Search

In a personalized medicine environment, it is necessary to have access to a range of biospecimens to establish optimal plans for disease diagnosis and treatment for individual patients. Cancer research is especially dependent on biospecimens for determining ideal personalized treatment for patients. Unfortunately, the vast majority of biospecimens are collected from non-Hispanic White individuals; thus, minority representation is lacking. This has negative implications for comprehensive cancer treatment. The Geographic Management of Cancer Health Disparities Program (GMaP) Region 6 implemented a series of biospecimen education seminars adapted from the Biospecimen and Biobanking module of an existing Cancer Education and Training Program. Regional GMaP partners participated in a train-the-trainer webinar to familiarize themselves with the training materials. Participants trained by the trainers completed pre- and posttests to document changes in awareness, knowledge, and intention. Nine biospecimen education seminars were offered in 2013; 255 health care professionals and representatives from community organizations attended. Participants demonstrated a significant increase in knowledge, intention to donate samples, and intention to talk to patients about biospecimen sample donation. Representatives from community organizations had more improvement on knowledge scores than health care providers. Participation in a well-designed biospecimen education program may ameliorate some of the distrust of biomedical research experienced by racial/ethnic minorities and, in turn, increase needed minority representation in biospecimen collection.

Cancer health disparities are often described as the unequal burden of cancer deaths in one racial/ethnic group compared to another. For example, national cancer statistics in the USA shows that Blacks die the most for 9 of the top 10 cancers in men and women. When asked about the underlying causes for this disparity, teen participants speculated that it is primarily due to genetics or biology. This speculation appears to be based on a false concept of 'race.' A science activity was created to counter the false concept that genetics/biology underlie the categorization of humans into different 'races.' This activity provided teen participants with first-hand evidence of how they are all related at one genetic locus, and how they are more genetically related across racial/ethnic groups than within them. Results of surveys given before and after the activity show that they change their perceptions of 'race.' Before the activity, they view themselves as most related at the genetic level to 1-2 well-known individuals (i.e., celebrities) who they perceive as members of their own 'race' mainly because of similar appearance. After the activity, they view themselves as related to more/all the celebrities or they state that they do not know to whom they are most related. This increased awareness of the uncertainty between the apparent 'race' of an individual and their genetics drives teens to dismiss genetics or biology as the primary cause of racial/ethnic disparities in cancer outcomes. Instead, they consider the unequal distribution of the social determinants of health as the primary cause of cancer disparities.

Background: Abnormal mammograms are common, and the risk of false positives is high. We surveyed women in order to understand the factors influencing the efficiency of the evaluation of an abnormal mammogram., Methods: Women aged 40-80 years, identified from lists with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) classifications of 0, 3, 4, or 5, were surveyed. Telephone surveys asked about the process of evaluation, and medical records were reviewed for tests and timing of evaluation., Results: In this study, 970 women were surveyed, and 951 had chart reviews. Overall, 36% were college graduates, 68% were members of a group model health plan, 18% were Latinas, 25% were African Americans, 15% were Asian, and 43% were white. Of the 352 women who underwent biopsies, 151 were diagnosed with cancer (93 invasive). Median time to diagnosis was 183 days for BIRADS 3 compared to 29 days for BIRADS 4/5 and 27 days for BIRADS 0. At 60 days, 84% of BIRADS 4/5 women had a diagnosis. Being African American (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.97, p=0.03), income < $10,000 (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.98, p<0.04), perceived discrimination (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.09-0.52, p<0.001), not fully understanding the results of the index mammogram (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.75, p=0.001), and being notified by letter (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.90, p=0.01) or telephone (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42-0.92, p=0.02) rather than in person were all associated with significant delays in diagnosis., Conclusions: Evaluation of BIRADS 0, 4, or 5 abnormal mammograms was completed in most women within the recommended 60 days. Even within effective systems, correctible communication factors may adversely affect time to diagnosis.