treatment algorithms.

Risk and incidence of breast cancer in transgender individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The risk of developing breast cancer in transgender individuals [male-to-female (MtF) or female-to-male (FtM)] is still inadequately quantified. We aimed to evaluate the impact of breast cancer in this population.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search and review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines through the PUBMED and SCOPUS databases. We identified six cohort studies (for both populations) plus 35 case reports. Incidence and breast cancer risk quantification were the main outcomes considered.

RESULTS

FtM individuals had a higher risk of developing breast cancer in comparison to cisgender men [standardized incidence ratio (SIR) = 63.4; 95% confidence interval (CI), 32.2-124.9] but a lower risk than cisgender women (SIR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.07-2.41). Similarly, MtF individuals were at higher risk of developing breast cancer in comparison to cisgender men (SIR = 22.5; 95% CI, 5.54-91.8) and at lower risk than cisgender women (SIR = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.22-0.42).

CONCLUSION

In this systematic study and meta-analysis, we identified that FtM and MtF individuals are at substantially higher risk of developing breast cancer in comparison to cisgender men, though at lower risk than cisgender women. These individuals, in the absence of defined guidelines for breast cancer prevention, should periodically undergo breast or chest examinations.

Exposomics as a tool to investigate differences in health and disease by sex and gender

The health and disease of an individual is mediated by their genetics, a lifetime of environmental exposures, and interactions between the two. Genetic or biological sex, including chromosome composition and hormone expression, may influence both the types and frequency of environmental exposures an individual experiences, as well as the biological responses an individual has to those exposures. Gender identity, which can be associated with social behaviors such as expressions of self, may also mediate the types and frequency of exposures an individual experiences. Recent advances in exposome-level analysis have progressed our understanding of how environmental factors affect health outcomes; however, the relationship between environmental exposures and sex- and gender-specific health remains underexplored. The comprehensive, non-targeted, and unbiased nature of exposomic research provides a unique opportunity to systematically evaluate how environmental exposures interact with biological sex and gender identity to influence health. In this forward-looking narrative review, we provide examples of how biological sex and gender identity influence environmental exposures, discuss how environmental factors may interact with biological processes, and highlight how an intersectional approach to exposomics can provide critical insights for sex- and gender-specific health sciences.

Flausino L, Iyer G, Balkrishnan R. Effectiveness of immunological agents in non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) continues to claim millions of lives worldwide. Although its poor prognosis is largely attributed to the lack of adequate and precise detection technologies, cancer cells' suppression of the immune system adds on to the difficulty of identifying abnormal NSCLC tumors in their early stages. Therefore, cancer immunotherapy, which activates the immune system and helps it fight tumors, has recently become the most sought-after technique, especially in the advanced stages of NSCLC, where surgery or chemotherapy may or may not bring about the desired survival benefits in patients.

METHODS

This review focuses on the various immunotherapeutic interventions and their efficacy in advanced NSCLC clinical trials. Monoclonal antibodies like anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents and anti-CTLA-4 antibodies, cancer vaccines, oncolytic viruses and adoptive T cell therapy have been discussed in brief. Furthermore, the effects of gender, age, and race on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors and suggest plausible future approaches in the realm of immuno-oncology.

RESULTS

Immunotherapy is used alone or in combination either with other immunological agents or with chemotherapy. However, the efficacy of these strategies depends extensively on various demographic variables, as some patients respond perfectly well to immunotherapy, while others do not benefit at all or experience disease progression. By targeting a "hallmark" of cancer (immune evasion), immunotherapy has transformed NSCLC management, though several barriers prevent its complete effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

All these immunological strategies should be interpreted in the current setting of synergistic treatment, in which these agents can be combined with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and, or surgery following patient and tumor characteristics to proportionate the best-individualized treatment and achieve superior results. To better pursue this goal, further investigations on cost-effectiveness and sex-gender, race, and age differences in immunotherapy are needed.