Self-reported Cancer Diagnosis Research Articles

Abstract A017: Patient-reported experience related to aspects of quality of life after cystectomy from an exploratory focus group

Abstract Purpose: These exploratory focus groups examined patient experiences after having a cystectomy following bladder cancer. Methods: US individuals aged >50 years with self-reported diagnosis of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) or muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who had undergone partial or radical cystectomy were recruited through a Patient Engagement Research Council program and invited to participate in an exploratory focus group (October 2022). Patients completed a prework survey on initial diagnosis, treatments, and how aspects of their life changed over time from pre-diagnosis, around the time of decision to undergo cystectomy, 90 days after cystectomy, and at present day. Patients attended gender-specific focus group sessions to discuss their patient journey, support needs, and how having a cystectomy affected their lives. Discussions were facilitated by a gender-matched moderator using a semi-structured discussion guide. Patients provided written informed consent and were compensated for their time. Key themes were identified by coding of audio transcripts and direct observations via the qualitative research analysis software MAXQDA. Results: Patients were six White adults (female n=3, male n=3, median age 68 years) with NMIBC (n=2) or MIBC (n=4) who underwent radical cystectomy between 2000 and 2020. Patients reported that bladder-sparing approaches were rarely introduced or discussed by their care team during their diagnostic journey, instead identifying disease eradication and pain improvement as primary drivers for choosing cystectomy. In the first 90 days post-surgery, patients reported that cystectomy negatively affected their ability to perform daily activities, mental health, and physical intimacy while adapting to a “new normal,” citing challenges with urinary diversion routes. Female patients cited a general lack of female-centric support (e.g. feminine hygiene and care education) as their support groups were mostly comprised of male patients focusing on male-centric issues (e.g., erectile dysfunction). In the present day, patients reported lower sex drive, satisfaction with body image, and physical intimacy. Patients called for more privacy consideration during medical examinations, better ostomy care support, increased awareness among healthcare professionals about the struggles patients face throughout their cystectomy journey, and improved education about available treatment options (including bladder preservation) and possible ramifications of cystectomy on all aspects of life (including sexual health and female-centric needs). Conclusions: Cystectomy can negatively affect patients’ lives, affecting their ability to participate in daily activities, mental health, and physical intimacy among those with NMIBC and MIBC. Patients expressed the need for holistic, long-term support (including awareness of treatment options, emotional support, and ostomy care) before, during, and after cystectomy. Citation Format: Nida Imran, Wesley Peters, Karen Fixler, Priyanka Madireddi, Lisa M. Shea, Andrea Ireland. Patient-reported experience related to aspects of quality of life after cystectomy from an exploratory focus group [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Bladder Cancer: Transforming the Field; 2024 May 17-20; Charlotte, NC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2024;30(10_Suppl):Abstract nr A017.

Patterns of Cancer-Related Healthcare Access across Pennsylvania: Analysis of Novel Census Tract-Level Indicators of Persistent Poverty.

Persistent poverty census tracts have had ≥20% of the population living below the federal poverty line for 30+ years. We assessed the relationship between persistent poverty and cancer-related healthcare access across census tracts in Pennsylvania. We gathered publicly available census tract-level data on persistent poverty, rurality, and sociodemographic variables, as well as potential access to healthcare (i.e., prevalence of health insurance, last-year check-up), realized access to healthcare (i.e., prevalence of screening for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancers), and self-reported cancer diagnosis. We used multivariable spatial regression models to assess the relationships between persistent poverty and each healthcare access indicator. Among Pennsylvania's census tracts, 2,789 (89.8%) were classified as non-persistent poverty, and 316 (10.2%) were classified as persistent poverty (113 did not have valid data on persistent poverty). Persistent poverty tracts had lower prevalence of health insurance [estimate = -1.70, standard error (SE) = 0.10], screening for cervical cancer (estimate = -4.00, SE = 0.17) and colorectal cancer (estimate = -3.13, SE = 0.20), and cancer diagnosis (estimate = -0.34, SE = 0.05), compared with non-persistent poverty tracts (all P < 0.001). However, persistent poverty tracts had higher prevalence of last-year check-up (estimate = 0.22, SE = 0.08) and screening for breast cancer (estimate = 0.56, SE = 0.15; both P < 0.01). Relationships between persistent poverty and cancer-related healthcare access outcomes differed in direction and magnitude. Health promotion interventions should leverage data at fine-grained geographic units (e.g., census tracts) to motivate focus on communities or outcomes. Future studies should extend these analyses to other states and outcomes to inform public health research and interventions to reduce geographic disparities.

Exploratory profiles of phenols, parabens, and per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances among NHANES study participants in association with previous cancer diagnoses

BackgroundSome hormonally active cancers have low survival rates, but a large proportion of their incidence remains unexplained. Endocrine disrupting chemicals may affect hormone pathways in the pathology of these cancers.ObjectiveTo evaluate cross-sectional associations between per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), phenols, and parabens and self-reported previous cancer diagnoses in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).MethodsWe extracted concentrations of 7 PFAS and 12 phenols/parabens and self-reported diagnoses of melanoma and cancers of the thyroid, breast, ovary, uterus, and prostate in men and women (≥20 years). Associations between previous cancer diagnoses and an interquartile range increase in exposure biomarkers were evaluated using logistic regression models adjusted for key covariates. We conceptualized race as social construct proxy of structural social factors and examined associations in non-Hispanic Black, Mexican American, and other Hispanic participants separately compared to White participants.ResultsPrevious melanoma in women was associated with higher PFDE (OR:2.07, 95% CI: 1.25, 3.43), PFNA (OR:1.72, 95% CI: 1.09, 2.73), PFUA (OR:1.76, 95% CI: 1.07, 2.89), BP3 (OR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.10, 2.96), DCP25 (OR: 2.41, 95% CI: 1.22, 4.76), and DCP24 (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.05, 3.26). Previous ovarian cancer was associated with higher DCP25 (OR: 2.80, 95% CI: 1.08, 7.27), BPA (OR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.11, 3.35) and BP3 (OR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.00, 3.09). Previous uterine cancer was associated with increased PFNA (OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.34), while higher ethyl paraben was inversely associated (OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.85). Various PFAS were associated with previous ovarian and uterine cancers in White women, while MPAH or BPF was associated with previous breast cancer among non-White women.Impact StatementBiomarkers across all exposure categories (phenols, parabens, and per- and poly- fluoroalkyl substances) were cross-sectionally associated with increased odds of previous melanoma diagnoses in women, and increased odds of previous ovarian cancer was associated with several phenols and parabens. Some associations differed by racial group, which is particularly impactful given the established racial disparities in distributions of exposure to these chemicals. This is the first epidemiological study to investigate exposure to phenols in relation to previous cancer diagnoses, and the first NHANES study to explore racial/ethnic disparities in associations between environmental phenol, paraben, and PFAS exposures and historical cancer diagnosis.

Prevalence of self-reported cancer based on sexual orientation in the United States: a comparative analysis between lesbian, bisexual, gay, and heterosexual individuals.

Our study aimed to compare the prevalence and likelihood of self-reported (SR) cancer diagnosis between lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) groups and the heterosexual population in the United States between 2017 and 2021. This study analyzed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 2017-2021, which included 134,372 heterosexual and 4576 LGB individuals aged 18 and above. The prevalence of any SR cancer and some selected cancers were calculated for the LGB and compared with heterosexual adults. Sexual orientation was used to predict SR cancer diagnosis for each sex using multiple logistic regression, adjusting for other sociodemographic determinants. The unadjusted prevalence of any SR cancer among the LGB population was 9.0%. Lesbian and Bisexual women had higher prevalence of SR cancer of the cervix, uterus, ovary, thyroid, bone, skin melanoma, leukemia, and other blood cancers than Heterosexual women. Gay and Bisexual men had a higher prevalence of SR cancer of the bladder, kidney, skin (non-melanoma, and other kinds), bone, lymphoma, and leukemia than Heterosexual men. After adjusting for other socio-demographic factors, gay men were 1.73 (CI 1.14-2.63, p = 0.01) times more likely than heterosexual men to be diagnosed with cancer, while lesbian women were 2.26 (CI 1.24-4.16, p = 0.009) times more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than heterosexual women. Some sexual minority subgroups are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than their heterosexual counterparts. As a result, more research and SM-specific intervention efforts should focus on cancer risk assessment, screening, prevention, treatment, and survivorship in SM populations.

Skin Cancer Diagnosis Among People With Disabilities

People with disabilities face unique challenges that may affect skin cancer prevention, diagnosis, and access to treatment. These challenges could be exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2022, the prevalence of self-reported skin cancer diagnoses, delayed medical care because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and skin cancer risk factors among people with disabilities were estimated. Data from the 2020 National Health Interview Survey (N=31,568 U.S. adults) were analyzed. Skin cancer diagnosis, age at the time of skin cancer diagnosis, skin cancer risk factors (e.g., sun protection), and delayed medical care because of the COVID-19 pandemic were included. Disability status was measured using the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning, which includes vision, hearing, mobility, communication, self-care, and cognitive disabilities. Although 8.8% of U.S. adults reported having a disability, people with disabilities accounted for 14.7% of all self-reported skin cancer diagnoses, including 17.5% of melanoma diagnoses. Notably, people with disabilities were on average, older (mean age=59.8 years) than people without disabilities (mean age=46.8 years). Models that adjusted for age and other demographics revealed that people with disabilities had higher odds of delaying medical care because of the COVID-19 pandemic (OR=1.65, 95% CI=1.41, 1.94); people with disabilities reported being diagnosed with skin cancer later in life (age 61.5 vs 54.0 years; p<0.001) but had odds of reporting any skin cancer (OR=1.11, 95% CI=0.93, 1.32) or melanoma diagnosis (OR=1.33, 95% CI=0.95, 1.87) similar to those of people without disabilities. Because of disability-related challenges, older age, and delaying medical care during the pandemic, people with disabilities may be at increased risk for inequitable skin cancer outcomes.

Abstract P3-03-24: The WISDOM Study: Early Ascertainment of Breast Cancer Diagnoses by Utilizing Self-Reported Questionnaires and Data Warehouse Electronic Health Records

Abstract BACKGROUND WISDOM (Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of risk) is a pragmatic trial comparing the safety, efficacy, cost, and patient acceptability of personalized versus annual breast cancer screening in women ages 40-74 years with no personal history of breast cancer. Cancer registry reporting is considered the gold standard for ascertaining cancer diagnosis data; however, the time lag between diagnosis and reporting (1-2 years or more) by the California Cancer Registry (CCR) presents challenges. The WISDOM study must quickly ascertain and report accurate cancer diagnoses to the Data Safety Monitoring Board; delays could lead to preventable harm, unnecessary costs, and unwarranted early trial termination. To ascertain cancer diagnoses in a timely manner, we used multiple data collection methods and compared self-reported with Electronic Health Records (EHR) information, and in some cases verified with chart review. Specifically, we conducted a procedural study with WISDOM participants who sought care at a University of California (UC) health system by extracting their data from the University of California Data Warehouse (UCDW) to 1) verify self-reported breast cancer diagnoses in WISDOM; 2) ensure that all on-study breast cancer diagnoses have been captured within the WISDOM study cohort; and 3) assess the accuracy and reliability of self-reported data. The UCDW provides harmonized EHR data from the six University of California (UC) health systems and constitutes ~120 billion data points from 7.8 million patient records. METHODS We provided the UCDW with a list of WISDOM participants who indicated they had sought care from a UC health system. Participants with recorded breast cancer diagnostic code (ICD-10CM C50.) were matched with the WISDOM self-reported cancer dataset to uncover participants who had no recorded breast cancer diagnosis in the study system. For those individuals with no recorded self-report diagnosis, coordinators conducted manual chart review to determine whether the participants had been diagnosed with breast cancer. RESULTS This cohort included 11,314 enrolled WISDOM participants who self-reported care at a UC and had at least one diagnostic or procedural breast care code. Among these participants, 160 had a ICD-10-CM C50 breast cancer diagnostic code of which 132 breast cancer cases were confirmed: 111 were already self-reported through WISDOM and 21 additional confirmed breast cancer cases were identified through the UCDW. As a standard process, only WISDOM self-reported cancer cases that were confirmed by chart review are entered into the study database. The percentage of confirmed UCDW-identified cases that were not also self-reported was greater for recent diagnoses (16% overall and 6% for period prior to June 2020). Among the 11,314 participants in our cohort, the CCR identified 61 pre-June 2020 cancer diagnoses. Of these 61 diagnoses, 92% (56) were identified by the UCDW procedural process. If the UCDW had been used as the single source for cancer diagnosis, 21 participants without cancer and 7 participants with unclear status (unlocated or inaccessible records) would have been classified as cancer cases. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION Self-reported data provides quick ascertainment with relative accuracy compared to cancer registry. Cancer ascertainment can be further improved by combining self-reported data with EHR data from a health system data warehouse registry, particularly for self-reported questionnaire issues such as timing and lack of response. Accuracy of self-reported cancer diagnosis from annually distributed questionnaires improves over time. Identifying cancer diagnosis discordance between data sources can inform processes to improve self-reported study accuracy. Citation Format: Katherine Leggat-Barr, Rita H. Ryu, Allison Stover Fiscalini, Tomiyuri Lewis, Rohini S. Bulusu, Samrrah A. Raouf, Hannah Lui Park, Alyssa N. Rocha, Liliana Johansen, Laura Van ’t Veer, Laura J. Esserman, Michael A. Hogarth. The WISDOM Study: Early Ascertainment of Breast Cancer Diagnoses by Utilizing Self-Reported Questionnaires and Data Warehouse Electronic Health Records [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-03-24.

Validation of Self-Reported Cancer Diagnoses by Respondent Cognitive Status in the U.S. Health and RetirementStudy.

Cancer and dementia are becoming increasingly common co-occurring conditions among older adults. Yet, the influence of participant cognitive status on the validity of self-reported data among older adults in population-based cohorts is unknown. We thus compared self-reported cancer diagnoses in the U.S. Health and Retirement Study (HRS) against claims from linked Medicare records to ascertain the validity of self-reported diagnoses by participant cognitive and proxy interview status. Using data from HRS participants aged ≥67 who had at least 90% continuous enrollment in fee-for-service Medicare, we examined the validity of self-reported first incident cancer diagnoses from biennial HRS interviews against diagnostic claim records in linked Medicare data (reference standard) for interviews from 2000 to 2016. Cognitive status was classified as normal, cognitive impairment no dementia (CIND), or dementia using the Langa-Weir method. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and κ for cancer diagnosis. Of the 8280 included participants, 23.6% had cognitive impairment without dementia (CIND) or dementia, and 10.7% had a proxy respondent due to an impairment. Self-reports of first incident cancer diagnoses for participants with normal cognition had 70.2% sensitivity and 99.8% specificity (κ=0.79). Sensitivity declined substantially with cognitive impairment and proxy response (56.7% for CIND, 53.0% for dementia, 60.0% for proxy respondents), indicating poor validity for study participants with CIND, dementia, or a proxy respondent. Self-reported cancer diagnoses in the U.S. HRS have poor validity for participants with cognitive impairment, dementia, or a proxy respondent. Population-based cancer research among older adults will be strengthened with linkage to Medicare claims.

Dietary Supplement Use in Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer

BackgroundVitamins, minerals, and natural product (NP)-derived dietary supplements are commonly used among women with breast cancer, where interactions with treatments and the disease are possible, emphasizing the importance for health care providers to be aware of supplement use. ObjectivesThe study aimed to investigate current vitamin/mineral (VM) and NP supplement use among those diagnosed with breast cancer, including usage based on tumor type or concurrent breast cancer treatments and primary information sources for specific supplements. MethodsSocial media recruiting to complete an online questionnaire self-reporting current VM and NP use and breast cancer diagnosis and treatment information primarily attracted US participants. Analyses, including multivariate logistic regression, were performed on 1271 women who self-reported breast cancer diagnosis and completed the survey. ResultsMost participants reported current VM (89.5%) and NP (67.7%) use, with 46.5% (VM) and 26.7% (NP) using at least 3 products concurrently. Top-reported (>15% prevalence) products were vitamin D, calcium, multivitamin, and vitamin C for VM and probiotics, turmeric, fish oil/omega-3 fatty acids, melatonin, and cannabis for NP. Overall, VM or NP use was higher among those with hormone receptor-positive tumors. Although overall NP use did not differ according to current breast cancer treatments, VM use was significantly less common among those currently undergoing chemotherapy or radiation, but higher with current endocrine therapy. Among current chemotherapy users, specific VM and NP supplements with possible adverse effects were still used by 23% of respondents. Medical providers were the primary information source for VM, whereas NP information sources were more varied. ConclusionsBecause women diagnosed with breast cancer commonly reported concurrent use of multiple VM and NP supplements, including those with known or underexplored risks (or benefits) in breast cancer, it is important for health care providers to inquire about and facilitate discussions regarding supplement use in this population.

An imputation approach for a time-to-event analysis subject to missing outcomes due to noncoverage in disease registries.

Disease incidence data in a national-based cohort study would ideally be obtained through a national disease registry. Unfortunately, no such registry currently exists in the United States. Instead, the results from individual state registries need to be combined to ascertain certain disease diagnoses in the United States. The National Cancer Institute has initiated a program to assemble all state registries to provide a complete assessment of all cancers in the United States. Unfortunately, not all registries have agreed to participate. In this article, we develop an imputation-based approach that uses self-reported cancer diagnosis from longitudinally collected questionnaires to impute cancer incidence not covered by the combined registry. We propose a two-step procedure, where in the first step a mover-stayer model is used to impute a participant's registry coverage status when it is only reported at the time of the questionnaires given at 10-year intervals and the time of the last-alive vital status and death. In the second step, we propose a semiparametric working model, fit using an imputed coverage area sample identified from the mover-stayer model, to impute registry-based survival outcomes for participants in areas not covered by the registry. The simulation studies show the approach performs well as compared with alternative ad hoc approaches for dealing with this problem. We illustrate the methodology with an analysis that links the United States Radiologic Technologists study cohort with the combined registry that includes 32 of the 50 states.

How do study design features and participant characteristics influence willingness to participate in clinical trials? Results from a choice experiment

BackgroundResearch about the decision to participate in a clinical study has tended to be limited to single indications and has focused on narrow sets of study and participant characteristics. This study applied stated preference methods to understand the clinical trial design attributes that most influence willingness to participate and how this varied with participant characteristics.MethodsAdults residing in the US, China, or Poland with a self-reported diagnosis of cancer, heart disease, migraine, rheumatoid arthritis, or multiple sclerosis completed an online survey. Participants were asked whether they would participate in clinical studies defined by seventeen attributes within five categories (payment/support, administration/procedures, treatment-related, study location/time commitment, and data collection/feedback). Participants saw six different hypothetical clinical study profiles. Depending on their participation decision to an initial clinical study profile, the subsequent five questions had one design attribute (randomly selected per question) consecutively improved or deteriorated to elicit preferences. A logistic regression was used to determine which participant characteristics influenced participation decisions. A latent class logit model was used to identify how the influence of study design features varied between participants and whether groups of participants with similar preferences could be identified.ResultsThe survey was completed by 487 participants (32% China, 35% Poland, 33% US; 8%–19% per indication). Willingness to participate was found to be a function of participant age, certain elements of quality of life, and previous treatment experience, in particular number of lines of treatment received and experience of adverse events. Willingness to participate was influenced by study design features such as payment, study duration, and time commitment – both the overall time and whether the time was at home or away from home, with the latter being particularly relevant to participants experiencing fatigue due to their disease.ConclusionsThis study quantifies how study designs influence willingness to participate and how this varies with participant types. These findings suggest that it is how an indication influences quality of life and treatment experience, rather than the indication alone, that impacts participation rates, opening the way for insights that are transferrable across indications, which may be particularly useful when considering rare diseases.

Financial hardship and mental health among cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of the US COVID-19 Household Impact Survey.

Our objective was to (1) identify associated characteristics of financial hardship (FH), and (2) evaluate associations of FH with mental health symptoms among cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using data from the nationally representative COVID-19 Impact Survey, we defined cancer survivors as those with a self-reported diagnosis of cancer (n = 854,7.6%). We defined FH using the following question: "Based on your current financial situation, how would you pay for an unexpected $400 expense?" Multivariable Poisson regression was used to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) to identify associated characteristics of FH and associations of FH with mental health symptoms among cancer survivors overall and by age (18-59 years/60+ years). Forty-one percent of cancer survivors reported FH, with 58% in 18-59 and 33% in 60+ year old respondents. Compared to cancer survivors aged 60+ years, those aged 30-44 (aPR:1.74,95% CI:1.35-2.24), and 45-59 years (aPR:1.60,95% CI:1.27-1.99) were more likely to report FH. Compared to non-Hispanic(NH)-White cancer survivors, NH-Black cancer survivors had a 56% higher prevalence of FH (aPR:1.56; 95% CI: 1.23-1.97). Among 60+ years aged cancer survivors, NH-Black (aPR:1.80; 95% CI: 1.32-2.45) and NH-Asian cancer survivors (aPR:10.70,95% CI:5.6-20.7) were more likely to experience FH compared to their NH-White counterparts. FH was associated with feeling anxious (aPR:1.51,95% CI:1.11-2.05), depressed (aPR:1.66,95% CI:1.25-2.22), and hopeless (aPR:1.84,95% CI:1.38-2.44). Minoritized communities, younger adults, and cancer survivors with low socioeconomic status had a higher burden of FH, which was associated with feelings of anxiety, depression, and hopelessness.

The validity of self-reported cancer in a population-based cohort compared to that in formally registered sources

BackgroundSelf-reported cancer has been validated with heterogeneous results across populations. The aim was to assess the validity of self-reported cancer in the Lifelines population-based cohort and to search for explanations for not reporting cancer. MethodsData from adult participants (n = 152,780) from Lifelines was linked to the Dutch-Nationwide pathology databank (PALGA), which has nearly 100% coverage of cancer diagnoses in the Netherlands and is considered as the gold standard for ascertainment of cancer diagnosis in this study. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) for self-reported cancers -reported as hand-written free text- were described. Logistic regressions analyses were performed to evaluate whether socio-demographic factors were associated with the presence of self-reported cancer when there was a diagnosis in PALGA. Results6611 (4.50%) participants had at least one self-reported diagnosis of cancer, where 9960 (6.97%) participants had at least one cancer diagnosis in PALGA. The sensitivity of self-reported cancer was 64.68% [95%CI:63.71–65.66], and 70.18% [95%CI:68.83–71.56] after excluding skin and cervical cancers. Skin and cervical cancers represented 61.24% of non-self-reported cancers. The overall PPV was 97.45% [95%CI:97.45–97.81], and 97.33% [95%CI:96.72–97.82] after the exclusion of skin and cervical cancers. Participants who did not self-report their cancer were more likely to be male, had longer time since diagnosis and lower educational level. ConclusionOverall, the reports of cancer in Lifelines have a high positive predictive value and moderate sensitivity. One third of the cancers were not reported, mainly skin and cervical cancers. Male participants, those with a lower educational level and those with longer time since diagnosis were less likely to self-report a diagnosed cancer.

Association between prior cancer diagnosis and osteoporosis: a matched case-control study.

Epidemiological studies show an inconsistent association between cancer and osteoporosis. We examined the association between a prior cancer diagnosis and osteoporosis in population-based data. We performed an age- and sex-matched case-control study (1:2 matching ratio) using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2011-2018. Cases were determined by self-reported prior diagnosis of cancer; all controls were free of cancer at the time of bone density measurement with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. We defined osteoporosis as a T-score ≤ - 2.5 at femoral neck, total hip, or lumbar spine. Unconditional multivariable logistic regression was used to test the association between a prior cancer diagnosis and osteoporosis. We identified 246 prior cancer cases and 492 controls (mean age: 65.8years) in females, and 243 prior cancer cases and 486 controls (mean age: 68.0years) in males. The most common types of cancer in females and males were breast cancer and prostate cancer, respectively. Osteoporosis prevalences were comparable between cases and controls among females (19.1% in cases vs. 18.7% in controls; P = 0.894) and males (5.8% in cases vs. 6.8% in controls; P = 0.594). After adjusting for covariates, a prior cancer diagnosis was not associated with osteoporosis in females (odds ratio [OR]: 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-1.29) or males (OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.51-2.30). Results were unaffected by cancer severity, cancer type, or time since cancer diagnosis. A prior cancer diagnosis was not associated with osteoporosis in this nationally representative population.

Financial burden among cancer patients: A national-level perspective.

This research study aimed to evaluate the financial burden among older cancer patients and its corresponding risk factors. Factors such as increasing treatment costs and work limitations often lead cancer patients to bankruptcy and poor quality of life. These consequences, in turn, can cause higher mortality rates among these patients. This retrospective cohort study utilized data from the Health Retirement Study (HRS), conducted by the University of Michigan (N= 18,109). Eligible participants had responses captured from years 2002 to 2016. Participants were classified according to any self-reported cancer diagnosis (yes or no) and were compared on the basis of financial, work, and health-related outcomes. Propensity score (PS) matching was applied to reduce the effects of potential confounding factors. Also only, individuals with an age ≥50 and ≤85 during Wave 6 were retained. Multivariate analysis with random effects revealed several indicators of financial burden when comparing participants with a cancer diagnosis to those with no history of cancer. Mean out-of-pocket costs associated with a cancer diagnosis were $1058 higher when compared to participants with no history of cancer, suggesting that even cancer patients with insurance coverage faced out-of-pocket costs. Respondents with cancer patients had higher odds of encountering financial hardship if they are facing Work Limitations (OR = 2.714), Regular use of Medications (OR = 2.518), Hospital Stays (OR = 2.858), Declining Health (OR = 2.349), or were being covered under government health insurance (OR = 5.803) than respondents who did not have cancer, or suffered from mental health issues such as Depression (OR = 0.901). Cancer patients contend with increasing financial costs during their treatment. However, most newly diagnosed patients are not aware of these costs and are given few resources to handle them.

Prevalence and correlates of cannabis use for medicinal reasons – An Australian cross-sectional study

ObjectiveIt is important to know the prevalence and source of medicinal cannabis use in the population because non-prescribed medicinal use of cannabis products places individuals at higher risk of harms. We estimated the prevalence and correlates of the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes in Australia, three years after Australians were given legal access. DesignCross-sectional. SettingThe 2019 Australian National Drug Strategy Household Survey. ParticipantsParticipants were 22,015 Australians aged 14 or above. Outcome measureSelf-reported cannabis use in the last 12 months for medicinal purposes only, both medicinal/recreational reasons, or recreationally only. Those who reported medicinal use were asked if it had been prescribed by a doctor. Prevalence estimates were weighted to the population and multinomial logistic regression examined the correlates. ResultsThe prevalence of any medicinal cannabis use in the past year was 2.6%. Only 0.8% of the sample reported using cannabis solely for medicinal reasons, 95.9% of whom did not have a prescription. A self-reported diagnosis of cancer was associated with medicinal use only. Self-reported chronic pain was associated with both medicinal only and medicinal/recreational use. Medicinal cannabis use was associated with opioids use. ConclusionsIn 2019, the prevalence of cannabis use solely for medicinal reasons remains under 1%, was more common among people with specific medical conditions, but most individuals do not have a prescription. The prevalence of self-reported medicinal cannabis use in Australia is low and there is limited use of the legal pathway for medicinal cannabis.

Factors associated with self-reported social isolation among patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We aimed to identify patient-level demographic and behavioral characteristics associated with higher social isolation among patients with cancer throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Moffitt Cancer Center patients seen on or after January 1, 2015, had a last known alive vital status, a valid e-mail address, and were 18-89 years old, were emailed a survey regarding social isolation. We collected information on age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, smoking, self-reported cancer diagnosis, cancer treatment, and perceived life changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We calculated a COVID-19 risk mitigation score by summing the frequency of risk mitigation behaviors (e.g., mask wearing). Social isolation was assessed with the self-reported Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Social Isolation Short Form. Logistic regression models compared characteristics of participants reporting higher versus lower social isolation (T-scores >60 vs. ≤60). Most participants (N = 9,579) were female (59.2%), White (93.0%), and non-Hispanic (92.5%). Participants at greater odds of higher social isolation were younger (per 10 years decrease odds ratio [OR] = 1.36, 95% confidence interval, CI [1.30, 1.43]), female (vs. male OR = 1.54, 95% CI [1.36, 1.74]), unmarried (vs. married OR = 1.83, 95% CI [1.62, 2.08]), current smokers (vs. never OR = 2.38, 95% CI [1.88, 3.00]), reporting more risk mitigation behaviors (per 1 SD; OR = 1.33, 95% CI [1.24, 1.42]), and more perceived life changes (vs. little/no change; OR = 2.64, 95% CI [2.08, 3.35]). We identified younger age, females, unmarried, current smokers, more risk mitigation behaviors, and more perceived life changes increased odds of social isolation for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. This can inform identification of patients with cancer at higher risk of social isolation for targeted mitigation strategies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Validation of Identifying Cancer Diagnosis Based on Self-Reported Information in the Japan Nurses' Health Study.

Background:The Japan Nurses’ Health Study (JNHS) is a large-scale, nationwide prospective cohort study of female nurses. This study aimed to examine the validity of self-reported diagnosis of cancer among the JNHS cohort members (N=15,019). Methods:For women who reported any diagnosis of five cancers (stomach, colorectal, liver, lung and thyroid) in the biennial follow-up surveys, an additional outcome survey, medical facility survey, and confirmation of death certificate (DC) were conducted. The JNHS Validation Study Committee (referred to as “the committee”) made a final decision on the reported outcomes. To examine the validity of self-reported diagnosis of cancer, the positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated using the committee’s decision as the gold standard. To examine the validity of the committee’s decision based on self-reports and DCs, PPV was calculated using physician-reported information as the gold standard. Results:The PPV of self-reported diagnosis in the biennial follow-up surveys was 77.8% for stomach, 66.2% for colorectal, 41.7% for liver, 60.2% for lung, and 64.6% for thyroid cancer. The corresponding PPVs in the additional outcome survey were 96.2%, 80.7%, 62.5%, 82.5%, and 96.9%, respectively. The PPV of the committee’s decision was 100% for stomach, 87.5% for colorectal, 94.7% for lung, and 100% for thyroid cancer (data not available for liver cancer). The proportion of DC-only cases among committee-defined cases was below 10% for all cancers except liver cancer (28.6%). Conclusions:The validity of identifying cancer diagnosis based on self-reported information in the JNHS was favorable for stomach, colorectal, lung and thyroid cancer.

Validation of Self-reported Cancer Diagnoses Using Medicare Diagnostic Claims in the US Health and Retirement Study, 2000-2016.

The US Health Retirement Study (HRS) is an ongoing population-representative cohort of US adults ages >50 with rich data on health during aging. Self-reported cancer diagnoses have been collected since 1998, but they have not been validated. We compared self-reported cancer diagnoses in HRS interviews against diagnostic claims from linked Medicare records. Using HRS-Medicare linked data, we examined the validity of first incident cancer diagnoses self-reported in biennial interviews from 2000 to 2016 against ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnostic claim records as the gold standard. Data were from 8,242 HRS participants ages ≥65 with 90% continuous enrollment in fee-for-service Medicare. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and κ for first incident invasive cancer diagnoses (all cancers combined, and each of bladder, breast, colorectal/anal, uterine, kidney, lung, and prostate cancers) cumulatively over the follow-up and at each biennial study interview. Overall, self-reports of first incident cancer diagnoses from 2000 to 2016 had 73.2% sensitivity and 96.2% specificity against Medicare claims (κ = 0.73). For specific cancer types, sensitivities ranged from 44.7% (kidney) to 75.0% (breast), and specificities ranged from 99.2% (prostate) and 99.9% (bladder, uterine, and kidney). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses restricted to individuals with 100% continuous fee-for-service Medicare enrollment and when restricted to individuals with at least 24 months of Medicare enrollment. Self-reported cancer diagnoses in the HRS have reasonable validity for use in population-based research that is maximized with linkage to Medicare. These findings inform the use of the HRS for population-based cancer and aging research.

Validation of Self-Reported Cancer Diagnosis by Cognitive Status in the Health and Retirement Study

Exploring the relationship between cognition and cancer is increasingly important as the number of older adults in the US grows. The Health and Retirement Study (HRS) has longitudinal data on cognitive status and self-reported cancer diagnoses, but these self-reports have not been validated. Using HRS linked to Medicare Fee for Service (FFS) claims (1998-2016), we evaluated the validity of self-reported cancer diagnoses (excluding non-melanoma skin) against Medicare claims by respondent cognitive status. We included 8,280 Medicare-eligible HRS participants aged ≥67 with at least 90% FFS coverage. Cognitive status was ascertained from the HRS interview following the date of cancer diagnosis (or reference claim date) using the Langa-Weir method and was classified as normal, cognitive impairment no dementia (CIND), or dementia. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and Cohen's kappa for first incident malignant cancer diagnosis by cognitive status group. The majority (76.4%) of participants scored as cognitively normal, 9.6% had CIND, 14.0% had dementia and, overall, 1,478 had an incident cancer diagnosis. Among participants with normal cognition, sensitivity of self-reported cancer diagnosis was 70.2% and specificity was 99.8% (kappa=0.79). Among participants with CIND, sensitivity was 56.7% and specificity was 99.8% (kappa=0.66). Among participants with dementia, sensitivity was 53.0% and specificity was 99.6% (kappa=0.64). Results indicate poor validity of self-reported cancer diagnoses for older adults with CIND or dementia. These findings suggest researchers interested in cancer and cognition should use the HRS-Medicare linkage to ascertain cancer diagnosis from claims, and they highlight the importance of cognitive status in research among older adults.

Examining the relationship between self-reported lifetime cancer diagnosis and nativity: findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011-2018.

Cancer incidence in the USA remains higher among certain groups, regions, and communities, and there are variations based on nativity. Research has primarily focused on specific groups and types of cancer. This study expands on previous studies to explore the relationship between country of birth (nativity) and all cancer site incidences among USA and foreign-born residents using a nationally representative sample. This is a cross-sectional study of (unweighted n = 22,554; weighted n = 231,175,933) participants between the ages of 20 and 80 from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011-2018. Using weighted logistic regressions, we analyzed the impact of nativity on self-reported cancer diagnosis controlling for routine care, smoking status, overweight, race/ethnicity, age, and gender. We ran a partial model, adjusting only for age as a covariate, a full model with all other covariates, and stratified by race/ethnicity. In the partial and full models, our findings indicate that US-born individuals were more likely to report a cancer diagnosis compared to their foreign-born counterparts (OR 2.34, 95% CI [1.93; 2.84], p < 0.01) and (OR 1. 39, 95% CI [1.05; 1.84], p < 0.05), respectively. This significance persisted only among non-Hispanic Blacks when stratified by race. Non-Hispanic Blacks who were US-born were more likely to report a cancer diagnosis compared to their foreign-born counterparts (OR 2.30, 95% [CI 1.31; 4.02], p < 0.05). A variety of factors may reflect lower self-reported cancer diagnosis in foreign-born individuals in the USA other than a healthy immigrant advantage. Future studies should consider the factors behind the differences in cancer diagnoses based on nativity status, particularly among non-Hispanic Blacks.