Inclusion of transgender and gender diverse health data in cancer biorepositories

Words matter: The language of difference in human genetics

Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in academia are leading publishers and journals to re-examine their use of terminology for commonly used scientific variables. This reassessment of language is particularly important for human genetics, which is focused on identifying and explaining differences between individuals and populations. Recent guidance on the use of terms and symbols in clinical practice, research, and publications is beginning to acknowledge the ways that language and concepts of difference can be not only inaccurate but also harmful. To stop perpetuating historical wrongs, those of us who conduct and publish genetic research and provide genetic health care must understand the context of the terms we use and why some usages should be discontinued. In this article, we summarize critiques of terminology describing disability, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and ancestry in research publications, laboratory reports, diagnostic codes, and pedigrees. We also highlight recommendations for alternative language that aims to make genetics more inclusive, rigorous, and ethically sound. Even though norms of acceptable language use are ever changing, it is the responsibility of genetics professionals to uncover biases ingrained in professional practice and training and to continually reassess the words we use to describe human difference because they cause harm to patients.

Demographic recruitment bias of adults in United States randomized clinical trials by disease categories between 2008 to 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To promote health equity within the United States (US), randomized clinical trials should strive for unbiased representation. Thus, there is impetus to identify demographic disparities overall and by disease category in US clinical trial recruitment, by trial phase, level of masking, and multi-center status, relative to national demographics. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov, between 01/01/2008 to 12/30/2019. Clinical trials (N = 5,388) were identified based on the following inclusion criteria: study type, location, phase, and participant age. Each clinical trial was independently screened by two researchers. Data was pooled using a random-effects model. Median proportions for gender, race, and ethnicity of each trial were compared to the 2010 US Census proportions, matched by age. A second analysis was performed comparing gender, race, and ethnicity proportions by trial phase, multi-institutional status, quality, masking, and study start year. 2977 trials met inclusion criteria (participants, n = 607,181) for data extraction. 36% of trials reported ethnicity and 53% reported race. Three trials (0.10%) included transgender participants (n = 5). Compared with 2010 US Census data, females (48.3%, 95% CI 47.2-49.3, p < 0.0001), Hispanics (11.6%, 95% CI 10.8-12.4, p < 0.0001), American Indians and Alaskan Natives (AIAN, 0.19%, 95% CI 0.15-0.23, p < 0.0001), Asians (1.27%, 95% CI 1.13-1.42, p < 0.0001), Whites (77.6%, 95% CI 76.4-78.8, p < 0.0001), and multiracial participants (0.25%, 95% CI 0.21-0.31, p < 0.0001) were under-represented, while Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders (0.76%, 95% CI 0.71-0.82, p < 0.0001) and Blacks (17.0%, 95% CI 15.9-18.1, p < 0.0001) were over-represented. Inequitable representation was mirrored in analysis by phase, institutional status, quality assessment, and level of masking. Between 2008 to 2019 representation improved for only females and Hispanics. Analysis stratified by 44 disease categories (i.e., psychiatric, obstetric, neurological, etc.) exhibited significant yet varied disparities, with Asians, AIAN, and multiracial individuals the most under-represented. These results demonstrate disparities in US randomized clinical trial recruitment between 2008 to 2019, with the reporting of demographic data and representation of most minorities not having improved over time.

Understanding the role of sex hormones in cancer for the transgender community

Sex hormones are crucial for the body's development and function. Therefore, many transgender people seek hormone therapy as part of their transition. However, sex hormones modulate cancer risk. Studying sex hormones in cisgender and transgender populations will improve our knowledge of their biological role in cancer and reduce health disparities.

Patient-centered practices for engaging transgender and gender diverse patients in clinical research studies

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this formative study was to assess barriers and facilitators to participation of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients in clinical research to solicit specific feedback on perceived acceptability and feasibility of research methods to inform creation of a multisite longitudinal cohort of primary care patients engaged in care at two community health centers.

METHOD

Between September-November 2018, four focus groups (FGs) were convened at two community health centers in Boston, MA and New York, NY (N = 28 participants across all 4 groups; 11 in Boston and 17 in New York). FG guides asked about patient outreach, acceptability of study methods and measures, and ideas for study retention. FGs were facilitated by TGD study staff, lasted approximately 90 min in duration, were audio recorded, and then transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. Thematic analyses were conducted by two independent analysts applying a constant comparison method. Consistency and consensus were achieved across code creation and application aided by Dedoose software.

RESULTS

Participants were a mean age of 33.9 years (SD 12.3; Range 18-66). Participants varied in gender identity with 4 (14.3%) men, 3 (10.7%) women, 8 (28.6%) transgender men, 10 (35.7%) transgender women, and 3 (10.7%) nonbinary. Eight (26.6%) were Latinx, 5 (17.9%) Black, 3 (10.7%) Asian, 3 (10.7%) another race, and 5 (17.9%) multiracial. Motivators and facilitators to participation were: research creating community, research led by TGD staff, compensation, research integrated into healthcare, research applicable to TGD and non-TGD people, and research helping TGD communities. Barriers were: being research/healthcare averse, not identifying as TGD, overlooking questioning individuals, research coming from a 'cisgender lens", distrust of how the research will be used, research not being accessible to TGD people, and research being exploitative.

CONCLUSION

Though similarities emerged between the perspectives of TGD people and research citing perspectives of other underserved populations, there are barriers and facilitators to research which are unique to TGD populations. It is important for TGD people to be involved as collaborators in all aspects of research that concerns them.

Creating Affirmative and Inclusive Practices When Providing Genetic and Genomic Diagnostic and Research Services to Gender-Expansive and Transgender Patients

BACKGROUND

Gender expansive and transgender (GET) healthcare extends beyond gender-affirming therapies, reaching every medical specialty and subspecialty. As the number of GET patients seeking health services has increased, so has the need for standards of care regarding GET-affirmative practices throughout the healthcare system. As such, the number of publications surrounding GET-affirmative practices has steadily risen. However, even as such research has gained ground in other areas, one realm in which there has been a relative lag is genetics and genomics (GG).

CONTENT

In this article, we track the GET patient and their laboratory sample from the clinic to the GG laboratory and back. Throughout the preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical phases, we identify publications, recommendations, and guidelines relevant to the care of the GET community. We also identity knowledge gaps in each area and provide recommendations for affirmative and inclusive processes for addressing those gaps.

SUMMARY

We have identified the practices involved in GG services that would benefit from GET-affirmative process improvement, reviewing relevant affirmative guidelines. Where guidelines could not be found, we identified those knowledge gaps and suggested potential solutions and future directions for implementing GET-affirmative practices.