Davidge-Pitts, Caroline

PURPOSE This national study was undertaken to determine screening mammography rates among transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals. METHODS TGD individuals and cisgender women who qualified to receive screening mammography based on American College of Radiology guidelines were identified in the longitudinal OptumLabs Data Warehouse. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who had high rates of screening (>75% recommended screenings). Multivariable analyses were conducted in a matched population of transgender men to cisgender women to identify and adjust for factors associated with high adherence. Individuals were matched at a 1:4 ratio (transgender men: cisgender women) on age, race/ethnicity, year of enrollment in their health care plan, and duration of follow-up. RESULTS This study focused on 10,478 TGD individuals (3,778 transgender men; 1,294 transgender women; 5,406 with gender dysphoria not meeting other TGD criteria, NMOT) and 6,218,369 cisgender women. For transgender men, transgender women, individuals with gender dysphoria NMOT, and cisgender women, high mammography rates were observed in 41.1% (95% CI, 39.5 to 42.6), 7.4% (95% CI, 6.0 to 8.8), 11.9% (95% CI, 11.0 to 12.7), and 38.3% (95% CI, 38.3 to 38.4), respectively ( P < .0001). When transgender men were compared with 15,112 matched cisgender women, an age-based differential association was observed between sex and high mammography rates (interaction P = .0003); compared with cisgender women, transgender men appeared more likely to manifest high rates of screening at age 40-49 years (odds ratios [ORs], 1.38 [95% CI, 1.28 to 1.50]; P < .0001) and 50-59 years (OR, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.81]; P < .0001) but not in the older age groups. CONCLUSION The relatively high rates of screening mammography in cisgender women and transgender men suggest clinicians are offering mammography to individuals who are at average or high breast cancer risk, as compared with cisgender women, and not to transgender women at low risk.

BackgroundFocally enlarged sulci (FES) are areas of proposed extraventricular fluid entrapment that may occur within idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) with radiographic evidence of disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid‐space hydrocephalus (DESH), and should be differentiated from atrophy.PurposeTo evaluate for change in FES size and pituitary height after shunt placement in iNPH.Study typeRetrospective.SubjectsA total of 125 iNPH patients who underwent shunt surgery and 40 age‐matched controls.Field Strength/Sequence1.5 T and 3 T. Axial T2w FLAIR, 3D T1w MPRAGE, 2D sagittal T1w.AssessmentFES were measured in three dimensions and volume was estimated by assuming an ellipsoid shape. Pituitary gland height was measured in the mid third of the gland in iNPH patients and controls.Statistical testsWilcoxon signed‐rank test for comparisons between MRI measurements; Wilcoxon rank sum test for comparison of cases/controls. Significance level was P < 0.05.ResultsFifty percent of the patients had FES. FES volume significantly decreased between the pre and first postshunt MRI by a median of 303 mm3 or 30.0%. Pituitary gland size significantly increased by 0.48 mm or 14.4%. FES decreased significantly by 190 mm3 or 23.1% and pituitary gland size increased significantly by 0.25 mm or 6% between the first and last postshunt MRI.Data ConclusionDecrease in size of FES after shunt placement provides further evidence that these regions are due to disordered cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) dynamics and should not be misinterpreted as atrophy. A relatively smaller pituitary gland in iNPH patients that normalizes after shunt is a less‐well recognized feature of altered CSF dynamics.Evidence Level3Technical EfficacyStage 2

Background: The sex- and gender-specific health (SGSH) multimedia case-based learning modules (MCBLMs) were developed to address the absence of validated or peer-reviewed material that incorporates topics of sex and gender differences into medical curricula. This article provides the methodology for development of the modules and reports the results of a field test of the modules in different medical educational settings. Methods: MCBLMs were created by a multidisciplinary committee of scientists, health profession educators, and students. Two modules, osteoporosis and diabetes, were tested in various settings based on the curricular needs at each of the five accredited institutions. Each module consisted of a pretest and three interactive, multimedia stand-alone sections with post-tests. Scores on the tests were compared using a paired-samples t -test. A postmodule survey was used to evaluate the format. Results: Four hundred eighteen students participated in the field testing. For the 194 who completed the osteoporosis module, the post-test scores (M = 13.71, standard deviation [SD] = 2.09) were significantly higher than the pretest scores (M = 10.54, SD = 2.41), p < 0.001. Post-test scores for the 285 who completed the diabetes module (M = 16.55, SD = 2.46) were also significantly higher than the pretest scores (M = 13.71, SD = 2.09), p < 0.001. The postmodule survey showed positive acceptance of the format with an average score of 3.54/4 for osteoporosis and 3.45/4 for diabetes. Conclusion: The SGSH MCBLM field testing results show that the modules have a positive effect on content knowledge in multiple settings and are well accepted by learners.