Cancer screening and management in the transgender population: Review of literature and special considerations for gender affirmation surgery

Juliet C Panichella; Sthefano Araya; Siddhartha Nannapaneni; Samuel G Robinson; Susan You; Sarah M Gubara; Maria T Gebreyesus; Theresa Webster; Sameer A Patel; Alireza Hamidian Jahromi

doi:10.5306/wjco.v14.i7.265

Cancer screening and management in the transgender population: Review of literature and special considerations for gender affirmation surgery

World J Clin Oncol. 2023 Jul 24;14(7):265-284. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v14.i7.265.

Affiliations

¹ Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19140, United States.
² Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, United States.
³ Department of Plastic Surgery, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 18045, United States.
⁴ Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Temple University Hospitals, Philadelphia, PA 19140, United States. alirezahamidian@yahoo.com.

Abstract

Background: Literature focused on cancer screening and management is lacking in the transgender population.

Aim: To action to increase contributions to the scientific literature that drives the creation of cancer screening and management protocols for transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) patients.

Methods: We performed a systematic search of PubMed on January 5^th, 2022, with the following terms: "TGNC", OR "transgender", OR "gender non-conforming", OR "gender nonbinary" AND "cancer screening", AND "breast cancer", AND "cervical cancer", AND "uterine cancer", AND "ovarian cancer", AND "prostate cancer", AND "testicular cancer", AND "surveillance", AND "follow-up", AND "management". 70 unique publications were used. The findings are discussed under "Screening" and "Management" categories.

Results: Screening: Current cancer screening recommendations default to cis-gender protocols. However, long-term gender-affirming hormone therapy and loss to follow-up from the gender-specific specialties contribute to a higher risk for cancer development and possible delayed detection. The only known screening guidelines made specifically for this population are from the American College of Radiology for breast cancer. Management: Prior to undergoing Gender Affirmation Surgery (GAS), discussion should address cancer screening and management in the organs remaining in situ. Cancer treatment in this population requires consideration for chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and/or reconstruction. Modification of hormone therapy is decided on a case-by-case basis. The use of prophylactic vs aesthetic techniques in surgery is still debated.

Conclusion: When assessing transgender individuals for GAS, a discussion on the future oncologic risk of the sex-specific organs remaining in situ is essential. Cancer management in this population requires a multidisciplinary approach while the care should be highly individualized with considerations to social, medical, surgical and gender affirming surgery related specifications. Special considerations have to be made during planning for GAS as surgery will alter the anatomy and may render the organ difficult to sample for screening purposes. A discussion with the patient regarding the oncologic risk of remaining organs is imperative prior to GAS. Other special considerations to screening such as the conscious or unconscious will to unassociated with their remaining organs is also a key point to address. We currently lack high quality studies pertinent to the cancer topic in the gender affirmation literature. Further research is required to ensure more comprehensive and individualized care for this population.

Keywords: Gender affirmation surgery; Gender affirming surgery; Gender diverse; Management; Screening; Transgender.