Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Consumption of very hot (> 65 °C) beverages is probably associated with increased risk of oesophageal cancer. First associations were reported for yerba mate and it was initially believed that high content of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) might explain the risk. Later research on other beverage groups such as tea and coffee, which are also consumed very hot, found associations with increased risk of oesophageal cancer as well. The risk may therefore not be inherent in any compound contained in mate, but due to temperature. The aim of this study was to quantitatively assess the risk of PAH in comparison with the risk of the temperature effect using the margin of exposure (MOE) methodology. Methods The human dietary benzo[ a ]pyrene (BaP) and PAH4 (sum of benzo[ a ]pyrene, benzo[ a ]anthracene, chrysene, and benzo[ b ]fluoranthene) exposure through consumption of coffee, mate, and tea was estimated. The oesophageal cancer risk assessment for both PAH and temperature was conducted using the MOE approach. Results Considering differences in the transfer of the PAH from the leaves of mate and tea or from the ground coffee to the infusion, and considering the different preparation methods, exposures may vary considerably. The average individual exposure in μg/kg bw/day arising from consumption of 1 cup (0.2 L) of infusion was highest for mate (2.85E-04 BaP and 7.22E-04 PAH4). The average per capita exposure in μg/kg bw/day was as follows: coffee (4.21E-04 BaP, 4.15E-03 PAH4), mate (4.26E-03 BaP, 2.45E-02 PAH4), and tea (8.03E-04 BaP, 4.98E-03 PAH4). For all individual and population-based exposure scenarios, the average MOE for BaP and PAH4 was > 100,000 independent of beverage type. MOE values in this magnitude are considered as a very low risk. On the contrary, the MOE for the temperature effect was estimated as < 1 for very hot drinking temperatures, corroborating epidemiological observations about a probable oesophageal cancer risk caused by this behaviour. Conclusions The temperature effect but not PAH exposure may pose an oesophageal cancer risk. Consumer education on risks associated with consumption of ‘very hot’ beverages and policy measures to threshold serving temperatures should be discussed.

African American communities are disproportionately impacted by prostate cancer (PCa) compared to other racial/ethnic groups. Whereas the incidence of PCa in Hispanic/Latino men is lower than the incidence in non-Hispanic/Latino White men, Hispanic/Latino men are more likely to be diagnosed with PCa in late stages, and less likely to be knowledgeable about PCa, resulting in significant disparities. We developed, culturally adapted, translated, implemented, and evaluated a PCa Cancer Advocacy Training in African American and Hispanic/Latino/a communities. Culturally and language specific content for African American and Hispanic/Latino/a patients on PCa causes, risk factors, epidemiology, detection, diagnosis, and treatment were delivered through a workshop and simultaneously broadcasted in Spanish in Los Angeles County (n = 29) and in English in Tallahassee, FL (n = 9). Pre- and posttest surveys assessed impact. Pre vs post differences were statistically significant in knowledge (5.0 ± 1.6 vs 6.3 ± 1.1) and advocacy intentions (3.9 ± 0.9 vs 4.3 ± 0.8), on correctly identifying warning signs for PCa (50% vs 87%), intent to inform and educate about PCa within the next 3 months (69% vs 95%), to ensure that high-quality research is sensitive to the priorities of patients (63% vs 84%), to help increase patient recruitment, compliance, and retention for clinical trials within the next month (62% vs 84%), intent to engage in PCa patient education within the next 3 months (67% vs 92%), and in engaging in PCa community outreach within the next 3 months (67% vs 94%). There were no significant differences due to race/ethnicity. The Cancer Advocacy Training led to increased knowledge, awareness, and intention to engage in advocacy regarding PCa in the next 3 months. Results suggest that delivering culturally and language specific educational information increases engagement of Hispanic/Latino/a and African American patient/community advocates.

The population of Argentina is the result of the intermixing between several groups, including Indigenous American, European and African populations. Despite the commonly held idea that the population of Argentina is of mostly European origin, multiple studies have shown that this process of admixture had an impact in the entire Argentine population. In the present study we characterized the distribution of Indigenous American, European and African ancestry among individuals from different regions of Argentina and evaluated the level of discrepancy between self-reported grandparental origin and genetic ancestry estimates. A set of 99 autosomal ancestry informative markers (AIMs) was genotyped in a sample of 441 Argentine individuals to estimate genetic ancestry. We used non-parametric tests to evaluate statistical significance. The average ancestry for the Argentine sample overall was 65% European (95%CI: 63-68%), 31% Indigenous American (28-33%) and 4% African (3-4%). We observed statistically significant differences in European ancestry across Argentine regions [Buenos Aires province (BA) 76%, 95%CI: 73-79%; Northeast (NEA) 54%, 95%CI: 49-58%; Northwest (NWA) 33%, 95%CI: 21-41%; South 54%, 95%CI: 49-59%; p<0.0001] as well as between the capital and immediate suburbs of Buenos Aires city compared to more distant suburbs [80% (95%CI: 75-86%) versus 68% (95%CI: 58-77%), p = 0.01]. European ancestry among individuals that declared all grandparents born in Europe was 91% (95%CI: 88-94%) compared to 54% (95%CI: 51-57%) among those with no European grandparents (p<0.001). Our results demonstrate the range of variation in genetic ancestry among Argentine individuals from different regions in the country, highlighting the importance of taking this variation into account in genetic association and admixture mapping studies in this population.

IntroductionCancer is the second leading cause of death in the USA. Cancer genetics and genomic studies have improved our understanding of risk, onset and progression. However, disparities by race and ethnicity have resulted in a lack of representation for minorities in these studies, contributing to unequal reductions in the cancer burden across populations. Moreover, the reasons why some individuals decline to participate in cancer genetics and/or genomic studies across diverse populations remain unclear. This review will summarise the main reasons (concerns) associated with declining to participate in cancer genetics and/or genomic studies for individuals with a history of cancer living in the USA and Puerto Rico (PR), considering race and ethnicity.Methods and analysisWe will follow the methodology presented by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Statement extended to Scoping Reviews to guide manuscript generation. A standardised search strategy developed in collaboration with a health sciences librarian will be deployed in Medline (PubMed), Embase (Ovid) and Scopus from database inception till present. The search strategy consists of three concepts: (1) cancer; (2) genetics and genomic research; (3) declination to participate in research studies. Title and abstract screening, followed by full-text review, will be conducted by independent reviewers to determine study inclusion. Only the peer-reviewed literature in English, conducted in the USA and PR will be considered. Findings will be presented as a numerical summary, graphical presentation and narrative review of the literature.Ethics and disseminationEthical review is not required for scoping reviews. This review aims to facilitate the development of targeted strategies to increase participation in cancer genetics and/or genomic studies across diverse populations. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. The protocol is registered in the Open Science Framework (www.osf.io).

The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) has developed a framework to guide and orient research into health disparities and minority health. The framework depicts different domains of influence (such as biological and behavioral) and different levels of influence (such as individual and interpersonal). Here, influenced by the “One Health” approach, we propose adding two new levels of influence – interspecies and planetary – to this framework to reflect the interconnected nature of human, animal, and environmental health. Extending the framework in this way will help researchers to create new avenues of inquiry and encourage multidisciplinary collaborations. We then use the One Health approach to discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated health disparities, and show how the expanded framework can be applied to research into health disparities related to antimicrobial resistance and obesity.

Cancer health disparities that exist in the Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino/x communities are scientific challenges, yet there are limited team science approaches to mitigate these challenges. This article's purpose is to evaluate the team science collaborations of the National Institutes of Health‐funded Florida‐California Cancer Research, Education & Engagement (CaRE2) Center partnership underscoring the inclusion of multidisciplinary team members and future under‐represented minority (URM) cancer researchers. To understand our collaborative efforts, we conducted a social network analysis (SNA) of the CaRE2 Center partnership among University of Florida, Florida A&M University, and University of Southern California with data collected via the dimensions.ai application programming interface. We downloaded metadata for all publications associated with dimensions.ai IDs. The CaRE2 collaboration network increased over time as evidenced by accruing more external collaborators and more publishing of collaborative works. Degree centrality of key personnel was stable in each wave of the networks. CaRE2 key personnel averaged a total of 60.8 collaborators in 2018–2019 (SD = 57.4, minimum = 3, maximum = 221), and 65.8 collaborators in 2020–2021 (SD = 56.06, minimum = 4, maximum = 222). Betweenness was largely stable across all groups and waves. We observed a steady decline in transitivity, the probability that a pair of CaRE2 co‐authors shared a third co‐author, from 0.74 in 2018 to 0.47 in 2022. The SNA findings suggest that the CaRE2 Center partnership's publications show growth in team science collaborations with the inclusion of multidisciplinary team members from the three partner institutions and future URM cancer researchers who were mentored as trainees and early‐stage investigators.

Introduction The Florida-California Cancer Research, Education, and Engagement (CaRE2) Health Equity Center is a triad partnership committed to increasing institutional capacity for cancer disparity research, the diversity of the cancer workforce, and community empowerment. This article provides an overview of the structure, process innovations, and initial outcomes from the first 4 years of the CaRE2 triad partnership. Methods CaRE2 serves diverse populations in Florida and California using a “molecule to the community and back” model. We prioritize research on the complex intersection of biological, environmental, and social determinants health, working together with scientific and health disparities communities, sharing expertise across institutions, bidirectional training, and community outreach. Partnership progress and outcomes were assessed using mixed methods and four Program Steering Committee meetings. Results Research capacity was increased through development of a Living Repository of 81 cancer model systems from minority patients for novel cancer drug development. CaRE2 funded 15 scientific projects resulting in 38 publications. Workforce diversity entailed supporting 94 cancer trainees (92 URM) and 34 ESIs (32 URM) who coauthored 313 CaRE2-related publications and received 48 grants. Community empowerment was promoted via outreaching to more than 3000 individuals, training 145 community cancer advocates (including 28 Community Scientist Advocates), and publishing 10 community reports. CaRE2 members and trainees together have published 639 articles, received 61 grants, and 57 awards. Conclusion The CaRE2 partnership has achieved its initial aims. Infrastructure for translational cancer research was expanded at one partner institution, and cancer disparities research was expanded at the two cancer centers.

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in California and second among Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) males. Data from the California Cancer Registry were utilized to investigate the differential impact on CRC outcomes from demographic and clinical characteristics among non‐Hispanic white (NHW), non‐Hispanic Black (NHB), U.S. born (USB), and non‐U.S. born (NUSB) H/L patients diagnosed during 1995–2020. Methods We identified 248,238 NHW, 28,433 NHB, and 62,747 H/L cases (32,402 NUSB and 30,345 USB). Disparities across groups were evaluated through case frequencies, odds ratios (OR) from logistic regression, and hazard ratios (HR) from Cox regression models. All statistical tests were two‐sided. Results NHB patients showed a higher proportion of colon tumors (75.8%) than NHW (71.5%), whereas both NUSB (65.9%) and USB (66.9%) H/L cases had less (p < 0.001). In multivariate models, NUSB H/L cases were 15% more likely than NHW to have rectal cancer. Compared to NHW, NHB cases had the greatest proportion of Stage IV diagnoses (26.0%) and were more likely to die of CRC (multivariate HR = 1.12; 95% CI = 1.10–1.15). Instead, NUSB H/L patients were less likely to die of CRC (multivariate HR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.85–0.89) whereas USB H/L did not differ from NHW. Conclusions NHB and H/L cases have more adverse characteristics at diagnosis compared to NHW cases, with NHB cases being more likely to die from CRC. However, NUSB H/Ls cases showed better survival than NHW and US born H/L patients. These findings highlight the importance of considering nativity among H/L populations to understand cancer disparities. Data from the California Cancer Registry were utilized to evaluate the impact on colorectal cancer outcomes from demographic and clinical characteristics among non‐Hispanic White, non‐Hispanic Black, U.S. born, and non‐U.S. born Hispanic/Latino/a/x patients during 1995–2020. We report more adverse characteristics at diagnosis in non‐Hispanic Black and non‐hispanic White participants. Non‐U.S born Hispanic/Latino/x/a patients showed better survival relative to non‐Hispanic white and U.S. born patients.

Funders’ goals for diversity, equity and inclusion are laudable, but they will only be successful if the funders prioritize health disparities research and address biases in the funding application process.

Objective To assess the carbon footprint, accessibility, and diagnostic performance of an expedited ‘One‐Stop’ prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic pathway. Materials and methods A total of 1083 consecutive patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) followed by transrectal ultrasound fusion‐guided prostate biopsy (PBx) were identified from a prospective database. The patients were divided according to the diagnostic pathway: One‐Stop, with MRI and same‐day PBx (3 hours apart), or Standard, with MRI followed by a second visit for PBx. Socioeconomic status was evaluated by the Distressed Communities Index (DCI) and the carbon footprint by the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator. Results Overall, 260 patients underwent the One‐Stop and 823 the Standard pathway. The One‐Stop patients lived farther from the hospital (163 vs. 23 km; p < 0.001), had lower socioeconomic status with DCI scores of 49 versus 30 (p < 0.001), and were more likely to be Latinos (21% vs. 13%, p < 0.001) compared to the Standard patients, respectively. The One‐Stop saved 69 575 km in round trips, over 16 tons of travel‐related CO2 emissions, and $8214 U.S. dollars. For patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PIRADS) 3–5, the clinically significant PCa detection (53% vs. 50%, p = 0.55) was similar for the One‐Stop and Standard pathways, respectively. Conclusions The One‐Stop PCa diagnostic pathway reduces carbon footprint, distance travelled, and patient‐level cost while maintaining clinical outcomes comparable to the Standard pathway. It facilitates access to tertiary‐level care for minorities and underserved populations.