Breitkopf, Carmen Radecki

Background: Latinas with mammographic dense breasts are at increased risk of breast cancer. This randomized controlled trial tests the effectiveness of three breast density (BD) educational approaches on adherence to subsequent mammography screening among Latinas receiving care at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). Measure(s): Adherence was ascertained using electronic health record and survey responses. Kaplan–Meier estimates of the time to subsequent mammogram were used to obtain adherence rates at 1- and 2-years post baseline mammogram. Cox modeling assessed whether adherence differed by patient characteristics or group assignment. Results: This analysis was limited to Latinas enrolled between October 27, 2016, and December 21, 2018 ( n = 946; 66.1% <50 years of age, 53.5% with dense breasts). Adherence rates at 1 year was 24.8% increasing to 51.7% by year 2. Latinas randomized to the Promotora + brochure + letter arm (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.09 [95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.87 to 1.36]) or brochure + letter (HR: 1.03 [95% CI 0.82 to 1.29]) arm were not more likely to be adherent to subsequent mammography compared to the letter only arm ( p = 0.76) . Adjusting for age and study group, having more prior mammograms, being “extremely likely” to get an annual mammogram, and having more confidence to get an annual mammogram at baseline were significant drivers of subsequent adherence. Conclusion: Informational interventions targeting BD education alone are unlikely to significantly improve adherence to subsequent mammography among Latinas receiving care in FQHCs.

BackgroundThe objective of this randomized trial was to evaluate the short‐term effect of bilingual written and interpersonal education regarding mammographic breast density (MBD).MethodsLatinas aged 40 to 74 years who were presenting for screening mammography were recruited and randomized 1:1:1 to receive a letter with their mammogram and MBD results (usual care [UC]), a letter plus a brochure (enhanced care [ENH]), or a letter plus a brochure and telephonic promotora education (interpersonal care [INT]). Surveys were administered at enrollment (T0) and 2 weeks to 6 months after intervention delivery (T1). Differences were assessed with χ2, Kruskal‐Wallis, and McNemar tests and pairwise comparisons as appropriate. INT metrics and audio recordings were analyzed with descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.ResultsBetween October 2016 and October 2019, 943 of 1108 Latina participants (85%) completed both surveys. At T1, INT participants were more likely (P < .001) to report seeing their MBD results in the letter (70.2%) than UC (53.1%) or ENH participants (55.1%). The percentage of INT women who reported speaking with a provider about MBD (29.0%) was significantly greater (P < .001) than the percentage of UC (14.7%) or ENH participants (15.6%). All groups saw significant (P < .001) but nondifferential improvements in their knowledge of MBD as a masking and risk factor. In the INT group, the promotora delivered education to 77.1% of the 446 participants randomized to INT and answered questions at 28.3% of the encounters for an average of $4.70 per participant.ConclusionsAmong Latinas in a low‐resource setting, MBD knowledge may increase with written or interpersonal education, but with modest investment, interpersonal education may better improve MBD awareness and prompt patient‐provider discussions.

Introduction: Compared to Whites, African-Americans (AAs) have 82% lower odds of meeting ideal levels for five or more cardiovascular (CV) health components that comprise the American Heart Association’s Life’s Simple 7, an evidenced-based metric of seven health promoting behaviors and biological factors that improve CV outcomes. Given expanding mobile technology use among AAs, mobile health (mHealth) interventions are promising avenues to promote CV health within this population. Hypothesis: An evidence-based, theory-informed, culturally relevant, community-based mHealth lifestyle intervention would improve CV health among AAs adults. Methods: Five predominately AA churches collaborated in a community-based participatory research approach to develop a 10-week CV health and wellness digital application-based program ( FAITH! App ). We enrolled AA adults [N=50, mean age 49.6 (SD 12.7), 70% women (35/50)] into a single group, 10-week intervention centered on the FAITH! App with adjunct in-person sessions. The FAITH! App included ten core video education modules from health professionals on CV health, interactive diet/physical activity self-monitoring and a sharing board. The primary outcome was change in individual CV health behaviors (body mass index, physical activity, diet, cigarette smoking) and biological factors (blood pressure (BP), total cholesterol, fasting glucose) from baseline to post-intervention at 28 weeks. Results: Participants were overall high CV risk at baseline (hypertensive [40% (20/50)] with poor/intermediate physical activity [79% (37/47)] and diet [72% (36/50)]). At 28 weeks, there were substantial improvements in CV health factors (systolic and diastolic BPs), CV health behaviors (diet, physical activity) and psychological/psychosocial variables to promote behavior change ( Table 1 ). Conclusions: This study supports the benefits of a culturally relevant, community-based mHealth lifestyle intervention to promote CV health among AAs with high cardiometabolic risk.

Abstract Background: Racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes persist in the US, in which black women are more likely to die from breast cancer than white women. Despite levels of mammographic screening comparable to the US, Atlanta has a disproportionate burden of late-stage breast tumors and higher mortality rates, especially among black women. To better understand this disparity, we sought to identify tumor, treatment, and patient characteristics that may contribute to the observed differences in breast cancer mortality between black and white women in the metropolitan Atlanta area. Methods: In this study, patients were identified from the Georgia Cancer Registry. We included 4943 non-Hispanic white and 3580 non-Hispanic black women with an initial diagnosis of stage I-IV primary breast cancer between January 2010 and December 2014 in Atlanta. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare black vs. white breast cancer mortality by tumor (stage, grade, ER status, and molecular subtype), treatment (surgery type, receipt of chemotherapy, radiation, hormone therapy, and trastuzumab), and patient (insurance, marital status, SES, and location of service) characteristics. We performed a mediation analysis to evaluate the contribution of subtype, stage, and socioeconomic status (SES) as mediators on the path between race and breast cancer mortality. Results: Compared with white breast cancer patients, black women were younger with tumors that were higher stage, higher grade, and more likely to be larger, node positive and triple negative. In fully adjusted models, black women diagnosed with Luminal A subtype were 58% more likely to die of breast cancer compared to their white counterparts (HR=1.58, 95%CI 1.31-2.00). Similarly, black women with private insurance were 60% more likely to die of breast cancer (HR=1.61, 95%CI 1.25-1.98), and black women in the highest SES group were more than twice as likely to die from breast cancer (HR=2.26, 95%CI 1.26-4.06) than white women with comparable SES. The smallest disparities in breast cancer mortality by race were observed among women without insurance, in the lowest SES index, or those diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer. The mediation analysis showed 84.8% of the effect between race and breast cancer mortality was through stage, subtype, and SES. Conclusion: Our results indicate variation in racial disparities in breast cancer mortality by tumor and patient characteristics. Consistent with previous reports, our mediation results suggest that later stage and triple-negative subtype among black women are major contributors of the observed disparity. However, our results also shed new light on the disparity, suggesting that the largest disparities are observed among women with ER+ tumors amenable to adjuvant therapies and are most pronounced among women of high SES. More research is needed to understand the drivers of disparities in these treatable tumors. Citation Format: Lindsay J. Collin, Renjian Jiang, Kevin C. Ward, Keerthi Gogineni, Preeti D. Subhedar, Mark Sherman, Mia M. Gaudet, Carmen Radecki Breitkopf, Olivia D'Angelo, Sheryl Gabram-Mendola, Jolie Siegel, Rana Aneja, Anne Gaglioti, Lauren E. McCullough. Identification of factors contributing to breast cancer mortality disparities in the metropolitan Atlanta area [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2018 Nov 2-5; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(6 Suppl):Abstract nr C053.

Objectives: To describe the feasibility of a chaplain-led spiritually focused life review interview and the development of a spiritual legacy document (SLD) for patients with advanced diseases and to describe changes in spiritual well-being (SWB), spiritual coping strategies (SC), and quality of life (QOL) after receiving the SLD. Patients and Methods: In all, 130 patients and support person (SP) pairs were recruited from July 2012 to January 2019. Following enrollment, demographic information was gathered and baseline questionnaires were administered. Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT-Sp-12) and a linear analog scale assessment (LASA) measured SWB. LASAs also measured QOL and emotional well-being (EWB). Positive Religious Coping Scale (RCOPE) measured SC. After completion of baseline forms, participants were interviewed (individually) by a chaplain. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and verified. Transcripts were edited and participants were given the opportunity to make adaptations. The participant-approved draft was then developed into a professionally printed SLD. Follow-up questionnaires were administered to assess change. Results: Significant improvements from baseline to post-SLD follow-up were found for patients on the LASAs: SWB (average 7.7-8.3, P = .01), QOL (average 6.7-7.3, P = .03), EWB (average 6.9-7.5, P = .01), and on the positive RCOPE (average 1.8-2.0, P = .007). Effect sizes were approximately 0.25. Considering any improvement, 61.0% improved their positive RCOPE score, 46.6% improved EWB, and 39.7% improved SWB. No significant changes were found on the FACIT-Sp-12. No significant changes were found for SPs. Conclusion: The results suggest that the primary participants who completed the study benefited by significantly increasing their QOL, SWB, EWB, and SC.

Objective: This study sought to understand the patients’ perspective of what contributes to an absence of discussions of sexual orientation (SO), gender identity (GI), and sexual health in cancer care. Methods: Patients were recruited from oncology, gynecology, and a gender transition clinic to participate in semistructured interviews, which were analyzed with qualitative methods. Results: A total of 25 patients were interviewed, shedding light on 2 themes. The first was that these conversations are important but infrequent. One patient explained, “…. we know people who have had sex changes…[they] would have appreciated that question.” In response to whether sexual health was ever brought up, one patient responded, “No doctor ever has.” Patients described unaddressed issues: “There have been times, you know, we’ve wondered if it was okay to make love.” The second theme consisted of 4 pragmatic, patient-provided points to facilitate discussions: (1) implementation of a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being comfortable) to first gauge patients’ comfort in talking about SO, GI, and sexual health; (2) having the health-care provider explore the topic again over-time; (3) making sure the health-care provider is comfortable, as such comfort appears to enhance the patient’s comfort (“I have a doctor here, a female doctor, who just matter of fact will ask if I get erections and so on because of the medication she’s giving me);” and (4) eliminating euphemisms (one patient stated, “I don’t know what you mean by ‘sexual health’.”). Conclusion: Oncology health-care providers have a unique opportunity and responsibility to address SO, GI, and sexual health.

While genetic research (GR) is fueling discoveries in fields like precision medicine, there is a growing concern that underrepresentation of racial and ethnic populations in GR will limit access to its benefits and subsequently worsen health disparities. This study aimed to understand GR perceptions among members from underrepresented communities by studying discourse and language use in focus group discussions. Nine focus groups were conducted with adults from three populations: African American, Hispanic/Latino, and Native American; 53 women and 15 men participated. Data were analyzed using methods of discourse and content analysis. Discourse analysis highlighted how conceptualization of science and family—rooted in historical experiences—can influence views on GR risks and benefits to self and others. The use of focus group discourse in particular provided an opportunity for group sense making around the science and ethics of GR. Content analysis highlighted differences between the language use of focus group moderators, who spoke about scientific discovery and research oversight, and that of participants, whose talk highlighted ancestral bloodline, personal risk, and ethical concerns. The findings can inform efforts to bolster GR participation, including recruitment and educational campaigns. However, they also challenge researchers to consider areas of discordance between their own and community members’ conceptualization of the risks and benefits of GR participation, including the notion of future and family benefit.

Background: Although national organizations advocate that health-care providers ask patients about sexual health and sexual and gender minority status—to learn, for example, about side effects of treatment and to understand patients’ social support—these conversations often do not occur. This study explored health-care providers’ reasons for having/not having these conversations. Methods: This single-institution study recruited health-care providers from medical oncology, hematology, radiation oncology, and gynecology. Face-to-face interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed qualitatively. Results: Three main themes emerged: (1) patient-centric reasons for discussing/not discussing sexual health and sexual and gender minority status (“So I think just the holistic viewpoint is important”); (2) health-care provider–centric reasons for discussing/not discussing these issues (“That’s going to take more time to talk about and to deal with…” or “I was raised orthodox, so this is not something we talk about…”; and (3) reasons that appeared to straddle both of the above themes (eg, acknowledgment of the sometimes taboo nature of these topics). Conclusion: Although many health-care providers favor talking with patients with cancer about sexual health and sexual and gender minority status, limited time, personal reluctance, and the taboo nature of these topics appear at times to hamper the initiation of these conversations.

AbstractBackgroundRacial disparities in breast cancer (BC) outcomes persist where non-Hispanic black (NHB) women are more likely to die from BC than non-Hispanic white (NHW) women, and the extent of this disparity varies geographically. We evaluated tumor, treatment, and patient characteristics that contribute to racial differences in BC mortality in Atlanta, Georgia, where the disparity was previously characterized as especially large.MethodsWe identified 4943 NHW and 3580 NHB women in the Georgia Cancer Registry with stage I–IV BC diagnoses in Atlanta (2010–2014). We used Cox proportional hazard regression to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing NHB vs NHW BC mortality by tumor, treatment, and patient characteristics on the additive and multiplicative scales. We additionally estimated the mediating effects of these characteristics on the association between race and BC mortality.ResultsAt diagnosis, NHB women were younger—with higher stage, node-positive, and triple-negative tumors relative to NHW women. In age-adjusted models, NHB women with luminal A disease had a 2.43 times higher rate of BC mortality compared to their NHW counterparts (95% CI = 1.99 to 2.97). High socioeconomic status (SES) NHB women had more than twice the mortality rates than their white counterparts (HR = 2.67, 95% CI = 1.65 to 4.33). Racial disparities among women without insurance, in the lowest SES index, or diagnosed with triple-negative BC were less pronounced.ConclusionsIn Atlanta, the largest racial disparities are observed in luminal tumors and most pronounced among women of high SES. More research is needed to understand drivers of disparities within these treatable features.

Efforts to characterize stakeholder attitudes about the implementation of genomic medicine would benefit from a validated instrument for measuring public views of the potential benefits and harms of genomic technologies, which would facilitate comparison across populations and clinical settings. We sought to develop a scale to evaluate attitudes about the future of genomic medicine. We developed a 21‐item scale that examined the likelihood of various outcomes of genomic medicine. The scale was administered to participants in a genomic sequencing study. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted and bivariate correlations were calculated. The genomic orientation (GO) scale was completed by 2895 participants. A two‐factor structure was identified, corresponding to an optimism subscale (16 items, α = 0.89) and a pessimism subscale (5 items, α = 0.63). Genomic optimism was positively associated with a perceived value of genetic test results, higher health literacy, and decreased decisional conflict about participation in a genomic research study. Genomic pessimism was associated with concerns about genetic testing, lower health literacy, and increased decisional conflict about the decision to participate in the study. The GO scale is a promising tool for measuring both positive and negative views regarding the future of genomic medicine and deserves further validation.