PURPOSE: Advances in precision medicine (PM) have potential to reduce and/or eliminate breast cancer disparities in both treatment and survivorship. However, compared to white Americans, black Americans are often underrepresented in genetic research. This report assessed factors that influence receipt of buccal cells via saliva kits. METHODS: This prospective study recruited women with confirmed hormonal-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC). A standardized telephone survey collected sociodemographic, socio-cultural (e.g., religiosity), and healthcare process factors. Clinical information was abstracted from medical records. After the baseline survey, return postage-paid envelopes and mouthwash collection kits were mailed. Univariate and adjusted logistic regression models estimated the probability of biospecimen donation. RESULTS: Seventy percent of the sample provided buccal cells which were of good quality. No differences were noted by race or other demographic factors. In the multivariable logistic model, time spent with providers (OR 1.61 per 1-point increase; 95% CI 1.242, 2.088) and religiosity (OR 0.957 per 1-point increase; 95% CI 0.931, 0.984) remained associated with biospecimen provision. Women with lower-stage cancer (vs. higher stage III+) were more likely to donate biospecimens (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer care experiences predicted specimen donation. Understanding the contextual reasons for lower receipt among women with higher religiosity scores and higher stage warrants further examination. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: PM is relevant to cancer survivors because of its potential to inform targeted therapies, understand disease resistance, and aide in prediction of toxicity and/or recurrence. Future efforts to launch precision medicine trials with BC survivors may benefit from engaging medical oncologists and/or leveraging patient-provider encounters for trial participation.
PURPOSE: Advances in precision medicine (PM) have potential to reduce and/or eliminate breast cancer disparities in both treatment and survivorship. However, compared to white Americans, black Americans are often underrepresented in genetic research. This report assessed factors that influence receipt of buccal cells via saliva kits. METHODS: This prospective study recruited women with confirmed hormonal-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC). A standardized telephone survey collected sociodemographic, socio-cultural (e.g., religiosity), and healthcare process factors. Clinical information was abstracted from medical records. After the baseline survey, return postage-paid envelopes and mouthwash collection kits were mailed. Univariate and adjusted logistic regression models estimated the probability of biospecimen donation. RESULTS: Seventy percent of the sample provided buccal cells which were of good quality. No differences were noted by race or other demographic factors. In the multivariable logistic model, time spent with providers (OR 1.61 per 1-point increase; 95% CI 1.242, 2.088) and religiosity (OR 0.957 per 1-point increase; 95% CI 0.931, 0.984) remained associated with biospecimen provision. Women with lower-stage cancer (vs. higher stage III+) were more likely to donate biospecimens (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Cancer care experiences predicted specimen donation. Understanding the contextual reasons for lower receipt among women with higher religiosity scores and higher stage warrants further examination. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: PM is relevant to cancer survivors because of its potential to inform targeted therapies, understand disease resistance, and aide in prediction of toxicity and/or recurrence. Future efforts to launch precision medicine trials with BC survivors may benefit from engaging medical oncologists and/or leveraging patient-provider encounters for trial participation.
Authors: Jean G Ford; Mollie W Howerton; Gabriel Y Lai; Tiffany L Gary; Shari Bolen; M Chris Gibbons; Jon Tilburt; Charles Baffi; Teerath Peter Tanpitukpongse; Renee F Wilson; Neil R Powe; Eric B Bass Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Patchareeya P Kwan; Greta Briand; Cevadne Lee; Jonathan Tana Lepule; Jane Ka'ala Pang; Melanie Sabado; Lola Sablan-Santos; Dorothy Schmidt-Vaivao; Sora Tanjasiri; Vanessa Tui'one; Paula H Palmer Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2014-01-06
Authors: M J Brady; D F Cella; F Mo; A E Bonomi; D S Tulsky; S R Lloyd; S Deasy; M Cobleigh; G Shiomoto Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marc T Kiviniemi; Frances G Saad-Harfouche; Gregory L Ciupak; Warren Davis; Kirsten Moysich; Nikia Clark Hargrave; Christine B Ambrosone; Charles Walker; Deborah O Erwin Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Vanessa B Sheppard; Sherrie F Wallington; Shawna C Willey; Regina M Hampton; W Lucas; Y Jennings; S Horton; N Muzeck; C Cocilovo; C Isaacs Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Nao Hagiwara; Lisa Berry-Bobovski; Carie Francis; Lauren Ramsey; Robert A Chapman; Terrance L Albrecht Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Julio Ramirez; May Elmofty; Esperanza Castillo; Mindy DeRouen; Salma Shariff-Marco; Laura Allen; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Anna María Nápoles; Leticia Márquez-Magaña Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2017-01-03
Authors: Vanessa B Sheppard; Chiranjeev Dash; Sarah Nomura; Arnethea L Sutton; Robert Lee Franco; Alexander Lucas; Masey Ross; Lucile Adams-Campbell Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Vanessa B Sheppard; Arnethea L Sutton; Alejandra Hurtado-de-Mendoza; Jun He; Bassam Dahman; Megan C Edmonds; Mary Helen Hackney; Mahlet G Tadesse Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Arnethea L Sutton; Ashley S Felix; Dipankar Bandyopadhyay; Reuben Retnam; William G Hundley; Vanessa B Sheppard Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-04-02 Impact factor: 4.624