Ƶ

[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Viewpoint
18, 2024

Policy Priorities in Cancer Care for Transgender People

Author Affiliations
  • 1Harvard Radiation Oncology Program, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
  • 2Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School–Baystate, Springfield, Massachusetts
  • 3Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
  • 4Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
JAMA Oncol. Published online April 18, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0451

Transgender people with cancer navigate a health care system not designed to meet their needs, which can profoundly affect their health. In a 2020 survey, 40% of transgender respondents had postponed or avoided recommended screenings due to discriminatory experiences.1 This response group included 18% of all respondents and 28% of people of color (included Asian, Black, Hispanic, and multiracial individuals as well as those identifying as “other, non-Hispanic”) who had been refused care because of their gender identity or expression. Unfortunately, these disparities extend into oncology clinics. It is important for oncologists to recognize how these experiences contribute to disparities in cancer screening, timely diagnosis, and access to cancer treatment.

Add or change institution
1 Comment for this article
EXPAND ALL
Addressing Intersectionality and Implementation Challenges in Policy Priorities for Transgender Individuals with Cancer
Sijia Liu, PhD | School of Law, Sun Yatsen University, Guangzhou, China
In their recent paper, Smart et al point out the significance of introducing LGBTQ+ cultural humility training for oncology staff, particularly in relation to concepts of sex and gender, regardless of whether patients have positive or negative experiences. Although we really appreciate the values of gender equity and non-discrimination upheld in this suggestion, we still wish to underscore the importance of considering additional intersectional elements that influence transgender individuals, such as ethnicity, race, economic status, rural residence, and disability in the context of the U.S. multicultural society. These elements create a ‘double’ complicated web of challenges that cumulatively contribute to disparities in healthcare access, lower quality care, and poorer health outcomes for transgender individuals diagnosed with cancer compared with other patients.
In particular, transgender individuals from colored marginalized communities may face racial or ethnical bias and prejudice due to their heightened vulnerability compounded by their health crisis. This may manifest itself in unwarranted assumptions, differential treatment, or discriminatory attitudes and behaviors exhibited by healthcare providers, leaving transgender patients feeling disrespected, invalidated, or hesitant to disclose their gender identity or concerns, which finally affect their overall treatment efficacy. Moreover, economic or residential factors like unemployment, unstable housing, and food insecurity can make it difficult for them to access timely diagnostic tests, routine cancer screening and continuous anti-cancer therapies.
A more problematic issue lies in the Priority 3, which advocates the standardization of routine collection and reporting of SOGI data in ‘all’ databases. This is because most medical systems often lack standardized data fields specifically designed to collect information on sexual orientation and gender identity. This dilemma can make it very challenging for clinicians to consistently and accurately handle these sensitive data across ‘all’ treatments. Furthermore, it can also raise concerns about patient’s privacy and confidentiality, as relying solely on the SOGI system may overlook barriers faced by transgender patients with limited digital literacy, knowledge or access, as well as issues surrounding data privacy and security. How can we ensure that data privacy policies are transparent and accessible, with clear explanations of how patients’ information is used and protected? How can LGBTQ+ groups choose the level of detail they wish to disclose and control, particularly in light of their sexual orientation?
In summary, Smart et al present a well-organized framework of priorities in cancer care for transgender patients. However, there are limitations and controversies need further explanation and consideration.

Sijia Liu, PhD; Ruwei Hu, PhD

1.Smart AC, Yunes MJ, Winkfield KM. Policy Priorities in Cancer Care for Transgender People. JAMA Oncol. Published online April 18, 2024.
2.Harner V, Moore M, Casillas B, Chrivoli J, Lopez Olivares A, Harrop E. Transgender Patient Preferences When Discussing Gender in Health Care Settings. Ƶ Netw Open. 2024;7(2):e2356604.
3.Deb B, Porter K, van Cleeff A, Reardon LC, Cook S. Emphasizing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data Capture for Improved Cardiovascular Care of the LGBTQ+ Population. JAMA Cardiol. 2024;9(3):295–302.
4.Tran NK, Rosendale N, Lunn MR. Advancing Data Collection of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Cardiology. JAMA Cardiol. 2024;9(3):206–208.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
×