Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM). Few studies have assessed the effects of treatment on GBM's sexual behavior. For an online survey, 193 gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer were recruited from the North American's largest online cancer support group. Sexual functioning was measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and a tailored Gay Sexual Functioning Inventory (GSFI). GBM have worse EPIC urinary and hormonal function and worse hormonal bother, but better sexual function and bother scores than published norms. In the GSFI, two-thirds of participants described their sexual functioning, post-treatment, as fair to poor. Only 22% reported erections sufficient for insertive anal sex. For receptive anal sex, one-third met criteria for anodyspareunia. Over half reported urination problems during sex or at orgasm. Erectile difficulties were common, severe, and a reason cited for not using condoms. Three men HIV seroconverted post-prostate cancer treatment. Differences in function and bother scores were observed by type of treatment, age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, but not relationship status. Sexual functioning significantly predicted long-term mental and physical health. GBM scored significantly worse on mental health and better on physical health than published norms. Sexual recovery after prostate cancer treatment is problematic for most GBM. Research to develop more effective sexual recovery, tailored to the needs of GBM treated for prostate cancer, is needed. Six implications for clinicians treating GBM with prostate cancer are identified.

In 2016, the NIH designated sexual and gender minorities (SGM) a health disparity population.The next year, the American Society of Clinical Oncology highlighted the need to improve the suboptimal cancer and survivorship care received by SGM populations. There are currently no evidence-based training programs in culturally competent care of prostate cancer patients who are gay, bisexual and/or transgender. In this selective review, we summarize findings from the largest quantitative studies focused on sexual minority prostate cancer survivors and from 65 interviews with NIH staff, clinicians, and cancer clinics in 11 US cities.The report is divided into three parts and uses a question and answer format to address 21 questions relevant to clinicians providing care to SGM prostate cancer patients. First, we identify population-specific issues that are culturally relevant in the care of SGM patients with prostate cancer. While a body of research has emerged on sexual minority prostate cancer patients, the literature on gender minorities is limited to single case reports and inadequate to inform practice. This review covers definitions, population size, cultural and historical context, sexual behavior, population invisibility, sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in the electronic medical record, disparities and evidence of discrimination in treatment provision. The second part focuses on promoting evidence-informed, patient-centered care. This includes current practices in assessing sexual orientation, management of disclosure of sexual orientation, how to address common problems sexual minority men experience post-treatment, common questions sexual minority patients have, management of urinary incontinence, HIV and STI risk during and post-treatment, and sub-groups of sexual minority patients with worse outcomes. It then identifies how male partners differ in prostate cancer support, current research on rehabilitation for sexual minority men, issues in advanced prostate cancer, and things to avoid with minority patients. Finally, we examine the cultural divide between provider and patient, advocating for cultural humility when working with minority patients. Training programs and continuing education can help providers both to become more aware of their own cultural assumptions, informed about health disparities, and able to provide quality care, and to make clinics more welcoming to SGM patients. 2 Rosser et al. Treating SGM prostate cancer patients

Background: Laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests a protective role of magnesium in colorectal cancer development. We estimated the associations of serum and dietary magnesium with colorectal cancer incidence in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study.

Background/aims: Sexual minorities are small and under-researched populations that are at disproportionate risk for cancer and poor cancer outcomes. Described as a “hidden population,” the principal research challenge has been to develop effective methods to identify and recruit such cancer patients into cancer studies. Online recruitment strategies, as well as targeted clinic recruitment using patient-entered sexual orientation and gender identity data from electronic medical records have potential to transform recruitment, but studies testing the effects of how to recruit using these have not been published. Methods: In 2019, we conducted a naturalistic, three-arm, stratified prospective study to compare three recruitment strategies: (a) clinic based recruitment of prostate cancer patients from gay health and urology clinics; (b) directly from the gay community; and (c) online recruitment (through cancer support, sex/dating, and social sites). For each strategy, we estimated time, workload, and direct costs involved. To study how recruitment strategy may affect sampling, we tested for retention rates, demographic and outcome differences across sites. Using these methods, we successfully recruited 401 gay and bisexual prostate cancer patients into a randomized, controlled, 24-month trial testing an online sexual and urinary rehabilitation curriculum tailored for this population. Results: There were seven key results. First, it is possible to recruit substantial numbers of sexual minority men into prostate cancer studies provided online recruitment methods are used. Second, we observed big differences in dropout during study onboarding by recruitment source. Third, within online recruitment, the online sex/dating application (app) was the most successful and efficient, followed by the cancer support site, and then the social networking site. Fourth, while clinics were the cheapest source of recruitment, they were time intensive and low in yield. Fifth, the cancer support site and sex/dating app recruits differed by several characteristics, with the former being more rehabilitation-focused while the latter were younger and more sexually active. Sixth, we found almost no differences in outcomes across the three online recruitment sites. Seventh, because retention in online studies has been a concern, we confirm very low attrition at 3- and 6 months into the trial. Conclusion: For sexual minority cancer research, more research on how to use sexual orientation and gender identity electronic medical record data for clinic-based recruitment is needed. For other small or hard-to-reach populations, researchers should compare and publish online versus offline recruitment strategies.

Objective Prostate cancer is the most common invasive cancer in gay and bisexual men (GBM). Despite the unique sexual and urinary concerns of this group, studies of prostate cancer rehabilitation have primarily focused on heterosexual men. GBM also have high prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which may be associated with lower health‐related quality of life (HRQOL). We examined the association between HIV status and HRQOL in a cohort of GBM with prostate cancer. Methods Data from the Restore study, a cross‐sectional online survey of GBM treated for prostate cancer, were used to examine this association. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) assessed function, bother, and summary measures in four domains: urinary, sexual, bowel, and hormone. Overall physical and mental HRQOL was assessed using the Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐12). Multivariate analysis of variance and linear regression were used to evaluate the association between HIV status and HRQOL scores after adjustment for demographic and sexual characteristics. Results Of 192 participants, 24 (12.4%) reported an HIV diagnosis. After adjustment for covariates, HIV‐positive status was associated with lower scores on the EPIC urinary (mean difference [MD]: −13.0, 95% CI, −21.4 to −4.6), sexual (MD: −12.5, 95% CI, −21.9 to −3.2), and bowel (MD: −5.9, 95% CI, −11.7 to −0.2) domains. No significant associations were observed between HIV status and other outcomes. Conclusions HIV status may be associated with poorer urinary, sexual, and bowel HRQOL in GBM prostate cancer survivors.

This study is the first to quantify experiences of discrimination in treatment undertaken by sexual and gender minority prostate cancer patients. Participants were 192 gay and bisexual and one transgender prostate cancer patients living in the U.S. recruited from North America’s largest online cancer support group. In this online survey, discrimination in treatment was measured using the Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS), adapted for medical settings. Almost half (46%) endorsed at least one item, including 43% that the provider did not listen, 25% that they were talked down to, 20% that they received poorer care than other patients, 19% that the provider acted as superior, and 10% that the provider appeared afraid of them. While most (26.3%) rated the discrimination as “rare” or “sometimes” (EDS = 1–3), 20% reported it as more common (EDS ≥ 4). Most attributed the discrimination to their sexual orientation, or to providers being arrogant or too pushed for time. Discrimination was significantly associated with poorer urinary, bowel, and hormonal (but not sexual) EPIC function and bother scores, and with poorer mental health (SF-12). Those who had systemic/combined treatment (vs. either radiation only or surgery only) were more likely to report discrimination. This study provides the first evidence that discrimination in prostate cancer treatment, including microaggressions, appears a common experience for gay and bisexual patients, and may result in poorer health outcomes.

Purpose: We evaluated the acceptability and feasibility of collecting sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data in oncology and urology clinical settings. Methods: We surveyed 101 urology and 104 oncology clinic patients with a standardized sexual orientation question with six response options, ''lesbian, gay, or homosexual;'' ''straight or heterosexual;'' ''bisexual;'' ''something else;'' ''do not know;'' and ''choose not to disclose.'' Next, we added the sexual orientation question and an expanded gender identity question to the electronic medical record (EMR) and analyzed data on the first 450 urology and 103 oncology patients. Acceptability and feasibility were assessed based on responses to the survey and patient intake forms. Results: In the acceptability survey, only 3% of urology and 4% of oncology patients selected ''choose not to disclose.'' Over 90% of patients in both clinics assessed the sexual orientation question as understandable and easy to answer. In all, 79% of urology and 73% of oncology patients stated they would answer it in their EMR, but only 56% of urology and 54% of oncology patients described the information as important. Sexual minority patients were as likely as heterosexual patients to state they would answer the question. Only 5% of patients selected ''choose not to disclose'' for sexual orientation, and <1% for the expanded gender identity question. Conclusion: Adding SOGI questions to the EMR appears to be acceptable and feasible and the sexual orientation question was understandable to a large majority of urology and oncology patients. Clinical Trials.gov ID: #NCT03343093.

No abstract