Search

Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer-associated mortality among US women with survival disparities seen across race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, even after accounting for histology, stage, treatment, and other clinical factors. Neighborhood context can play an important role in ovarian cancer survival, and, to the extent to which minority racial and ethnic groups and populations of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be segregated into neighborhoods with lower quality social, built, and physical environment, these contextual factors may be a critical component of ovarian cancer survival disparities. Understanding factors associated with ovarian cancer outcome disparities will allow clinicians to identify patients at risk for worse outcomes and point to measures, such as social support programs or transportation aid, that can help to ameliorate such disparities. However, research on the impact of neighborhood contextual factors in ovarian cancer survival and in disparities in ovarian cancer survival is limited. This commentary focuses on the following neighborhood contextual domains: structural and institutional context, social context, physical context represented by environmental exposures, built environment, rurality, and healthcare access. The research conducted to date is presented and clinical implications and recommendations for future interventions and studies to address disparities in ovarian cancer outcomes are proposed.

Background: Approximately one‐third of US adults have a tattoo, and the prevalence is increasing. Tattooing can result in long‐term exposure to carcinogens and inflammatory and immune responses. Methods: We examined tattooing and risk of hematologic cancers in a population‐based case–control study with 820 cases diagnosed 2019–2021 and 8200 frequency‐matched controls, ages 18–79 years. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using multivariable‐adjusted logistic regression models. Results: The prevalence of tattooing was 22% among Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) cases, 11% among non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) cases, 16% among myeloid neoplasm cases, and 15% among controls. Though there were no clear patterns of associations between ever receiving a tattoo and risk of HL, NHL, or myeloid neoplasms overall, in analyses restricted to ages 20–60 years, ever receiving a tattoo (OR 2.06 [95% CI 1.01, 4.20]) and receiving a tattoo 10+ years prior (OR 2.64 [95% CI 1.23, 5.68]) were associated with an aggregated group of rarer mature B‐cell NHLs. We also observed elevated risks for a 10+ year latency for myelodysplastic syndromes and chronic myeloid leukemia (OR 1.48 [95% CI 0.40, 5.41], and OR 1.24 [95% CI 0.45, 3.43], respectively). Conclusions: Though estimates were imprecise, we found some suggestive evidence that tattooing may be associated with an increased risk of certain hematologic cancer subtypes. With an estimated 46% prevalence of tattooing in US individuals ages 30–49, additional studies are needed to understand the degree to which these exposures may be associated with hematologic cancer risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about current characteristics of individuals with tattoos. We quantified the prevalence of tattooing and associations of demographic, health, and risk-behavior factors with tattooing., Methods: We computed adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) of tattooing in a population-based analysis of > 18,000 Utah adults from the 2020-2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey., Results: The prevalence of tattooing was 26% among women and 22% among men, with the highest prevalence among women ages 25-29 (45%). Tattoo prevalence was higher among younger individuals, individuals with a lower education level, and those without religious affiliation. Tattoo prevalence was higher among indviduals with current tobacco (women: PR = 2.89 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.60, 3.20]; men: 3.39 [2.98, 3.86]), e-cigarette (women: 2.44 [2.21, 2.69]; men: 2.64 [2.37, 2.94]), and heavy alcohol use (women: 2.16 [1.93, 2.43]; men: 1.89 [1.63, 2.19]). Tattoo prevalence was lower among individuals receiving a flu (women: 0.84 [0.76, 0.92]; men: 0.75 [0.67, 0.84]) or COVID-19 vaccine (women: 0.65 [0.54, 0.79]; men: 0.75 [0.61, 0.92])., Conclusions: Several risk-taking behaviors were associated with tattooing. Tattoo studios/conventions may present opportunities for partnership with tobacco cessation, alcohol reduction, and vaccination public health initiatives., Competing Interests: Declarations Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Introduction: Central cancer registries are responsible for managing appropriate research contacts and record releases. Do not contact (DNC) flags are used by some registries to indicate patients who should not be contacted or included in research. Longitudinal changes in DNC coding practices and definitions may result in a lack of code standardization and inaccurately include or exclude individuals from research., Purpose: We performed a comprehensive manual review of DNC cases in the Utah Cancer Registry to inform updates to standardization of DNC code definitions, and use of DNC codes for exclusion/inclusion in research., Methods: We identified 858 cases with a current or prior DNC flag in the SEER Data Management System (SEER*DMS) or a research database, with cancers diagnosed from 1957-2021. We reviewed scanned images of correspondence with cases and physicians, incident forms, and comments in SEER*DMS and research databases. We evaluated whether there was evidence to support the current DNC code, a different DNC code, or insufficient evidence for any code., Results: Of the 755 cases that had a current DNC flag and reason code in SEER*DMS, the distribution was as follows: 58%, Patient requested no contact; 20%, Physician denied; 13%, Patient is not aware they have cancer; 4%, Patient is mentally disabled [sic]; 4%, Other; and 1%, Unknown. In 5% of these cases, we found evidence supporting a different DNC reason code. Among cases included because of a prior DNC flag in SEER*DMS (n = 10) or a DNC flag in a research database (ie, cases with no current DNC flag or reason code in SEER*DMS, n = 93), we found evidence supporting the addition of a SEER*DMS DNC flag and reason code in 50% and 40% of cases, respectively. We identified DNC reason codes with outdated terminology (Patient is mentally disabled) and codes that may not accurately reflect patient research preferences (Physician denied without asking the patient). To address this, we identified new reason codes, retired old reason codes, and updated current reason code definitions and research handlings., Conclusion: The time and resource investment in manual review allowed us to identify and, in most cases, resolve discordance in DNC flags and reason codes, adding reason codes when they were missing. This process was valuable because it informed recommended changes to DNC code definitions and research handlings that will ensure more appropriate inclusion and exclusion of cancer cases in research., (© 2022 National Cancer Registrars Association.)