Carroll, Evelyn F.

Purpose To assess how comfortable patients with cancer are in responding to intimate questions on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) and to examine whether question sequencing alters patient-reported comfort. Patients and Methods Patients with cancer were asked to respond to one of two surveys that were provided to patients in a randomized manner and that included seven identical SOGI questions but differed in sequence of responses (upfront vs later debated terms, e.g. “genderqueer”). Using a Likert scale (1 = very uncomfortable to 5 = very comfortable), patients rated comfort. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients comfortable with the question, “Do you consider yourself to be… [12 response options, including genderqueer]”. Secondary endpoints included differences in comfort based on question sequence or demographics. Write-in comments were captured. Results 74% of patients (95% CI: 70%, 78%) were comfortable when reviewing the primary endpoint SOGI question. Similar comfort levels were reported for the other questions. No significant differences in comfort were observed based on question sequence or demographics. Four themes emerged from write in comments 1) emotional reactions to the questions (“uncomfortable because this question is essentially gender binary”) 2) emotional reactions toward SOGI (“bending over backwards to be politically correct”); 3) concern for privacy and relevance to cancer care (“not sure why this information is needed/necessary”); and 4) constructive remarks (“didn’t know what cisgender was - please define”). Conclusions Most patients with cancer are comfortable in answering SOGI questions. However, their comfort might be enhanced with slight question/response modifications.

Abstract As a group of diverse co-authors working in the fields of clinical radiology and oncology, we have first-hand experience of the systems that impact medical careers. Women remain underrepresented in most spaces and often face a complex set of obstacles exacerbated by additional protected characteristics such as race, disability and sexual orientation. The impact of flexible working and care giving responsibilities on career development as well as leadership opportunities further widens the gap between under- and overrepresented groups. In this commentary we describe the intersectional challenges faced by women in our specialties and the challenge of navigating these spaces to achieve career success. We explore the various forms of discrimination and its impact on representation in medicine. Potential strategies and solutions aimed at promoting a more equitable specialty are also highlighted.

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.

Abstract Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals face unique challenges in accessing affirming, evidence-based breast imaging care because of longstanding disparities in provider education, institutional practices, and imaging guidelines. Gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgeries, such as chest masculinization or breast augmentation, impact breast tissue composition and cancer risk, necessitating individualized imaging approaches. Through multiple clinical vignettes, this article illustrates potential pitfalls and key considerations in breast imaging for TGD patients, including appropriate imaging recommendations, inclusive system-level changes, and navigating patient encounters. Education of breast imaging radiologists, technologists, and front-desk staff is critical to bridge the known knowledge gap and improve outcomes for this patient population. By adopting inclusive, culturally competent, and trauma-informed practices, breast imaging professionals can help reduce disparities and improve the experience and health outcomes of TGD patients.

1530 Background: Regular breast cancer screening reduces mortality. The American College of Radiology (ACR) recommends annual screening mammography for asymptomatic, average risk 1) transgender and gender diverse (TGD) men (individuals assigned female sex at birth but identify as men) age 40+ and with residual breast tissue and 2) TGD women (individuals assigned male sex at birth but identify as women) age 40+ and on gender-affirming hormone therapy for 5+ years. This nationwide study investigated screening mammography in TGD individuals. Methods: Four cohorts were identified with complex algorithms of medical and pharmacy data in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a longitudinal, administrative insurance claims database that includes patients with commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage: 1) TGD men, 2) TGD women, 3) individuals with gender dysphoria not meeting other TGD criteria (NMOT), and 4) cisgender women -- all of whom met ACR screening criteria. The primary endpoint was the percentage of individuals with high adherence, defined as completing >75% of recommended screenings; comparisons were made across the cohorts (Chi-square test). Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare adherence between TGD men and cisgender women with adjustment for demographics and with 1:4 matching (on race/ethnicity, age group, year of healthcare plan enrollment, and duration of follow-up). Results: 10,478 TGD individuals (3,778 TGD men; 1,294 TGD women; and 5,406 with gender dysphoria NMOT) and 6,218,369 cisgender women were identified. For TGD men, TGD women, individuals with gender dysphoria NMOT, and cisgender women, high adherence was observed in 41.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 39.5, 42.6%); 7.4% (95% CI: 6.0, 8.8%); 11.9% (95% CI: 11.0, 12.7%); and 38.3% (95% CI: 38.3, 38.4%), respectively, p < 0.0001. No screening ever in these same populations was observed in 23.6% (95% CI: 22.2, 24.9%); 81.3% (95% CI: 79.2, 83.4%), 72.8% (95% CI: 71.6, 74%), and 35.9% (95% CI: 35.8, 35.9%), respectively, p < 0.0001. When TGD men were matched and compared to 15,112 cisgender women, a differential association was observed between gender and high adherence by age group (p < 0.0001); compared to cisgender women, the likelihood of high adherence in TGD men ages 40-49 (n = 2,472), 50-59 (n = 852), 60-69 (n = 320), and 70+ (n = 134) were as follows: odds ratios (OR‘s): 1.38 (95% CI: 1.28, 1.50), p < 0.0001; 1.57 (95% CI: 1.35, 1.81), p < 0.0001; 0.812 (95% CI: 0.619, 1.065), p = 0.1316; and 1.277 (95% CI 0.835, 1.951), p = 0.2595, respectively. Conclusions: This study found that TGD men manifest relatively high adherence to screening mammography, whereas TGD women and individuals with gender dysphoria NMOT manifest low adherence. Future research should focus on improving breast cancer screening in these underserved populations.

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.