Zeigler-Johnson, Charnita M

Abstract Introduction: COE has become the gold standard in addressing health disparities. COE’s value is emphasized by NIH and leading cancer-related organizations e.g., AACR. The Alliance for COE (The Alliance) mission is to advance the art, science, and impact of COE; promote community health and wellness; and reduce cancer burden and disparities. Methods: This abstract builds on the Alliance’s Science of Community Outreach and Engagement (SoCOE) Conference a NCI R13 funded series. SoCOE Conference is organized by 10 NCI-designated Cancer Centers to provide a platform for COE academic-clinical-policy-community stakeholders to share best practices for solution-focused community responsive cancer prevention, diagnostics, therapeutics and survivorship research and practice. Results: > 500 researchers, clinicians, policymakers, healthcare administrators, with >12% being survivors and/or advocates, participated in our SoCOE Conferences. The delegates’ recommendations are: Decentralize who/entities that hold all the power in science and clinical research (trials). Communities hold valuable, necessary wisdom and resources to inform and guide science Include multisectoral partners early and always Community capacity building and compensation with gratitude Mentoring of junior COE researchers, clinicians, policymakers, healthcare administrators, survivors and advocates with humility is a must Develop virtual communities to share best practices across cancer centers and within regions Develop working groups to identify and explore commonalities across COE work in rural/urban, diverse/homogenous spaces Publish Science of COE papers on various topics related to COE Frameworks and evidenced-solutions Provide community reports on best practice guide that can be widely available to be shared locally and in-person, and digitally Partner and learn from COE teams working with other cultural/ethnic groups Attend to, measure and remedy societal/social drivers of health disparities that mirror barriers to care, and research engagement and participation. Discussion: Informed by our community advisory boards and the findings for our SoCOE Conferences, we present the pillars of the Alliance to tackle population cancer burden and disparities: Training future COE leaders/advocates, Advocating for public health policies/guidelines, Increasing access to cancer prevention and care that will also increase access to studies, Engaging and partnering with multisectoral stakeholders and communities, Building community capacity, Advancing COE science through catchment-relevant research, and Leading bi-directional communication and information and resource sharing between catchment area communities and cancer centers. The expectation and impact of COE can only be achieved if COE teams are valued, supported cancer center members with community advisory boards and community as cancer centers’ priority population. Citation Format: Kimlin Ashing, CHARNITA ZEIGLER-JOHNSON, Hayley S. Thompson, Kim Rhoads, Nadine Barrett, Lisa Carter Bawa, Timiya S. Nolan, Monica Baskin, Vanessa B. Sheppard, Marvella E. Ford, Erica Phillips, Lorna H. McNeill, Folakemi T. Odedina. Advancing the science, practice and impact of COE [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 7577.

Abstract The requirement of community outreach and engagement (COE) as a major component of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Center Support Grant has had an enormous impact on the way NCI-designated cancer centers identify, investigate, and address the needs of their catchment area (CA) communities. Given the wide-ranging diversity of our nation, COE’s scope of work (SOW) is extremely demanding and complex. Yet, COE is often marginalized and viewed as void of scientific methods when, in fact, it requires specialized scientific knowledge and a broad range of proficiencies. Black COE scientific directors may be particularly attuned to this marginalization as they have often confronted workplace inequities that resemble the health inequities observed within their cancer center’s CA. Thus, Black COE leaders are uniquely positioned to offer insight on the past, present, and future of COE. Key areas discussed include the low involvement of minoritized group members and those with appropriate expertise in national COE leadership; the lack of established, consistent criteria for evaluation of COE components and qualifications of evaluators; the need for substantial financial investment in COE; potential misalignment of community priorities and cancer center objectives; professional development and growth of COE staff and leaders; the expanding scope of COE across their respective cancer centers and CAs; and the need for center-wide involvement in COE and an “all-hands-on-deck” approach. These areas warrant thoughtful dialogue as COE evolves, for the benefit and success of all COE leaders. However, this dialogue must include diverse voices representing similarly diverse stakeholders at every level.

PURPOSE Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services. METHODS A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider). RESULTS Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing—initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing—was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches. CONCLUSION This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.

Abstract Background: Genome-wide association studies have identified multiple genetic variants associated with prostate cancer risk which explain a substantial proportion of familial relative risk. These variants can be used to stratify individuals by their risk of prostate cancer. Methods: We genotyped 25 prostate cancer susceptibility loci in 40,414 individuals and derived a polygenic risk score (PRS). We estimated empirical odds ratios (OR) for prostate cancer associated with different risk strata defined by PRS and derived age-specific absolute risks of developing prostate cancer by PRS stratum and family history. Results: The prostate cancer risk for men in the top 1% of the PRS distribution was 30.6 (95% CI, 16.4–57.3) fold compared with men in the bottom 1%, and 4.2 (95% CI, 3.2–5.5) fold compared with the median risk. The absolute risk of prostate cancer by age of 85 years was 65.8% for a man with family history in the top 1% of the PRS distribution, compared with 3.7% for a man in the bottom 1%. The PRS was only weakly correlated with serum PSA level (correlation = 0.09). Conclusions: Risk profiling can identify men at substantially increased or reduced risk of prostate cancer. The effect size, measured by OR per unit PRS, was higher in men at younger ages and in men with family history of prostate cancer. Incorporating additional newly identified loci into a PRS should improve the predictive value of risk profiles. Impact: We demonstrate that the risk profiling based on SNPs can identify men at substantially increased or reduced risk that could have useful implications for targeted prevention and screening programs. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(7); 1121–9. ©2015 AACR.