Cooley, Mary E.

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.

Abstract Background: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men. Monitoring of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can enhance provider-patient communication, promote better decision-making, and improve survival. Geospatial factors, namely rurality and neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation, could influence the experience across cancer treatment, thus impacting PROs and survival. This study examined associations of rurality, neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation (Area Deprivation Index [ADI]) with cancer treatment-related PROs and survival in men with prostate cancer. Methods: Data from men with prostate cancer in the trial NRG Oncology/RTOG 0415 were analyzed. In this trial, 1092 men were randomized to receive conventional radiotherapy (RT) or hypofractionated RT. Patients had Gleason scores of 2-6 and prostate-specific antigen of &lt;10 ng/mL. Rurality was categorized as urban vs rural using Rural-Urban Continuum Codes via patient zip codes. Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation was assessed by the ADI calculated via the American Community Survey by patient zip codes. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) measures cancer-specific quality of life (QOL); Hopkins Symptom Checklist measures anxiety and depression; EuroQoL-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) VAS and Index scores assess general health. All PROs were measured at baseline before and 6, 12, 24 and 60 months after RT. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Mixed effects models and generalized estimating equations were used to analyze PROs. Results: We analyzed 751 patients with complete data. Patients from the ADI 25% most deprived neighborhoods (vs. the other 75% of neighborhoods) were more likely to be non-white, unmarried and from rural areas. At baseline, patients from the most deprived areas had worse EPIC bowel score (P=0.011), worse sexual score (P=0.042) and worse hormonal score (P=0.015); patients from the most deprived areas had worse self-care (P=0.04) and more pain (P=0.047). Patients from rural areas had worse EPIC urinary score (P=0.03) and sexual score (P=0.003). Longitudinal analyses showed that ADI 25% most deprived areas (β=4.05, P=0.001) and rural areas (β=-5.70, P=0.003) were associated with worse EQ-5D VAS score. Compared to the 75% less deprived neighborhoods and urban, the ADI 25% most deprived neighborhoods and rural areas respectively had 47% (HR=1.466, P=0.033) and 93% (HR=1.925, P=0.026) relative increase in risk of recurrence or death (DFS). No differences were seen in OS. Conclusions: Patients with prostate cancer from the most deprived neighborhoods and rural areas had low QOL at baseline, poor general health and DFS. Interventions should target populations from socioeconomic deprived neighborhoods and rural areas to improve patient access to supportive care services and DFS. Citation Format: Jinbing Bai, Stephanie L. Pugh, Ronald Eldridge, Katherine Yeager, Qi Zhang, W Robert Lee, Amit B. Shah, Ian S. Dayes, David P. D'Souza, Jeff M. Michalski, Jason A. Efstathiou, John M. Longo, Thomas M. Pisansky, Jordan M. Maier, Sergio L. Faria, Anand B. Desai, Samantha A. Seaward, Howard M. Sandler, Mary E. Cooley, Deborah W. Bruner. Rurality and neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation associated with patient-reported outcomes andsurvivalin men with prostate cancer in NRG RTOG 0415 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 2528.