Cancer Stage, Treatment, and Survival Among Transgender Patients in the United States

"Just for pregnant women, not for you": a qualitative evaluation of the sexual and reproductive healthcare experiences of transgender and gender diverse cancer survivors

PURPOSE

To identify opportunities to improve sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care for transgender and gender diverse (TGD) cancer survivors by describing (1) challenges experienced when navigating SRH care and (2) strategies to help overcome these challenges.

METHODS

We enrolled a purposive sample of 17 adult TGD cancer survivors and 5 co-survivors. We aimed for a diverse sample across cancer experience, age, racial/ethnic background, sexual orientation, and gender identity. We conducted 90-min individual interviews via videoconference and used reflexive thematic analysis, guided by a focus on three social determinants of health.

RESULTS

Themes describing challenges were as follows: (1) Cancer treatment's impact on sexual health was insufficiently addressed by cancer care providers; (2) fertility-related information and conversations were complicated by gendered expectations and ultimately did not meet survivors' needs; (3) feeling excluded and uncared-for in healthcare settings due to gendered language and lack of supportive services that met their needs; and (4) TGD survivors commonly reported high financial burden, negatively impacting their access to care. Strategies to overcome these challenges were (1) a solid social support network that can be integrated into the care team to meet the unique SRH needs of TGD survivors and (2) gender-affirming healthcare providers and environments to address SRH care needs and concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

TGD survivors and co-survivors desire improved access to gender-affirming SRH care in cancer survivorship.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Key opportunities to improve gender-affirming SRH care in cancer survivorship include fostering and engaging TGD survivors' support networks and implementing system-level changes in cancer care settings.

AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2024: Achieving the Bold Vision of Health Equity

Advances in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatments have led to unprecedented progress against cancer. However, these advances have not benefited everyone equally. Because of a long history of structural inequities and systemic injustices in the United States, many segments of the US population continue to shoulder a disproportionate burden of cancer. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2024 (CancerDisparitiesProgressReport.org) outlines the recent progress against cancer disparities, the ongoing challenges faced by medically underserved populations, and emphasizes the vital need for further advances in cancer research and patient care to benefit all populations.

Urologic oncology considerations in transgender & gender diverse patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review delves into the pressing issue of urologic oncology considerations within the transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) community. With estimates suggesting that TGD individuals constitute 0.3 to 0.5% of adults worldwide, and this number steadily rising, our review examines the barriers that impede the delivery of excellent quality care, particularly in the context of cancer diagnosis and treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent findings highlight disparities in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment access for TGD individuals. These challenges are compounded by a dearth of research and the failure of healthcare systems to account for gender identity and its nuances in data collection. Main themes in the literature include the impact of gender-affirming hormone therapy and surgery on cancer risk, challenges in prostate cancer screening and management, and considerations pertinent to testicular and other urological cancers in TGD patients.

SUMMARY

The implications for clinical practice and research are profound and emphasize the need for multidisciplinary approaches that cater to the unique healthcare needs of TGD individuals. This includes comprehensive strategies for inclusive and accurate data collection, alongside the development of evidence-based guidelines for cancer screening and management tailored specifically to this population.

The implications of hormone treatment for cancer risk, screening and treatment in transgender individuals

There is evidence that gender-affirming hormone treatment (GAHT) for transgender individuals modulates their risk for specific malignancies including breast and prostate cancer, and meningiomas. However, there is insufficient data to make precise risk estimates accounting for age and inherited cancer risk. As such, screening recommendations remain broad. Even less evidence exists for best practice in the management of active or historical cancers in the transgender population. Guidance is therefore mainly extrapolated from cisgender populations but with considerations of the significant benefits of GAHT in the face of any hormonal risk. Clinical experience, the multidisciplinary team and shared decision making with the patient are vital in providing person-centred care, while further research is acquired.

Educational Initiatives to Improve the Cancer-Related Disparities Facing Transgender and Gender Diverse (TGD) Individuals

Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals face discrimination and experience disparate healthcare, and cancer care, in particular. Our team has developed four initiatives to start to mitigate the disparities facing TGD individuals, including (1) improving identification of TGD individuals with cancer in oncology clinics, (2) identifying rates and predictors of cancer screening among TGD individuals, (3) building a TGD patient-centric oncology clinic, and (4) developing prospective research that is dedicated to addressing the needs of TGD Individuals with cancer. Clinician-focused educational initiatives are integral aspects of this work to improve cancer care for TGD individuals.

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.

Caring for sexual and gender minority patients with genitourinary cancer: A primer for inclusive practices

Recognizing sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) is paramount in the management of genitourinary cancers, as sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals encounter unique healthcare challenges leading to disparities. SGM patients often confront systemic barriers, provider biases, and scarcity of tailored resources, resulting in diminished satisfaction and adverse health outcomes. The evaluation and treatment of genitourinary cancers in SGM patients demand a nuanced, multidisciplinary approach that focuses on the unique health determinants often overlooked by the healthcare system. This review highlights recommendations for the inclusivity of SGM patients within the clinic, from inclusive signage to gender inclusive language. For the evaluation and treatment of SGM patients with genitourinary cancers, it is recommended to employ organ-based language, to utilize validated questionnaires encompassing mental health, sexual behavior, and patient-reported outcomes, and to provide timely referrals to social work and onco-fertility when appropriate. Ultimately, approaching inclusivity through education targeted at both SGM patients and healthcare providers is pivotal for centering care around the patient, improving the quality of life and outcomes for SGM patients facing genitourinary cancers.

Cancer Screening and Prevention in the Transgender and Gender Diverse Population: Considerations and Strategies for Advanced Practice Nurses

OBJECTIVES

This discussion paper presents recent evidence regarding cancer screening and prevention among the transgender and gender diverse (TGD) community and highlights where and how advanced practice nurses (APNs), particularly those in primary care, can better contribute to closing the gap between healthcare disparities between TGD and cisgendered populations.

METHODS

Relevant publications on the topic and professional guidelines and evidence have formed the basis for this discussion paper.

RESULTS

TGD individuals are a vulnerable population with unique needs. They remain at risk of cancer and might be at greater risk of developing some cancers compared to cisgendered people but are underscreened. Barriers to gender-affirming care need to be addressed to improve access to prevention and screening services and improve the cancer care experiences and outcomes of TGD people.

CONCLUSION

APNs can work in collaboration with TGD individuals and the healthcare system to improve access to culturally safe cancer screening and more effective prevention of cancer and poor cancer outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

APNs have the potential to improve access to cancer screening for TGD people by increasing their understanding of the needs of the population, providing culturally safe care, and advocating for more preventative care and cancer screening. With greater knowledge and understanding of the needs and preferences of TGD people both broadly and in relation to cancer screening and prevention, targeted interventions and care approaches can be implemented. APNs should also aim to conduct evaluations and research into cancer prevention and screening to build the currently limited evidence base and nursing knowledge in this important field.

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.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data Collection in Cancer Care: A Nationwide Landscape Assessment Update

PURPOSE

Routine collection of sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI; collectively SOGI) in cancer clinics advances cancer care equity.

METHODS

In 2022, NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practice groups were asked about routine collection of SOGI data in the electronic health record. The proportions of practice groups reporting collection of SO and/or GI data were calculated, and practice group characteristics were assessed for associations.

RESULTS

Of 271 practice groups nationwide, 42% (n = 112) collect SO data, 58% (n = 157) collect GI data, and 35% (n = 96) collect both. In multivariate analyses, SO data collection was associated with practice groups having minority outreach staff (odds ratio [OR], 2.07 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.81]; P = .02); GI data collection was associated with practice groups located in the Northeastern United States (OR, 2.08 [95% CI, 0.73 to 5.91]; P = .045), and those with a higher proportion of new patients who were White (OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.04]; P < .001). Practice groups in the South were least likely to collect SOGI data (OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.94]; P = .004). There were no statistically significant differences in SO and/or GI collection on the basis of the practice group's proportion of Medicaid/Medicare patients, number of new patients with cancer per year, or practice ownership.

CONCLUSION

Slightly over one third of NCORP practice groups report routinely collecting SOGI data. There are regional differences in data collection, underscoring the need to craft targeted, region-specific interventions focused on boosting the capture and recording of SOGI data in an affirming manner.

Contraception Requirements in Clinical Research Consent Forms: Assessing and Supporting Gender Inclusive Practices

Gender-diverse individuals are underserved in clinical research settings. Reliance on gendered language throughout the consent process for clinical research contributes to the marginalization of these populations. The research objective was to assess use of gender-inclusive language used to describe the contraception requirement in consent forms. We categorized and analyzed contraception language in 289 clinical trial consent forms using a deductive and summative content analysis approach. We found that 79% (n = 227) of consent forms contained gender-inclusive language, 80% (n = 231) used terms that fell under the biological sex language, and 91% (n = 264) used gendered language. No consent forms used exclusively gender-inclusive language and the majority 63% (n = 182) featuring a combination of all three language types. There were many consent forms which would have been entirely gender-inclusive language if section headings with references to biological-sex-specific contraceptives were excluded, suggesting that gender-inclusive language may be attainable with minor revisions.

Breast cancer and gender-affirming hormone therapy for transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals

Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals are at risk for breast cancer, but are less likely to undergo screening mammograms and appear to suffer poorer cancer-related outcomes than cisgender women. Gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) may be lifesaving for TGD individuals from the perspective of affirming their core identities; however, the effects of GAHT on cancer development, progression, and outcomes are poorly understood.

Investigating the Needs and Concerns of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, or Questioning Cancer Patients

The needs and concerns of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or questioning (LGBTQ+) patients with cancer remain poorly understood. This is important as LGBTQ+ patients have an elevated risk of developing certain cancers and have poorer oncologic outcomes compared to non-LGBTQ+ patients. The lack of research may be linked to the complexity of studying the needs and concerns of this patient population. This review aimed to describe the evidence that sought to identify the needs and concerns of LGBTQ+ cancer patients. Studies were extracted using keywords such as "LGBTQ" and "Oncology." Patient participants were excluded if they did not identify as LGBTQ+ and if they did not have cancer or were not cancer survivors. Healthcare professionals were excluded if they were not oncology specific. A total of 22 studies met our inclusion criteria. LGBTQ+ cancer patients expressed concerns surrounding heteronormative assumptions made by healthcare professionals, a lack of LGBTQ±specific cancer support groups, and psychosexual concerns such as erectile dysfunction following cancer treatment. Oncology healthcare professionals lacked the knowledge and education that are required to manage this patient cohort. Further research is required to investigate the needs and concerns of LGBTQ+ cancer patients specifically in the radiation oncology setting.

Prostate Cancer Screening Uptake in Transgender Women

Importance

There is no consensus in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening guidelines regarding transgender women despite their known prostate cancer risk.

Objective

To identify factors associated with recent (within the last 2 years) PSA screening in transgender women compared with cisgender men.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This case-control study used data from the 2018 and 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) surveys to characterize rates of PSA screening for prostate cancer within the past 2 years and multivariable logistic regressions to characterize factors associated with recent screening among transgender women. The BRFSS program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention annually surveys over 400 000 US adults on behavioral risk factors, chronic illnesses, and use of preventive services. Respondents to the BRFSS who were cisgender men or transgender women 40 years or older and who had complete PSA testing responses and no prostate cancer history were included; 313 transgender women and 138 937 cisgender men met inclusion criteria. Matching was performed by age, race and ethnicity, educational level, employment, annual income, survey year, and cost barriers to care. Data were collected on November 2, 2022, and analyzed from November 2, 2022, to December 3, 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Rates of and factors associated with recent PSA screening in transgender women.

Results

Among the 1275 participants included in the matched cohort (255 transgender women and 1020 cisgender men; 570 [44.7%] aged 55-69 years), recent PSA screening rates among transgender women and cisgender men aged 55 to 69 were 22.2% (n = 26) and 36.3% (n = 165), respectively; among those 70 years and older, these rates were 41.8% (n = 26) and 40.2% (n = 98), respectively. In the matched cohort, transgender women had lower univariable odds of recent screening than cisgender men (odds ratio [OR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.46-0.92]; P = .02). In a hierarchical regression analysis adding time since the last primary care visit, effect size and significance were unchanged (OR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.42-0.87]; P = .007). After adding whether a clinician recommended a PSA test, there was no statistically significant difference in odds of screening between transgender women and cisgender men (OR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.45-1.27]; P = .21). The results were further attenuated when clinician-led discussions of PSA screening advantages and disadvantages were added (OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.47-1.31]; P = .32). In a multivariable logistic regression among transgender women, having a recommendation for PSA testing was the factor with the strongest association with recent screening (OR, 12.40 [95% CI, 4.47-37.80]; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this case-control study of one of the largest cohorts of transgender women studied regarding PSA screening, the findings suggest that access to care or sociodemographic factors were not principal drivers of the screening differences between transgender women and cisgender men; rather, these data underscore the clinician's role in influencing PSA screening among transgender women.

Breast Cancer Disparity and Outcomes in Underserved Women

Women in the United States who continue to face obstacles accessing health care are frequently termed an underserved population. Safety-net health care systems play a crucial role in mitigating health disparities and reducing burdens of disease, such as breast cancer, for underserved women. Disparities in health care are driven by various factors, including race and ethnicity, as well as socioeconomic factors that affect education, employment, housing, insurance status, and access to health care. Underserved women are more likely to be uninsured or underinsured throughout their lifetimes. Hence they have greater difficulty gaining access to breast cancer screening and are less likely to undergo supplemental imaging when needed. Therefore, underserved women often experience significant delays in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, leading to higher mortality rates. Addressing disparities requires a multifaceted approach, with formal care coordination to help at-risk women navigate through screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Mobile mammography units and community outreach programs can be leveraged to increase community access and engagement, as well as improve health literacy with educational initiatives. Radiology-community partnerships, comprised of imaging practices partnered with local businesses, faith-based organizations, homeless shelters, and public service departments, are essential to establish culturally competent breast imaging care, with the goal of equitable access to early diagnosis and contemporary treatment. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Test Your Knowledge questions are available in the Online Learning Center. See the invited commentary by Leung in this issue.

Prostate Cancer in Transgender Women: Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics, and Management Challenges

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To systematically review the evidence on prostate cancer (PCa) in transgender women (TGW).

RECENT FINDINGS

A total of 25 studies were included. Fourteen articles were case reports or case series describing 21 TGW with PCa; 11 papers focused primarily on assessing the incidence or screening of PCa in TGW. The median (range) age of patients with PCa was 63 (45-78) years. Median (range) PSA at diagnosis was 7.5 (0.4-1710) ng/mL. Prostate biopsy detected ISUP 3-5 in 10 (67%) cases. T3-4 stages were described in 7 (64%) patients. Three (14.3%) cases of nodal involvement and 2 (9.5%) of metastases were reported at diagnosis. First-line therapy included radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy ± androgen deprivation therapy in 14 (74 %) subjects. Median (range) follow-up was 24 (2-120) months. A good response to first-line therapy was recorded in 8 (47.1%) cases. Median (range) incidence of PCa in TGW was 44.1 (4.34-140) cases per 100,000 person-years. PCa was significantly less frequent in TGW than in cisgender males (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.9). Risk of death after PCa diagnosis was significantly higher in TGW compared to cisgender males (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.06-3.45). TGW had lower lifetime PSA rates (48% vs. 64.6%, p = 0.048) than cisgender males. Few cases of PCa in TGW are currently reported. PCa seems significantly less frequent in TGW than in cisgender males; however, some data suggest a possible higher mortality in this cohort. TGW appear to have less access to PSA testing than cisgender men.

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.

Cancer surveillance for transgender and gender diverse patients with Lynch syndrome: a practice resource of the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer

Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) populations with hereditary cancer syndromes face unique obstacles to identifying and obtaining appropriate cancer surveillance and risk-reducing procedures. There is a lack of care provider knowledge about TGD health management. Lynch syndrome (LS) is one of the most common hereditary cancer syndromes, affecting an estimated 1 in 279 individuals. There are no clinical guidelines specific for TGD individuals with LS, highlighting a need to improve the quality of care for this population. There is an urgent need for cancer surveillance recommendations for TGD patients. This commentary provides recommendations for cancer surveillance, risk-reducing strategies, and genetic counseling considerations for TGD patients with LS.

Gender-Affirming Surgery and Cancer: Considerations for Radiation Oncologists for Pelvic Radiation in Transfeminine Patients

Access to gender-affirming surgery is increasing for many transgender and nonbinary people in the United States, and radiation oncologists must be equipped to care for patients who have undergone such surgery in the region of their planned radiation treatment field. There are no guidelines for radiation treatment planning after gender-affirming surgery, and most oncologists do not receive training in the unique needs of transgender people with cancer. We review common gender-affirming genitopelvic surgeries for transfeminine people, including vaginoplasty, labiaplasty, and orchiectomy, and summarize the existing literature on the treatment of cancers of the neovagina, anus, rectum, prostate, and bladder in these patients. We also describe our systematic treatment approach and rationale for pelvic radiation treatment planning.

Clinical outcomes of radiation therapy for transgender and gender-expansive people with cancer

Introduction

Approximately 1.6 million people in the US identify as transgender, many of whom undergo gender-affirming medical or surgical therapies. While transgender individuals are diagnosed with cancer at similar rates as those who are cisgender, the impacts of radiation therapy on outcomes of gender-affirming care in transgender, nonbinary, and gender-expansive people with cancer are understudied. We report on the experiences and outcomes of transgender and gender-expansive patients receiving radiation therapy for cancer treatment.

Methods

This study is a multi-institutional retrospective review of patients evaluated from 2005-2019 identified as transgender or gender-expansive in the medical record and treated with radiation therapy.

Results

We identified 23 patients who received radiation to 32 sites, including 12 (38%) to the brain, head, or neck, 8 (25%) to the thorax, and 7 (22%) to the pelvis. Seventeen patients (74%) received gender-affirming hormone therapy and 13 patients (57%) underwent gender-affirming surgery. Four patients had pelvic radiation before or after gender-affirming pelvic surgery, including two trans women who had pelvic radiation after vaginoplasty. Four patients had radiation to the chest or thorax and gender-affirming chest or breast surgery, including two trans men with breast cancer. Two pediatric patients developed hypopituitarism and hypogonadism secondary to radiation therapy and, as adults, changed their hormone replacement therapy to affirm their transgender identities.

Discussion

Transgender people with cancer undergo radiation therapy for a wide range of cancers. Understanding their prior gender-affirming medical or surgical treatments and future gender affirmation goals may identify important considerations for their oncologic care.

Barriers, facilitators, and recommendations for sexual orientation and gender identity data collection in community oncology practices

BACKGROUND

Sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data collection in community oncology practices is critical to identify and address cancer inequities, but less than 20% of NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP)-affiliated practices regularly collect SOGI data despite widespread recommendations. We evaluated multilevel barriers and facilitators for SOGI data collection at NCORP practices.

METHODS

We conducted 14 semi-structured interviews at seven purposefully sampled NCORP oncology practices. We interviewed one clinician (oncologist, advanced practice provider) and one clinic staff member per practice. Thematic analysis informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was conducted to identify barriers and facilitators.

RESULTS

Thematic saturation occurred after interviews at six practices and was confirmed with interviews at an additional practice. Participants highlighted multilevel barriers including low levels of understanding, information technology infrastructure, and perceived low relative priority. Not understanding the role of SOGI data in oncology care contributed to cis-heteronormative culture. At the clinic level, this culture coincided with a lack of processes and policies for collecting SOGI from all patients. At the care team level, perceived irrelevance to oncology care was related to discomfort asking SOGI, fear of patient discomfort, and limited awareness of SOGI in electronic health records. Suggested solutions included: normalizing asking SOGI questions, giving patients privacy to complete SOGI, and clarifying clinical relevance.

CONCLUSIONS

SOGI data collection barriers stemmed from perceptions that SOGI disclosure does not influence care quality. Oncology teams may benefit from training on culturally sensitive SOGI collection, education on SOGI data relevance to oncology practices, and support for implementing SOGI data collection policies.

Mapping gender and sexual minority representation in cancer research: a scoping review protocol

BACKGROUND

Addressing the risk of people from gender and sexual minority (GSM) groups experiencing inequities throughout the cancer continuum requires a robust evidence base. In this scoping review, we aim to map the literature on cancer outcomes among adults from GSM groups and the factors that influence them along the cancer continuum.

METHODS

This mixed-methods scoping review will follow the approach outlined by JBI. We will systematically search electronic databases for literature in collaboration with a health sciences librarian. Two reviewers will screen titles and abstracts to determine eligibility based on inclusion criteria, and then retrieve full text articles for data extraction. Results will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. Quantitative data will be qualitized through a narrative interpretation and pooled with qualitative data. We will use meta-aggregation to synthesize findings. This protocol was developed in collaboration with GSM patient and public advisors. We will engage people from GSM groups, community organizations and knowledge users in disseminating results.

INTERPRETATION

This review will direct future research efforts by expanding the wider body of research examining cancer disparities across the cancer continuum that GSM groups experience, identifying literature gaps and limitations, and highlighting relevant social determinants of health that influence cancer outcomes for adults from GSM groups.

Psychosocial characteristics and quality of life among sexual and gender minority patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Underserved and minoritized patients with cancer often experience more psychosocial concerns and inferior quality of life (QOL) compared with majority populations. This study compared patient-reported psychosocial characteristics and QOL among self-identified sexual and gender minority patients with cancer vs cisgender-heterosexual patients with cancer treated at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center in the United States.

METHODS

Self-report data from 51 503 patients were obtained from an institutional standard-of-care electronic patient questionnaire that was completed prior to, or on the day of, the patient's initial visit. The electronic patient questionnaire collects demographic information, including sexual orientation and gender identity, psychosocial variables, and QOL using the validated Short Form Health Survey-12. Sexual orientation and gender identity information was used to identify self-identified sexual and gender minority and cisgender-heterosexual persons (ie, non-self-identified sexual and gender minority). Using parametric analyses, psychosocial variables and QOL measures were compared for self-identified sexual and gender minority vs non-self-identified sexual and gender minority patients with cancer.

RESULTS

Compared with non-self-identified sexual and gender minority patients (n = 50 116), self-identified sexual and gender minority patients (n = 1387, 2.7%) reported statistically significantly greater concerns regarding getting help during treatment (2.6% vs 4.3%, respectively; P = .001) and concerns with ability to seek care (16.7% vs 21.6%, respectively, P < .001). Self-identified sexual and gender minority patients reported statistically significantly elevated mental health concerns and daily emotional and pain interference (all P < .001), whereas there was no statistically significant difference in daily interference due to physical functioning.

CONCLUSION

These data reveal real-world disparities among self-identified sexual and gender minority patients with cancer, which can be used to develop psychosocial interventions tailored to address the unique psychosocial and QOL needs of this underserved and minoritized population and to ultimately improve cancer care.

Cancer screening and management in the transgender population: Review of literature and special considerations for gender affirmation surgery

BACKGROUND

Literature focused on cancer screening and management is lacking in the transgender population.

AIM

To action to increase contributions to the scientific literature that drives the creation of cancer screening and management protocols for transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of PubMed on January 5th, 2022, with the following terms: "TGNC", OR "transgender", OR "gender non-conforming", OR "gender nonbinary" AND "cancer screening", AND "breast cancer", AND "cervical cancer", AND "uterine cancer", AND "ovarian cancer", AND "prostate cancer", AND "testicular cancer", AND "surveillance", AND "follow-up", AND "management". 70 unique publications were used. The findings are discussed under "Screening" and "Management" categories.

RESULTS

Screening: Current cancer screening recommendations default to cis-gender protocols. However, long-term gender-affirming hormone therapy and loss to follow-up from the gender-specific specialties contribute to a higher risk for cancer development and possible delayed detection. The only known screening guidelines made specifically for this population are from the American College of Radiology for breast cancer. Management: Prior to undergoing Gender Affirmation Surgery (GAS), discussion should address cancer screening and management in the organs remaining in situ. Cancer treatment in this population requires consideration for chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and/or reconstruction. Modification of hormone therapy is decided on a case-by-case basis. The use of prophylactic vs aesthetic techniques in surgery is still debated.

CONCLUSION

When assessing transgender individuals for GAS, a discussion on the future oncologic risk of the sex-specific organs remaining in situ is essential. Cancer management in this population requires a multidisciplinary approach while the care should be highly individualized with considerations to social, medical, surgical and gender affirming surgery related specifications. Special considerations have to be made during planning for GAS as surgery will alter the anatomy and may render the organ difficult to sample for screening purposes. A discussion with the patient regarding the oncologic risk of remaining organs is imperative prior to GAS. Other special considerations to screening such as the conscious or unconscious will to unassociated with their remaining organs is also a key point to address. We currently lack high quality studies pertinent to the cancer topic in the gender affirmation literature. Further research is required to ensure more comprehensive and individualized care for this population.

Perioperative Care of Transgender and Gender-Diverse Patients: A Biopsychosocial Approach

Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) people endure numerous physical and mental health disparities secondary to lifelong stigma and marginalization, which are often perpetuated in medical spaces. Despite such barriers, TGD people are seeking gender-affirming care (GAC) with increased frequency. GAC facilitates the transition from the sex assigned at birth to the affirmed gender identity and is comprised of hormone therapy (HT) and gender-affirming surgery (GAS). The anesthesia professional is uniquely poised to serve as an integral support for TGD patients within the perioperative space. To provide affirmative perioperative care to TGD patients, anesthesia professionals should understand and attend to the biological, psychological, and social dimensions of health that are relevant to this population. This review outlines the biological factors that impact the perioperative care of TGD patients, such as the management of estrogen and testosterone HT, safe use of sugammadex, interpretation of laboratory values in the context of HT, pregnancy testing, drug dosing, breast binding, altered airway and urethral anatomy after prior GAS, pain management, and other GAS considerations. Psychosocial factors are reviewed, including mental health disparities, health care provider mistrust, effective patient communication, and the interplay of these factors in the postanesthesia care unit. Finally, recommendations to improve TGD perioperative care are reviewed through an organizational approach with an emphasis on TGD-focused medical education. These factors are discussed through the lens of patient affirmation and advocacy with the intent to educate the anesthesia professional on the perioperative management of TGD patients.

Cancer care in transgender and gender-diverse persons: results from two national surveys among providers and health service users by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology

BACKGROUND

Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) population represents an underserved group across the cancer care continuum. To assess the perspective of both oncology health care providers (OHPs) and TGD individuals in Italy, we conducted two national surveys: one among 2407 OHPs about their attitudes, knowledge and behavior toward TGD patients, and one among TGD persons about their health needs, experiences and barriers encountered in the use of health services across the cancer continuum.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The surveys were self-compiled web-based computer-aided web interview, conducted in Italy within the 'OncoGender-Promoting Inclusion in Oncology' project, led by the Italian national cancer society [Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica (AIOM)]-associated researchers. All members of AIOM were invited by e-mail to participate in the OHP survey. TGD persons were reached through advocacy groups and consumers' panel. The recruitment was completed on a voluntary basis. Survey data were collected and managed using an online platform managed by ELMA Research, an independent pharmaceutical marketing agency.

RESULTS

A total of 305 OHPs (13% of AIOM members) and 190 TGD individuals participated in the surveys. Only 19% of OHPs felt competent in providing care to TGD patients and 21% declared not to feel comfortable in treating TGD patients. Seventy-one percent of TGD persons reported that they had never joined any cancer screening program; 32% reported one or more acts of discrimination by health care providers. Seventy-two percent of OHPs recognized the lack of specific education on cancer care for TGD patients and deemed it necessary to receive adequate training.

CONCLUSIONS

A general lack of knowledge among OHPs about TGD health issues seems to be the main driver of difficulties in providing assistance and of discriminatory attitudes against TGD individuals. Ultimately, this whole issue generates access barriers and contributes to lack of trust in health care services. Educational interventions and an implementation of person-centric cancer policies are urgently needed.

Structural Sexism and Cancer Care: The Effects on the Patient and Oncologist

Despite progress toward equity within our broad social context, the domains of gender as a social, cultural, and structural variable continue to exert influence on the delivery of oncology care. Although there have been vast advances in our understanding of the biological underpinnings of cancer and significant improvements in clinical care, disparities in cancer care for all women-including cisgender, transgender, and gender diverse women-persist. Similarly, despite inclusion within the oncology physician workforce, women and gender minorities, particularly those with additional identities under-represented in medicine, still face structural barriers to clinical and academic productivity and career success. In this article, we define and discuss how structural sexism influences both the equitable care of patients with cancer and the oncology workforce and explore the overlapping challenges in both realms. Solutions toward creating environments where patients with cancer of any gender receive optimal care and all physicians can thrive are put forward.

Urine cytology in patients with gender confirmation surgery and hormone therapy: evaluation of urine cytology performance in an underserved patient population

INTRODUCTION

There is a practice gap and educational need regarding urine cytology (UC) performance in patients with history of gender confirmation surgery (GCS) and/or hormone therapy (HT). This potentially impacts diagnostic accuracy in this medically underserved population. We report a methodology that identifies relevant cases and evaluates the performance of UC in this cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two institutional pathology archives from 2000 to 2021 were searched using relevant keywords to identify UC specimens from patients with GCS and/or HT for this retrospective study. For each specimen, patient demographics, relevant clinical history, and history of HT and/or GCS were noted. Each case was blindly reviewed by a cytopathologist according to The Paris System.

RESULTS

A total of 32 UC specimens from 15 patients with history of GCS and/or HT were identified. There were 13 male to female and 2 female to male transgender patients. The original diagnosis was negative for high-grade urothelial carcinoma (NHGUC) in 24 of 32 (75%) and atypical urothelial cells (AUC) in 8 of 32 (25%) cases. The most common atypical features were irregular nuclear membranes and prominent small nucleoli in 7 of 8 (87.5%). Degenerative changes were present in 5 of 8 (62.5%). On re-review, with relevant clinical history, 100% of cases were re-classified as NHGUC.

CONCLUSIONS

The original diagnosis of AUC in these cases likely reflects reactive changes post GCS and/or HT. This cohort may be at risk of AUC overdiagnosis, particularly if the pathologist is unaware of this clinical history. Pathologists need to recognize reactive cytomorphologic changes in these patients. Further multi-institutional studies are warranted to expand knowledge about UC performance in these patients.

Correlates of smoking during COVID-19 in the LGBTQI + cancer survivor population

PURPOSE

Stressors brought on by the pandemic may have further encouraged lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex plus (LGBTQI +) cancer survivors to smoke. The purpose of this study is to examine factors associated with smoking among LGBTQI + cancer survivors during the pandemic.

METHODS

We used a secondary data analysis of OUT: The National Cancer Survey. We conducted logistic regression analysis to examine the associations between psychological distress, binge drinking, and socio-demographic factors with ever use and current use of cigarettes, other tobacco, and nicotine products.

RESULTS

Of the 1629 participants in our sample, 53% used in their lifetime and 13% reported current use. Correlates of increased ever use included being of older age (AOR = 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.03) and binge drinking (AOR = 2.47; 95% CI: 1.17, 5.20) while correlates of decreased ever use were among those with a graduate or professional degree (AOR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.71). Correlates of increased current use included being of Latine descent (AOR = 1.89; 95% CI: 1.07, 3.36), binge drinking (AOR = 3.18; 95% CI: 1.56, 6.48), without health insurance (AOR = 2.37; 95% CI: 1.10, 5.10), and being disabled (AOR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.19, 2.26) while correlates of decreased current use were among cisgender women (AOR = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.77), being of younger age (AOR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96, 0.99), and having a graduate or professional degree (AOR = 0.33; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that a proportion of LGBTQI + cancer survivors continue to smoke during the pandemic despite the increased risk involved with smoking. Furthermore, individuals with intersecting marginalized identities experience additional stressors that may have been further exacerbated by the conditions of the pandemic that encourage them to smoke.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Quitting smoking after a cancer diagnosis can decrease the chances of recurrence and a new primary malignancy. In addition, practitioners and researchers should advocate towards examining and addressing systemic forms of oppression in institutions that LGBTQI + cancer survivors navigate during the pandemic.

A Challenging Case of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Carcinoma of the Lung

Primary lung carcinoma with distant metastasis is a life-threatening diagnosis that presents many unique challenges due to the severity of the disease at the time of presentation. We investigated a life-threatening primary lung carcinoma with distant metastasis in a 73-year-old transgender woman, which posed unique challenges due to the advanced stage of the disease at presentation. The patient exhibited nonspecific musculoskeletal and neurological symptoms resulting from the primary lung carcinoma metastasizing to her liver, bones, and brain. We evaluated various imaging modalities that aided in determining the disease's severity and identifying complications related to metastasis. Although these efforts can offer symptomatic relief, the overall prognosis remains poor when metastasis spreads to multiple organs, particularly the brain, as remission may no longer be attainable.

Breast Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment, and Outcomes of Patients From Sex and Gender Minority Groups

Importance

Sexual orientation and gender identity data are not collected by most hospitals or cancer registries; thus, little is known about the quality of breast cancer treatment for patients from sex and gender minority (SGM) groups.

Objective

To evaluate the quality of breast cancer treatment and recurrence outcomes for patients from SGM groups compared with cisgender heterosexual patients.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Exposure-matched retrospective case-control study of 92 patients from SGM groups treated at an academic medical center from January 1, 2008, to January 1, 2022, matched to cisgender heterosexual patients with breast cancer by year of diagnosis, age, tumor stage, estrogen receptor status, and ERBB2 (HER2) status.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patient demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as treatment quality, as measured by missed guideline-based breast cancer screening, appropriate referral for genetic counseling and testing, mastectomy vs lumpectomy, receipt of chest reconstruction, adjuvant radiation therapy after lumpectomy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III disease, antiestrogen therapy for at least 5 years for estrogen receptor-positive disease, ERBB2-directed therapy for ERBB2-positive disease, patient refusal of an oncologist-recommended treatment, time from symptom onset to tissue diagnosis, time from diagnosis to first treatment, and time from breast cancer diagnosis to first recurrence. Results were adjusted for multiple hypothesis testing. Compared with cisgender heterosexual patients, those from SGM groups were hypothesized to have disparities in 1 or more of these quality metrics.

Results

Ninety-two patients from SGM groups were matched to 92 cisgender heterosexual patients (n = 184). The median age at diagnosis for all patients was 49 years (IQR, 43-56 years); 74 were lesbian (80%), 12 were bisexual (13%), and 6 were transgender (6%). Compared with cisgender heterosexual patients, those from SGM groups experienced a delay in time from symptom onset to diagnosis (median time to diagnosis, 34 vs 64 days; multivariable adjusted hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-0.99; P = .04), were more likely to decline an oncologist-recommended treatment modality (35 [38%] vs 18 [20%]; multivariable adjusted odds ratio, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.09-4.74; P = .03), and were more likely to experience a breast cancer recurrence (multivariable adjusted hazard ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.56-6.03; P = .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that among patients with breast cancer, those from SGM groups experienced delayed diagnosis, with faster recurrence at a 3-fold higher rate compared with cisgender heterosexual patients. These results suggest disparities in the care of patients from SGM groups and warrant further study to inform interventions.

Sexual and gender diversity in cancer care and survivorship

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Sexual and gender diverse (SGD) cancer patients possess unique identities and needs that must be considered during their cancer care. This narrative review explores the current literature on sexual and gender diversity in cancer care and survivorship, in addition to providing recommendations encouraged by the current literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

We performed a literature search for articles published in English between January 2021 and June 2022 in Medline ALL and Embase. Fifty-two studies were included in this review. The many identities encapsulated in 2SLGBTQIA+ (2 Spirited, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersexual, Asexual, Agender, Aromantic and all gender identities and sexual orientations that are not listed) communities each have their own unique backgrounds, needs and disparities in cancer care and survivorship. However, we also identified specific protective factors in the cancer experience of SGD patients such as reports of higher resiliency and stronger support networks. Much of the recent research features recommendations on improving cancer care by creating inclusive patient questionnaires, improving in-person and online resources, and educating healthcare providers and patient-facing staff on inclusive care.

SUMMARY

SGD patients have their own specific challenges during and following their cancer care. As the research continues to grow, we gain a better understanding of the needs of these patients and future steps to take to improve SGD patients' cancer experience.

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.

Cancer in Transgender and Gender-Diverse Persons: A Review

Importance

Transgender and gender-diverse individuals face unique challenges, including barriers to health care access and inequities in treatment, that may influence cancer risk and outcomes.

Observations

In this narrative review, a scoping review was conducted focusing on primary and secondary prevention and epidemiology of cancer, barriers to health care services, and health care practitioners' knowledge about specific issues pertaining to transgender and gender-diverse individuals. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase, were reviewed for citations from their inception to December 31, 2021. This review revealed that transgender and gender-diverse people had a high prevalence of tobacco consumption and alcohol use and high rates of infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) and HIV. Transgender and gender-diverse individuals were less likely to adhere to cancer screening programs and had a higher incidence of HIV- and HPV-associated cancers. Social and economic determinants seemed to drive these disparities in risk factors and outcomes. A lack of knowledge about gender minorities' health needs among health care practitioners was evidenced, and it represented a major hurdle to cancer prevention, care, and survivorship for transgender and gender-diverse individuals. Discrimination, discomfort caused by gender-labeled oncological services, stigma, and lack of cultural sensitivity of health care practitioners were other barriers met by transgender and gender-diverse persons in the oncology setting.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings suggest that transgender and gender-diverse peoples' needs in the cancer care continuum are not optimally addressed. Effective solutions are needed to offer the best care to every patient in a person-centric and gender diversity-sensitive environment.

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.

Recommendations from Latinx Trans and Non-Binary Individuals to Promote Cancer Prevention in Puerto Rico and Florida

Latinx trans and non-binary individuals (LTNB) face increased cancer-related health disparities. Studies evidence how barriers at the individual, provider and organizational levels drive cancer disparities among LTNB individuals. These barriers increase the emotional discomfort associated with testing and disengagement from cancer prevention efforts. Moreover, there are no guidelines or interventions that address cancer prevention specifically among LTNB individuals. There is a need to develop interventions informed by the LTNB communities to promote cancer prevention and screening. The study aims to describe the recommendations provided by LTNB individuals to foster cancer screening and prevention in the communities residing in Puerto Rico and Florida. We conducted two online focus groups with a total of 15 LTNB participants. Participants were recruited using non-probabilistic purposive sampling. We used rapid-qualitative analysis for data interpretation. Findings are gathered in three main themes: (1) recommendations for promoting cancer prevention screening among providers; (2) specific recommendations to promote cancer screening among LTBN individuals; and (3) recommendations on delivery formats to foster cancer prevention. These results evidence the need and feasibility of developing community informed tailored interventions targeting cancer screening and preventative care to reduce cancer-related health disparities among the LTNB population.

Analysis of Mortality Among Transgender and Gender Diverse Adults in England

IMPORTANCE

Limited prior research suggests that transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people may have higher mortality rates than cisgender people.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate overall and cause-specific mortality among TGD persons compared with cisgender persons.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This population-based cohort study used data from general practices in England contributing to the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD and Aurum databases. Transfeminine (assigned male at birth) and transmasculine (assigned female at birth) individuals were identified using diagnosis codes for gender incongruence, between 1988 and 2019, and were matched to cisgender men and women according to birth year, practice, and practice registration date and linked to the Office of National Statistics death registration. Data analysis was performed from February to June 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cause-specific mortality counts were calculated for categories of disease as defined by International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision chapters. Overall and cause-specific mortality rate ratios (MRRs) were estimated using Poisson models, adjusted for index age, index year, race and ethnicity, Index of Multiple Deprivation, smoking status, alcohol use, and body mass index.

RESULTS

A total of 1951 transfeminine (mean [SE] age, 36.90 [0.34] years; 1801 White [92.3%]) and 1364 transmasculine (mean [SE] age, 29.20 [0.36] years; 1235 White [90.4%]) individuals were matched with 68 165 cisgender men (mean [SE] age, 33.60 [0.05] years; 59 136 White [86.8%]) and 68 004 cisgender women (mean [SE] age, 33.50 [0.05] years; 57 762 White [84.9%]). The mortality rate was 528.11 deaths per 100 000 person-years (102 deaths) for transfeminine persons, 325.86 deaths per 100 000 person-years (34 deaths) for transmasculine persons, 315.32 deaths per 100 000 person-years (1951 deaths) for cisgender men, and 260.61 deaths per 100 000 person-years (1608 deaths) for cisgender women. Transfeminine persons had a higher overall mortality risk compared with cisgender men (MRR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.06-1.68) and cisgender women (MRR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.27-2.01). For transmasculine persons, the overall MMR was 1.43 (95% CI, 0.87-2.33) compared with cisgender men and was 1.75 (95% CI, 1.08-2.83) compared with cisgender women. Transfeminine individuals had lower cancer mortality than cisgender women (MRR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.83) but an increased risk of external causes of death (MRR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.05-3.50). Transmasculine persons had higher mortality from external causes of death than cisgender women (MRR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.15-6.65). Compared with cisgender men, neither transfeminine nor transmasculine adults had a significantly increased risk of deaths due to external causes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of primary care data, TGD persons had elevated mortality rates compared with cisgender persons, particularly for deaths due to external causes. Further research is needed to examine how minority stress may be contributing to deaths among TGD individuals to reduce mortality.

Community-generated solutions to cancer inequity: recommendations from transgender, non-binary and intersex people on improving cancer screening and care

Objective

Transgender, non-binary and intersex people are less likely to receive appropriate cancer screening for their bodies and have a higher incidence of certain cancers than cisgender people. We aimed to elicit community-generated solutions to improve cancer screening for these populations.

Methods and analysis

We conducted six online, asynchronous focus groups in English and Spanish with transgender, non-binary, intersex and cisgender participants who were at least 15 years of age from across the USA. Participants shared their experiences with cancer screening and related conversations with healthcare providers and recommendations for making screening practices more inclusive of their bodies and experiences. Focus group data were exported into transcripts and analysed with thematic analysis.

Results

The 23 participants represented a diversity of races, genders, sexualities, ages and geographical locations. Transgender, non-binary and intersex participants, particularly Black, Indigenous and/or people of colour, reported having to self-advocate to receive necessary care by initiating conversations about screening with their providers, requesting specific screenings and educating providers about the appropriate care for their body. Notably, no white or cisgender participants described having to request relevant screenings or initiate conversations with their providers. Participants recommended that forms ask about body parts and allow for self-identification.

Conclusion

The ability to properly screen patients can have a direct impact on cancer outcomes. More inclusive intake forms may alleviate the need for transgender, non-binary and intersex patients to self-advocate to receive necessary care. More work should be done to educate providers on cancer risk for transgender, non-binary and intersex individuals.