Barriers to survivorship care include cancer stigma for both patient and nuclear family, which can impact on seeking survivorship care due to constraints placed on discussions because it remains difficult to discuss 'cancer' years later. Future research can evaluate if these findings are unique to Latino childhood cancer survivors or are found in other populations of AYA cancer survivors transitioning to adult-centered healthcare. This community-based participatory research collaboration also highlights the opportunity to learn about the needs of childhood cancer survivors from the lens of community leaders serving culturally diverse populations.

Background-Few studies have empirically tested the association of allostatic load (AL) with breast cancer clinicopathology. The aim of this study was to examine the association of AL, measured using relevant biomarkers recorded in medical records before breast cancer diagnosis, with unfavorable tumor clinicopathologic features among Black women.Methods-In a sample of 409 Black women with non-metastatic breast cancer, who are enrolled in the Women's Circle of Health Follow-Up Study (WCHFS), we estimated pre-diagnostic AL using two measures: AL measure 1 (lipid profile-based -assessed by systolic and diastolic blood pressure [SBP, DBP], high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, total cholesterol, triglycerides and glucose levels, waist circumference, and use of diabetes, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia medication) and AL measure 2 (inflammatory index-based -assessed by SBP, DBP, glucose and albumin levels, estimated glomerular filtration rate, body mass index, waist circumference, and use of medications described above). We used Cohen's kappa statistic to assess agreement between the two AL measures and multivariable logistic models to assess the associations of interest.

Background Gathering information directly from cancer survivors has advanced our understanding of the cancer survivorship experience. However, it is unknown whether surveys can distinguish important subgroups of cancer survivors. This study aimed to describe the current landscape of survey questions used to identify and describe cancer survivors in national cross‐sectional studies. Methods Using publicly available databases, the authors identified national cross‐sectional surveys used in the United States within the past 15 years that included a question on self‐reported history of cancer. After abstracting questions and response items used to identify cancer survivors, they conducted a descriptive analysis. Results The authors identified 14 national cross‐sectional surveys, with half administered to the general population and the other half administered to cancer survivors. The most common question used to identify cancer survivors was “Have you ever been told by a doctor or other health professional that you had cancer?” Most surveys had questions asking participants to identify a single cancer type (n = 11), multiple prior cancer diagnoses or types (n = 11), and the time from diagnosis (n = 12). Treatment questions varied from active treatment status to specific treatments received. Questions addressing cancer stage (n = 2), subtypes (n = 1), metastatic status (n = 3), and recurrence (n = 4) were less frequently included. Conclusions There is no standard method for assessing self‐reported cancer history, and this limits the ability to distinguish among potentially important subgroups of survivors. Future cross‐sectional surveys that capture nuanced data elements, such as cancer types, stages/subtypes, metastatic/recurrent status, and treatments received, can help to fill important gaps in cancer survivorship research and clinical care.

Objectives. To identify determinants of follow-up care and diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer among uninsured/underinsured women screened for cervical cancer. Methods. We examined the associations between health care facility, area-level, and individual-level factors on the outcomes of interest in retrospective cohort of women from the New Jersey Cancer Education and Early Detection Program (2000–2015). Results. Women screened at department of health clinics (aOR:3.11, 95% CI: 2.30–4.20) and health care system-affiliated clinics (aOR:1.71, 95% CI: 1.11–2.64) had higher odds of lacking follow-up care compared with women in private physician practices. Similarly, women residing in areas with the highest unemployment had higher odds of lacking follow-up (aOR:1.48, 95% CI: 1.07–2.06). Delays in follow-up care were higher for women born in Central/South American countries compared with U.S.-born women (aOR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.12–1.92). Conclusions. Improved outreach efforts and multilevel strategies are needed to address the persistent barriers to appropriate follow-up care for underserved women.

BACKGROUND: Black women are more likely to have comorbidity at breast cancer diagnosis compared with White women, which may account for half of the Black-White survivor disparity. Comprehensive disease management requires a coordinated team of healthcare professionals including primary care practitioners, but few studies have examined shared care in the management of comorbidities during cancer care, especially among racial/ethnic minorities. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the type of medical team composition is associated with optimal clinical care management of comorbidities. DESIGN: We used the Women's Circle of Health Follow-up Study, a population-based cohort of Black women diagnosed with breast cancer. The likelihood of receiving optimal comorbidity management after breast cancer diagnosis was compared by type of medical team composition (shared care versus cancer specialists only) using binomial regression. PARTICIPANTS: Black women with a co-diagnosis of diabetes and/or hypertension at breast cancer diagnosis between 2012 and 2016 (N = 274). MAIN MEASURES: Outcome-optimal clinical care management of diabetes (i.e., A1C test, LDL-C test, and medical attention for nephropathy) and hypertension (i.e., lipid screening and prescription for hypertension medication). Main predictor-shared care, whether the patient received care from both a cancer specialist and a primary care provider and/or a medical specialist within the 12 months following a breast cancer diagnosis. KEY RESULTS: Primary care providers were the main providers involved in managing comorbidities and 90% of patients received shared care during breast cancer care. Only 54% had optimal comorbidity management. Patients with shared care were five times (aRR: 4.62; 95% CI: 1.66, 12.84) more likely to have optimal comorbidity management compared with patients who only saw cancer specialists. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal management of comorbidities during breast cancer care exists for Black women. However, our findings suggest that shared care is more beneficial at achieving optimal clinical care management for diabetes and hypertension than cancer specialists alone.