Breast Cancer Risk and Screening in Transgender Persons: A Call for Inclusive Care

LncRNA OIP5-AS1 Upregulates the Cyclin D2 Levels to Promote Metastasis of Breast Cancer by Targeting miR-150-5p

OBJECTIVE

Breast cancer (BC) is a cancer that seriously affects women's health. BC cell migration increases the mortality of BC patients. Current studies have shown that long noncoding RNAs (LncRNAs) are related to the metastasis mechanism of BC. This study aimed to explore the function and role of LncRNA OIP5-AS1 in BC. And we analyzed its regulatory mechanism and related modification process.

METHODS

Our study analyzed the expression pattern of OIP5-AS1 in BC tissues and cell lines by qRT-PCR. The effects of OIP5-AS1 on the function of BC cells were detected by CCK-8 and transwell experiments. Bioinformatics analysis and double luciferase reporter gene detection were used to confirm the correlation between OIP5-AS1 and miR-150-5p and between miR-150-5p and Cyclin D2 (CCND2). The rescue test analyzed the effect of miR-150-5p regulating OIP5-AS1. In addition, the N6-methyladenosine (m6A) modification process of OIP5-AS1 was analyzed by RNA m6A dot blot, RIP assay, and double luciferase report experiment.

RESULTS

OIP5-AS1 was significantly upregulated in BC tissues and cell lines. OIP5-AS1 knockdown inhibited BC cell viability, migration and invasion. OIP5-AS1 upregulated CCND2 by binding with miR-150-5p. This process affected the metastasis of BC. Higher degree of m6A methylation was confirmed in BC cell lines. There were some binding sites between methyltransferase like 3 (METTL3) and OIP5-AS1. Moreover, the silencing of METTL3 inhibited the OIP5-AS1 expression through decreasing the m6A methylation levels.

CONCLUSIONS

LncRNA OIP5-AS1 promoted cell viability and metastasis of BC cells by targeting miR-150-5p/CCND2 axis. This process was modified by m6A methylation of METTL3.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Gender-affirming DIEP Flap Breast Augmentation

Implant-based techniques have been the mainstay of gender-affirming breast augmentation (GABA). Here we describe a novel autologous technique for GABA. We provide a single-patient case report of gender-affirming deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap breast augmentation. World Professional Association for Transgender Health guidelines were followed according to Standards of Care, version 8. Prepectoral tissue expanders were placed at the time of the patient's facial feminization surgery. DIEP flaps were then used for bilateral breast augmentation. Planned revisions were made about 5 months later. Breast augmentation was performed successfully with DIEP flaps, and the patient was satisfied with her outcome. No complications occurred. Anatomic differences to cisgender women were noted, including relatively thick musculature of the abdominal wall and chest as well as tight anterior abdominal fascial closure. Advantages compared with implant-based GABA were also noted, including feminization of the abdomen and avoidance of potential implant related complications. We report a novel approach to GABA. Our approach borrows well-established techniques with demonstrated efficacy and high satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction and even cosmetic purposes. However, sex- and hormone-influenced anatomic differences required some modifications compared with postmastectomy DIEP flap reconstruction.

Disparities in Study Inclusion and Breast Cancer Screening Rates Among Transgender People: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer screening trends of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people remain largely unknown. This is concerning, as data are necessary to inform recommendations made by clinicians to their patients and by national guidelines to clinicians. The aim of this review is to explore the state of existing research literature and provide a summary report of current breast cancer screening rates in TGD adults.

METHODS

All articles were identified using Medical Subject Headings terms. Inclusion criteria were all the following: (1) documents inclusion of at least one participant who identifies as a TGD person; (2) at least one TGD participant with top surgery or currently receiving estrogen-based gender-affirming hormone therapy; (3) results that report rates of breast cancer screening or mammogram referral.

RESULTS

Twelve articles met inclusion criteria, six cross-sectional studies and six retrospective chart reviews. Three studies conducted secondary analysis of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System national dataset, and nine articles recruited their own sample with number of TGD participants ranging from 30 to 1,822 and number of cisgender women ranging from 242 to 18,275. Three studies found lower rates of screening in transfeminine persons receiving gender-affirming care compared with cisgender women; two studies found lower rates among TGD people compared with cisgender women; and three studies found no differences between the breast cancer screening rates of TGD and cisgender participants.

CONCLUSION

Limited studies recruit and report trends in breast cancer screening of TGD people. Those that do include TGD participants have mixed results, but overall TGD people had lower rates of breast cancer screening. More research is needed regarding breast cancer screening of TGD people to inform the development of protocols that ensure equitable access to preventative care.

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.

A Scoping Review of Medical Mistrust Among Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Minorities With Breast and Ovarian Cancer

An overarching theme in clinical literature suggests an inherent mistrust among populations of color within the healthcare system and the importance of healthcare professionals to bridge this gap in care. This is especially true when addressing cancer care in underserved populations due to mistrust in providers, diagnostic tools, and treatments. Ovarian cancer is difficult to diagnose early in all populations; however, women of color who have an intrinsic mistrust of the medical community will delay or refuse screenings or treatments that could be greatly beneficial. Similarly, although breast cancer rates are high in women of color, many are reluctant to utilize genetic screenings or counseling services due to bad experiences with healthcare, both personally and within their community. Moreover, transgender patients are at a unique disadvantage, as they face barriers to accessing culturally competent care while also being at a higher risk for developing cancer. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the literature in order to synthesize knowledge about the climate of mistrust between medical providers and racial, ethnic, and gender minorities with breast cancer and ovarian cancer. It is imperative for healthcare workers to acknowledge medical mistrust and strive to reduce internalized bias, increase their availability to patients, and ensure patients feel heard, respected, and well cared for during visits. Improving care by physicians can enhance trust between underserved communities and healthcare workers, encouraging all people to actively seek proper medical care and cancer screening, potentially resulting in a reduction of mortality and morbidity rates.

Implications of hormonal carcinogenesis for transgender and gender-diverse people undergoing gender-affirming hormone therapy: an up-to-date review

Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals face an elevated risk of cancer in comparison with the general population. This increased risk is primarily attributed to an imbalanced exposure to modifiable risk factors and a limited adherence to cancer screening programmes, stemming from historical social and economic marginalisation. Consequently, these factors contribute to poorer clinical outcomes in terms of cancer diagnosis and mortality. A focal point of interest is the potential carcinogenic effect of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT). It is crucial to recognise that GAHT serves as an essential, life-saving treatment for TGD individuals. Therefore, if a demonstrated direct correlation between GAHT and elevated cancer risk emerges, essential shared decision-making discussions should occur between oncology practitioners and patients. This narrative review aims to collect and discuss evidence regarding potential correlations between GAHT and the most prevalent tumours known to be influenced by sex hormones. The objective is to comprehend how these potential carcinogenic effects impact health and inform health interventions for TGD individuals. Unfortunately, the scarcity of epidemiological data on cancer incidence in the TGD population persists due to the absence of sexual orientation and gender identity data collection in cancer centres. Consequently, in most cases, establishing a positive or negative correlation between GAHT and cancer risk remains speculative. There is an urgent need for concerted efforts from researchers and clinicians worldwide to overcome barriers and enhance cancer prevention and care in this specific population.

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

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

Breast Cancer Screening Referral Patterns and Compliance in Transgender Male Patients

Purpose

Screening guidelines for breast cancer (BC) in transgender male (TM) patients are not well defined. This study describes referral patterns and compliance with referral for BC screening among TM patients receiving care at a tertiary care center.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of TM patients, 40-74 years of age, presenting for care between 2017 and 2020. The electronic medical record was queried for medical history and cancer screening data. Compliance with referral and screening was defined as occurring within 2 years of when screening would be expected.

Results

Of the 266 patients identified, 45 met inclusion criteria. One (2.2%) had a history of BC, 0 (0%) had hereditary BC risk, and 11 (24.4%) had a family history of BC. Of the patients, 18 (40%) were referred for BC screening, of whom 13 (72.2%) were compliant with screening. Ten (55.6%) were referred by a primary care provider, 2 (11.1%) were referred by a transgender medicine specialist, and 6 (33.3%) were referred by both. Of the cohort, 27 (60%) had undergone masculinizing mastectomy. Six (22.2%) of these patients were referred for screening, of whom 0 (0%) had pre-screening clinical findings indicating need for screening. Of the 18 (40%) patients who had not undergone masculinizing mastectomy, 12 (66.7%) were referred for BC screening.

Conclusions

There was heterogeneity in referral patterns for BC screening between TM patients who had undergone masculinizing mastectomy and those who had not. BC screening guidelines should be established for TM patients who have undergone masculinizing mastectomy.

Gender-Affirming Care in a Transgender Young Woman With Li-Fraumeni Syndrome: A Case Report

The number of youths who identify with a gender different from their sex designated at birth is increasing. Youth account for about 4% of all cancer diagnoses in the United States. Some youths may want gender-affirming medical treatment, such as puberty blockers and/or hormone therapy, which may exacerbate cancer and/or increase cancer development risk. No studies assess the impact of estrogen-based treatment in gender-diverse youth with a history of Li-Fraumeni syndrome. This case report will discuss gender-affirming care and shared decision-making in a youth with a history of Li-Fraumeni syndrome and increased risk for breast cancer.

Gynecologic Care of Transgender and Gender-Diverse People

The visibility and care of transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) people is an important component of gynecology. Transmasculine individuals require routine gynecologic and preventative care. Guidelines can be extrapolated from the cisgender female population, and using affirming language, acknowledging the challenges patients face with pelvic examination, and discussing individual gynecologic needs are important components of care. Transmasculine patients may seek hysterectomy for gender affirmation from gynecologists. Unique nuances exist in the considerations needed when preparing for hysterectomy, and patients should be thoroughly counseled with regard to concurrent vaginectomy or oophorectomy or both. Transfeminine patients often seek gynecologic care after gender-affirming surgery, and, unlike transmasculine patients, the gynecology visit is often very affirming and welcomed by patients. Becoming familiar with the perioperative and delayed postoperative care needs of transfeminine patients undergoing vaginoplasty can help improve the care provided by gynecologists. In general, prospective data on the outcomes of gender-affirming care in large cohorts of TGD patients are limited, but the body of literature is growing. Gynecologists remain central to the care of TGD patients, the academic advancement of the field of transgender health, and the advocacy needed to support this vulnerable patient population.

Treatment patterns and outcomes for primary uterine leiomyosarcoma with synchronous isolated lung metastases: A National Cancer Database study of primary resection and metastasectomy

Background

One third of patients with uterine leiomyosarcomas (uLMS) present with distant metastases. Current guidelines do not include recommendations around surgery for metastatic uLMS. Patients with distant metastases commonly receive primary tumor resection for symptoms and so oncologic outcomes after surgery warrant exploration. We describe treatment patterns and outcomes for uLMS patients with synchronous isolated lung metastases (SILM).

Methods

This retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database identified patients with uLMS and SILM. Patients with non-pulmonary metastases were excluded. We collected demographic, disease, and treatment characteristics and assessed clinicopathologic factors associated with the receipt of surgery on multivariate regression. Median, 1-year, and 5-year overall survival (OS) across treatment approaches were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regressions identified independent predictors of survival.

Results

We identified 905 patients with uLMS and SILM between 2004 and 2017. 600 patients had primary tumor resection; 63 also had curative intent surgery with metastasectomy. Patients who did not receive chemotherapy were older (p<0.01) with a higher comorbidity index (p<0.05). Women with private health insurance were more likely to receive chemotherapy (p<0.01) and primary tumor resection (p<0.01). Patients who underwent curative intent surgery had 1-year OS of 71.2% and 5-year survival of 18% compared to 1-year survival of 35.6 % and 5-year survival of 5.16 % for patients who had no surgery. Black women had poorer survival on multivariate regression.

Conclusions

Primary tumor resection and curative intent surgery are associated with improved OS in uLMS with SILM and may be a reasonable treatment option in appropriately selected patients.

Prevalence and predictors of cancer screening in transgender and gender nonbinary individuals

Background

Current cancer screening guidelines for transgender individuals are guided primarily by expert opinion, and are extrapolated from guidelines for cisgender populations, despite the additional unique risks that transgender populations face in cancer risk and cancer care.

Aims

We examined adherence to current recommended screening guidelines as well as drivers of cancer screening in 192 transgender and gender-nonbinary (TGNB) individuals participating in Project AFFIRM, a multi-site longitudinal cohort study of TGNB individuals.

Methods

We used a chi-squared analysis to look for significant associations between predictors and adherence to breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer screening. We analyzed predictors by 3 different categories: sex/gender identity, healthcare access, and socioeconomic status.

Results

Screening rates were low for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer in TGNB populations compared to national rates for cisgender populations. Among several significant predictors, gender-affirming surgery (hysterectomy) (p-value = <0.0001) and telling others they are transgender at a younger age (< 18) (p-value = 0.0344) were associated with increased screening adherence, while having HIV was associated with decreased screening adherence (p-value = 0.0045).

Discussion

Our results suggest that interacting with the healthcare system to obtain comprehensive cancer screening can be difficult to navigate among the other healthcare needs of TGNB individuals both on an individual and systems level. Future efforts to mitigate the barriers to screening adherence should be targeted at the healthcare system level.

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.

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.

Gender-affirming pharmacotherapy and additional health considerations: A contemporary review

BACKGROUND

Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals in the United States face health care disparities compounded with discrimination and limited access to necessary medical services. Gender-affirming interventions have been shown to mitigate gender dysphoria and psychiatric comorbidities, yet United States legislation limiting such interventions has increased. As medication experts, pharmacists can facilitate access to care and appropriate use of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) and educate other health care providers on best practices for caring for TGD individuals in a variety of settings.

OBJECTIVES

To provide pharmacists with a contemporary review of GAHT and associated medication-related concerns.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for articles published until December 2022. MeSH terms such as transgender, transsexual, gender diverse, gender variant, or gender nonconforming in combination with phrases like gender-affirming care, treatment, pharmacotherapy, or hormone therapy were used to capture desired articles.

RESULTS

Feminizing hormone therapy (FHT), such as estrogen and antiandrogen agents, increases female secondary sex characteristics while suppressing male secondary sex characteristics. Masculinizing hormone therapy (MHT) achieves male secondary sex characteristics and minimizes female secondary sex characteristics using testosterone. For both FHT and MHT, the choice of therapy and formulation ultimately involves the patient's treatment goals, preferences, and tolerability. GAHT has additional health considerations pertaining to renal drug dosing, fertility, cardiovascular, and cancer risks. Pharmacists may provide crucial guidance and education to both patients and health care providers regarding risks associated with GAHT.

CONCLUSION

Many pharmacists feel unprepared to help provide, manage, and optimize GAHT. For many TGD individuals, GAHT is medically necessary and a life-saving treatment. Therefore, pharmacists should be provided tools to close knowledge gaps and improve their ability to care for these patients. By offering a thorough updated overview of GAHT, pharmacists can gain confidence to provide appropriate care for this increasingly visible population.

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.

UK recommendations for the management of transgender and gender-diverse patients with inherited cancer risks

As the rate of people openly identifying as transgender or gender diverse (TGD) is increasing, UK cancer genetics services are seeing growing numbers of TGD patients. Lack of appropriate clinical guidelines and a scarcity of robust data about the impact of gender-affirming treatments on cancer risk has led to uncertainty of how best to support TGD patients, and inequity in standards of care. To address this gap, the UK Cancer Genetics Group and Central & South Genomic Medicine Service Alliance facilitated a 2-day meeting to develop national consensus to support the management of TGD patients with inherited cancer risks. Key stakeholders from a broad range of clinical specialties, patients advocates, and those with lived experience discussed and voted on recommendations for best practice. The consensus was reached on topics including family history questionnaires, pedigrees, clinical information, breast tissue management, gynaecological and prostate management, patient pathways, and education. Further work is required to reach consensus on the breast screening recommendations for TGD patients assigned female at birth who have had masculinising chest surgery. Here we present a summary of the processes used to reach consensus, and the recommendations from this meeting.

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.

[Media: see text].

Comprehensive Reconstructive Care for Patients of All Gender Identities After Cancer of the Breast

ABSTRACT

Breast cancer can affect anyone; therefore, it affects people of all gender identities. Reconstructive options after breast cancer must then address the needs of all people. Our institution is unique in its provision of both high-level comprehensive breast and gender affirmation care. In our practice, patients have expressed gender diverse identities during their breast cancer reconstructive journey. In these cases, goals have deviated from traditional breast restoration, gravitating toward gender-affirming mastectomy, or results often seen with "top surgery." We present a framework for the administration of breast cancer care and discussions of reconstruction from a lens of gender inclusivity. Breast cancer is a diagnosis that has been gendered, resulting in the erasure and exclusion of reconstructive needs for people affected by breast cancer that are not cisgender women. This is illustrated through the case of a nonbinary individual seen in breast cancer clinic for multifocal ductal carcinoma in situ. Our standard review of options of "going flat," implant-based reconstruction, and autologous reconstruction led to initial confusion given their early exploration of gender identity co-occurring with a new diagnosis of breast cancer. These scenarios can be challenging when viewed solely from the perspective of a breast reconstructive surgeon or a gender-affirming surgeon alone. Both perspectives are often needed. Our gender-affirming and breast reconstructive teams have discussed methods to identify patients who require more robust discussion of gender identity and reconstructive options in the setting of breast cancer, such as chest masculinization. By adding gender-affirming surgeons to the list of providers available to counsel breast cancer patients, we may be able to better provide early education on all reconstructive options and appropriately address the needs of transgender and gender diverse people affected by breast cancer.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Gender Medicine in Clinical Radiology Practice

Gender Medicine is rapidly emerging as a branch of medicine that studies how many diseases common to men and women differ in terms of prevention, clinical manifestations, diagnostic-therapeutic approach, prognosis, and psychological and social impact. Nowadays, the presentation and identification of many pathological conditions pose unique diagnostic challenges. However, women have always been paradoxically underestimated in epidemiological studies, drug trials, as well as clinical trials, so many clinical conditions affecting the female population are often underestimated and/or delayed and may result in inadequate clinical management. Knowing and valuing these differences in healthcare, thus taking into account individual variability, will make it possible to ensure that each individual receives the best care through the personalization of therapies, the guarantee of diagnostic-therapeutic pathways declined according to gender, as well as through the promotion of gender-specific prevention initiatives. This article aims to assess potential gender differences in clinical-radiological practice extracted from the literature and their impact on health and healthcare. Indeed, in this context, radiomics and radiogenomics are rapidly emerging as new frontiers of imaging in precision medicine. The development of clinical practice support tools supported by artificial intelligence allows through quantitative analysis to characterize tissues noninvasively with the ultimate goal of extracting directly from images indications of disease aggressiveness, prognosis, and therapeutic response. The integration of quantitative data with gene expression and patient clinical data, with the help of structured reporting as well, will in the near future give rise to decision support models for clinical practice that will hopefully improve diagnostic accuracy and prognostic power as well as ensure a more advanced level of precision medicine.

Development and validation of nomograms to predict the survival probability and occurrence of a second primary malignancy of male breast cancer patients: a population-based analysis

Background

Male breast cancer (MBC) is rare, which has restricted prospective research among MBC patients. With effective treatments, the prognosis of MBC patients has improved and developing a second primary malignancy (SPM) has become a life-threatening event for MBC survivors. However, few studies have focused on the prognosis of MBC patients and looked into the SPM issue in MBC survivors.

Method

We reviewed MBC patients diagnosed between 1990 and 2016 from the latest Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Plus database. Competing risk models and nomograms were conducted for predicting the risk of cancer-specific death and SPM occurrence. C-indexes, calibration curves, ROC curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA) curves were applied for validation.

Result

A total of 1,843 MBC patients with complete information were finally enrolled and 60 (3.26%) had developed an SPM. Prostate cancer (40%) was the most common SPM. The median OS of all the enrolled patients was 102.41 months, while the median latency from the initial MBC diagnosis to the subsequent diagnosis of SPM was 67.2 months. The patients who suffered from an SPM shared a longer OS than those patients with only one MBC (p = 0.027). The patients were randomly divided into the development cohort and the validation cohort (at a ratio of 7:3). The Fine and Gray competing risk model was used to identify the risk factors. Two nomograms were constructed and validated to predict the 5-year, 8-year, and 10-year survival probability of MBC patients, both of which had good performance in the C-index, ROC curves, calibration plots, and DCA curves, showing the ideal discrimination capability and predictive value clinically. Furthermore, we, for the first time, constructed a nomogram based on the competing risk model to predict the 5-year, 8-year, and 10-year probability of developing an SPM in MBC survivors, which also showed good discrimination, calibration, and clinical effectiveness.

Conclusion

We, for the first time, included treatment information and clinical parameters to construct a nomogram to predict not only the survival probability of MBC patients but also the probability of developing an SPM in MBC survivors, which were helpful in individual risk estimation, patient follow-up, and counseling in MBC patients.

Sexual Health after a Breast Cancer Diagnosis: Addressing a Forgotten Aspect of Survivorship

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. The life expectancy after a breast cancer diagnosis is improving steadily, leaving many more persons with the long-term consequences of treatment. Sexual problems are a common concern for breast cancer survivors yet remain overlooked in both the clinical setting and the research literature. Factors that contribute to sexual health concerns in breast cancer survivors are biopsychosocial, as are the barriers to addressing and treating these health concerns. Sexual health needs and treatment may vary by anatomy and gender. Multidisciplinary management may comprise lifestyle modifications, medications, sexual health aids such as vibrators, counseling, and referrals to pelvic health physical therapy and specialty care. In this article, we review the contributing factors, screening, and management of sexual difficulties in cisgender female breast cancer survivors. More information is needed to better address the sexual health of breast cancer survivors whose sexual/gender identity differs from that of cisgender women.

A Single-Center Study of Adherence to Breast Cancer Screening Mammography Guidelines by Transgender and Non-Binary Patients

BACKGROUND

Adherence to screening guidelines among transgender and non-binary (TGNB) populations is not well studied. This study examines breast cancer screening patterns among TGNB patients at an urban academic medical center.

METHODS

Demographic information, risk factors, and screening mammography were collected. Mammography rates were calculated in populations of interest according to national guidelines, and mammogram person-years were also calculated. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 253 patients were analyzed: 193 transgender women and non-binary people designated male at birth (TGNB DMAB) and 60 transgender men and non-binary people designated female at birth (TGNB DFAB). The median (interquartile range) age was 53.2 years (42.3-62.6). Most patients had no family history of breast cancer (n = 163, 64.4%) and were on hormone therapy (n = 191, 75.5%). Most patients where White (n = 164, 64.8%), employed (n = 113, 44.7%), and had public insurance (n = 128, 50.6%). TGNB DFAB breast screening rates were low, ranging from 2.0 to 50.0%, as were TGNB DMAB screening rates, ranging from 7.1 to 47.6%. The screening rates among the TGNB DFAB and TGNB DMAB groups did not significantly differ from one another. Among TGNB DFAB patients, univariate analyses showed no significant predictors for mammography. Among TGNB DMAB patients, not being on hormone therapy resulted in fewer odds of undergoing mammography. There were no significant findings on multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSION

Mammography rates in the TGNB population are lower than institutional and national rates for cisgender patients, which are 77.3% and 66.7-78.4%, respectively. Stage of transition, organs present, hormone therapy, and risk factors should be considered to guide screening.

A Review of Breast Cancer Risk Factors in Adolescents and Young Adults

Simple Summary

Cancer diagnosed in patients between the ages of 15 and 39 deserves special consideration. Diagnoses within this cohort of adolescents and young adults include childhood cancers which present at an older age than expected, or an early presentation of cancers that are typically observed in older adults, such as breast cancer. Cancers within this age group are associated with worse disease-free and overall survival rates, and the incidence of these cases are rising. Knowing an individual’s susceptibility to disease can change their clinical management and allow for the risk-testing of relatives. This review discusses the risk factors that contribute to breast cancer in this unique cohort of patients, including inherited genetic risk factors, as well as environmental and lifestyle factors. We also describe risk models that allow clinicians to quantify a patient’s lifetime risk of developing disease.

Abstract

Cancer in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) deserves special consideration for several reasons. AYA cancers encompass paediatric malignancies that present at an older age than expected, or early-onset of cancers that are typically observed in adults. However, disease diagnosed in the AYA population is distinct to those same cancers which are diagnosed in a paediatric or older adult setting. Worse disease-free and overall survival outcomes are observed in the AYA setting, and the incidence of AYA cancers is increasing. Knowledge of an individual’s underlying cancer predisposition can influence their clinical care and may facilitate early tumour surveillance strategies and cascade testing of at-risk relatives. This information can further influence reproductive decision making. In this review we discuss the risk factors contributing to AYA breast cancer, such as heritable predisposition, environmental, and lifestyle factors. We also describe a number of risk models which incorporate genetic factors that aid clinicians in quantifying an individual’s lifetime risk of disease.