Radiology's Engagement with Transgender Breast Imaging: Review of Radiology Practice Websites and Publications

Assessing sex and gender equity in submission guidelines of radiology journals: A cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

Our study aimed to determine the current percentage of gender and sex equity promoting (GSEP) radiology journals, defined as satisfying at least one criterion of the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) checklist, published by the European Association of Science Editors (EASE). A secondary objective was to compare characteristics of GSEP and non-GSEP journals.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis between June 24 and July 3, 2023, was conducted. The author submission guidelines of radiology journals with a 2021 Journal Impact Factor (JIF) were assessed according to the SAGER checklist. GSEP journals were defined as satisfying one or more SAGER checklist criteria in their research instructions. Bibliometric data and journal information were collected from the Journal Citation Reports and National Library of Medicine catalogue.

RESULTS

Only 39.7 % (52) of 132 journals satisfied at least one SAGER checklist criterion. Median 2021 JIFs were higher in GSEP journals (4.62, IQR: 3.73 - 5.21) than non-GSEP journals (2.70, IQR: 2.32) (p = 0.00). Median 2021 Journal Citation Index (JCI) scores were higher in GSEP (0.64, 0.56 - 0.73) than non-GSEP journals (0.97, 0.83 - 1.10) (p = 0.00). Cited half-life was shorter for GSEP (5.40, 4.80 - 6.50) than non-GSEP journals (6.70, 5.70 - 7.40) (p = 0.05). Elsevier published 33 of 52 of GSEP journals.

CONCLUSION

60.3% of radiology journals with a 2021 JIF do not meet a single SAGER checklist criterion in their author submission guidelines. GSEP journals had higher impact and source metrics and a shorter cited half-life. Publishers may play a significant role in promoting endorsement of the SAGER checklist in the author submission guidelines of radiology journals.

Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations for Transgender Patients: A Review

Shifting societal attitudes trending toward increased acceptance of transgender people has contributed to a growth in the population of individuals who openly identify as transgender as well as an increase in utilization of gender-affirming surgeries. Therefore, health care providers should work toward increasing their knowledge with respect to the health care needs of the transgender population, particularly given that these individuals often face discrimination in the health care system. Moreover, transgender breast cancer screening rates lag behind breast cancer screening rates for cisgender individuals. We attempt to clarify important terminology about the transgender population and introduce the concept of equity-centered language. We review current transgender breast cancer screening guidelines by using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Google with search terms that included transgender breast cancer guidelines, transgender breast cancer screening guidelines, and transgender cancer screening guidelines. Searches were not filtered based on year of publication, language of publication, or geographic location. We compare the various guidelines as they pertain to both transgender men and transgender women and offer special considerations for upholding inclusivity in the health care field. An easy-to-reference summary of the current transgender breast cancer screening guidelines and the major points of this article were compiled into an original infographic that health care providers can reference to ensure that appropriate care is being offered.

Breast care considerations for transgender and gender-diverse patients

Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) persons represent a small but growing population in the United States. Accessing inclusive, equitable, and evidence-based healthcare remains a challenge for this patient population. Many TGD persons seek gender-affirming care, including gender-affirming hormonal therapy (GAHT) and gender-affirming surgery (GAS), to help ameliorate the physical and mental aspects of their gender incongruence. Both GAHT and GAS induce clinically important histopathologic and anatomic changes in breast tissue. Consequently, breast care in TGD persons has become an increasingly recognized topic of importance in gender-affirming care. However, there remains a scarce but growing base of literature specifically addressing the unique healthcare needs of breast care in TGD patients. This article will review how to establish trusting patient-provider relationships for TGD patients, gender inclusivity in breast clinics and imaging centers, the influence of GAHT and GAS on breast tissue, breast cancer screening recommendations and barriers, and breast cancer risk and treatment considerations in TGD persons.

Cultural Competence in the Care of LGBTQ+ Patients: A Primer for Breast/Chest Centers

The number of individuals identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) has doubled over the past 10 years, and this figure continues to rise. The LGBTQ+ community is diverse, encompassing a vast array of differences in gender identity and sexual orientation. Additionally, it is inclusive of people from all races, ethnicities, religions, and socioeconomic backgrounds. This intersectionality of identities and experiences impacts both access to health care and its delivery. Barriers to care for this population are multifactorial and include stigma, discrimination, bias, limited role models, issues with insurance coverage, lack of education and training for health care providers, and lack of research on LGBTQ+ health-related issues. Specific to breast cancer, the screening recommendations for this group are influenced not only by risk but also by gender-affirming hormonal and surgical therapies. This article will provide an overview of the LGBTQ+ population, review breast cancer screening compliance and recommendations, summarize the multitude of health disparities, and offer potential interventions to improve care delivery at the individual, facility, organizational, and health policy levels.

Identifying and Reducing Barriers to Breast Imaging

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to discuss disparities in breast health care access and outcomes related to race, gender, cultural diversity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and disability. The authors recognize the complexity of eliminating inequalities in health care but are optimistic that all patients will one day have equal access to care through dialogue, acknowledgment, recognition, and action.

Recent Findings

After lung cancer, breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among American women. Mammography as a preventative screening tool has resulted in significant reductions in breast cancer mortality. Despite existing breast cancer recommendations, it has been projected that 43,250 women will die from breast cancer in 2022.

Summary

Disparities in healthcare outcomes exist for many reasons including inequalities based on race, gender, cultural diversity, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Disparities, no matter how large or complex, are not insurmountable.

Culturally safe, appropriate, and high-quality breast cancer screening for transgender people: A scoping review

Background

There is a recognized need for evidence to inform breast cancer screening guidelines and services for transgender people, who face barriers to accessing appropriate and inclusive health care.

Aims

This review summarized evidence for breast cancer risk and screening guidelines in transgender individuals, including the potential impact of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT); factors that may influence screening decision-making and behaviors; and considerations for providing culturally safe, high-quality screening services.

Methods

A protocol was developed based on the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Searches were performed in Medline, Emcare, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for articles reporting information on the provision of culturally safe, high-quality breast cancer screening services for transgender people.

Results

We identified 57 sources for inclusion: 13 cross-sectional studies, 6 case reports, 2 case series, 28 review or opinion articles, 6 systematic reviews, 1 qualitative study, and 1 book chapter. Evidence on rates of breast cancer screening among transgender people and the association between GAHT and breast cancer risk was inconclusive. Factors negatively associated with cancer screening behaviors included socioeconomic barriers, stigma, and lack of health provider awareness of transgender health issues. Breast cancer screening recommendations varied and were generally based on expert opinion due to the lack of clear evidence. Considerations for providing culturally safe care to transgender people were identified and mapped to the areas of workplace policies and procedures, patient information, clinic environment, professional conduct, communication, and knowledge and competency.

Discussion

Screening recommendations for transgender individuals are complicated by the lack of robust epidemiological data and clear understanding of the role GAHT may play in breast cancer pathogenesis. Guidelines have been developed based on expert opinion and are subsequently not uniform or evidence based. Further work is required to clarify and consolidate recommendations.

Gender-Inclusive Fellowship Naming and Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Radiology: An Analysis of Radiology Department Websites in Canada and the United States

Purpose: Transgender and gender non-binary (TGNB) individuals face numerous inequalities in healthcare and there is substantial work to be done in fostering TGNB culturally competent care in radiology. A radiology department's online presence and use of gender-inclusive language are essential in promoting an environment of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). The naming of radiology fellowships and continuing medical education (CME) courses with terminology such as "Women's Imaging" indicates a lack of inclusivity to TGNB patients and providers, which could result in suboptimal patient care. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of all institutions in Canada and the United States (US) offering training in Breast Imaging, Women's Imaging, or Breast and Body Imaging. Data was collected from each institution's radiology department website pertaining to fellowship names, EDI involvement, and CME courses. Results: 8 Canadian and 71 US radiology fellowships were identified. 75% of Canadian and 90% of US fellowships had gender-inclusive names. One (12.5%) Canadian and 29 (41%) US institutions had EDI Committees mentioned on their websites. Among institutions publicly displaying CME courses about breast/body or women's imaging, gender-inclusive names were used in only 1 (25%) of the Canadian CME courses, compared to 81% of the US institutions. Conclusions: Most institutions in Canada and the US have gender-inclusive names for their radiology fellowships pertaining to breast and body imaging. However, there is much opportunity to and arguably the responsibility for institutions in both countries to increase the impact and visibility of their EDI efforts through creation of department-specific committees and CME courses.

Breast Imaging for Transgender Individuals: Assessment of Current Practice and Needs

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate breast radiologists' practices related to recording sex and gender in the electronic medical record, knowledge and attitudes about breast cancer screening recommendations for transgender individuals, and experience and willingness to enter screening mammography data from transgender patients into databases that document service provision and outcomes of cancer detection protocols.

METHODS

A 19-question anonymous survey was distributed by e-mail to all active physician members of the Society of Breast Imaging. Response characteristics were assessed as frequencies and percentages and compared between groups using the Fisher exact test or χ² test. The degree of agreement between questions was assessed using the McNemar test.

RESULTS

Four hundred one radiologists across the United States and Canada responded (response rate 18%). Recording birth-assigned sex distinct from gender identity was reported by 44 of 352 respondents (13%). Depending on geographic region, 38% to 62% of breast radiologists followed screening guidelines for transgender women, and 226 of 349 (65%) did not provide screening recommendations for transgender men. Of 400, 324 (81%) believed that the evidence base for screening transgender individuals is incomplete, and 247 of 352 (70%) were either unsure of or had no LGBTQ competency training. A majority (247 of 401 [62%]) of respondents reported that they would enroll transgender patients in existing or novel national databases.

CONCLUSIONS

In the practice of breast imaging, there is a substantial need to record nonbinary gender information. Breast radiologists differ in their practice and knowledge regarding screening of transgender women and men but expressed interest in contributing data to facilitate longitudinal databases needed to inform cancer screening guidelines.

Culturally safe, high-quality breast cancer screening for transgender people: A scoping review protocol

AIM

To develop evidence-based recommendations for provision of culturally safe, high-quality services for breast cancer screening for transgender people.

DESIGN

The scoping review will follow the JBI methodological guidance for scoping reviews.

METHODS

A search using MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, the Cochrane Library, including the Cochrane Methodology Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the World Health Organization, Australia Government Department of Health and Google Scholar will be undertaken. The review will include people of any age and ethnicity defined in the source of evidence as transgender. The review will include individuals who have used gender-affirming interventions or not and sources of evidence that report information relevant to the provision of culturally safe, high-quality breast cancer screening services for transgender people. English language sources of evidence published from database inception with information from any country will be eligible for inclusion. Sources will be screened for inclusion by three independent reviewers. Results will be extracted using a purpose-built tool and presented in relation to the review questions and objective in the final report using tables, figures and corresponding narrative. Project funding was approved by the Australian Government Department of Health in June 2020.

DISCUSSION

There are a range of factors that impact on the equity of health access and outcomes for people who are not cisgender. Transgender people are at risk of breast cancer but there is relatively little evidence about how their risks may or may not differ substantially from cis-gendered individuals and little guidance for health providers to ensure inclusive, culturally safe, high-quality breast cancer screening services for both transgender males, transgender females and gender diverse people who may not identify as male or as female.

IMPACT

It is important to provide culturally safe, high-quality services for breast cancer screening for transgender people.

A rare case of breast cancer in a transgender woman

We report a case of breast cancer in a transgender woman (assigned male sex at birth, gender identity female) of Ashkenazi Jewish descent with BRCA2 mutation who had been taking cross-sex hormone therapy for 2 years. In addition to demonstrating breast cancer imaging findings and risk factors, this case draws attention to the paucity of research and data regarding breast cancer in transgender women and exemplifies the need for evidence-based consensus breast cancer screening recommendations for transgender women.

Imaging Health and Radiology Care of Transgender Patients: A Call to Build Evidence-Based Best Practices

Transgender people have a gender identity that differs from their natal sex and experience many forms of discrimination, including within the health care field. Although transgender patients only comprise 0.6% of the adult US population, they frequently require imaging evaluation. Few published articles provide data-driven research on optimizing education of the radiology care team and delivery of inclusive and respectful imaging care to this vulnerable population; existing data suggest prior areas of success and prior areas of failure. Here, we offer specific recommendations on how radiology care team members can better serve transgender patients and begin generating much needed evidence-based best practices to improve their imaging health and care.

Patient Diversity in Breast Imaging: Barriers and Potential Solutions

Recent reports have highlighted disparities in breast cancer care related to patient diversity. Breast radiologists represent the face of breast imaging and are key players in advocating for patients to reduce these disparities. Diversity-related barriers for breast imaging patients, as they journey from screening to survivorship, include impediments to access and quality of care, gaps in communication, and lack of knowledge in both providers and patients. Potential strategies for overcoming these specific barriers include "culturally tailored" nurse navigators, mobile mammography, improved communication, patient and provider education, and breast radiologist involvement in advocacy efforts promoting diversity. As current trends in recommendations and guidelines for breast imaging include more numerous and advanced imaging modalities, it is important to acknowledge and address diversity-related disparities.