Julia Stal

Dr. Julia Stal

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

6Years (2021-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
15 April 2022 in The Oncologist
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JSJulia Stal
Julia Stal
SYSerena Y Yi
Serena Y Yi
SCSally Cohen-Cutler
Sally Cohen-Cutler
PGPhuong Gallagher
Phuong Gallagher
ABAfsaneh Barzi
Afsaneh Barzi
KMKimberly A Miller
Kimberly A Miller
Background: Young adults (YA) diagnosed with rectal cancer are disproportionately impacted by the gonadotoxic effects of treatment and potential subsequent infertility. Objective: The purpose of this study was to characterize the prevalence of fertility preservation measures used, reasons why such measures were not used, and correlates of discussion between providers and YA rectal cancer survivors. Design: An online, cross-sectional survey was administered on the Facebook page of a national colorectal cancer (CRC) advocacy organization. Eligible participants were rectal cancer survivors diagnosed before age 50, between 6 and 36 months from diagnosis or relapse, and based in the US. Results: Participants were 148 rectal cancer survivors. Over half of the survivors reported that their doctor did not talk to them about potential therapy-related fertility complications. Only one-fifth of survivors banked sperm (males) or eggs/embryos (females) prior to their cancer therapy. Older age at diagnosis and greater quality of life were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of fertility discussions among males. Greater quality of life was significantly associated with a higher likelihood of fertility discussion among females. Conclusions: These findings indicate that the majority of YA rectal cancer survivors do not receive, or cannot recall, comprehensive cancer care, and help to identify patients with rectal cancer who may be at risk for inadequate fertility counseling. Clinicians should provide proper counseling to mitigate this late effect and to ensure optimal quality of life for YA rectal cancer survivors.

11 August 2021 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KMKimberly Miller
Kimberly Miller
JSJulia Stal
Julia Stal
PGPhuong Gallagher
Phuong Gallagher
ZWZhen Weng
Zhen Weng
DFDavid Freyer
David Freyer
ABAfsaneh Barzi
Afsaneh Barzi
The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is rising among young adults. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in survivorship is not well-described in this population. We assessed HRQoL among young adult CRC survivors diagnosed from age 18–39 (AYAs) to examine differences by time from diagnosis, and to identify key correlates. A cross-sectional online survey was administered in collaboration with a national patient advocacy organization. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-C) was used to measure HRQoL, which assesses HRQoL globally and across 4 domains: emotional, physical, social, and functional. T-tests were conducted to compare HRQoL between survivors who were 6–18 months versus 19–36 months from diagnosis or relapse and multiple linear regression was conducted to identify correlates. The sample (n = 196) had a mean age of 32.2(SD ± 4.5); 116 (59.9%) were male; and the self-reported tumor location was colon (39.3%) or rectal (60.7%). The majority (56.4%) were diagnosed with stage 2 disease; 96.9% were non-metastatic. The mean global HRQoL score was 67.7 out of a possible score of 136. Across domains, mean scores were low. Emotional and physical well-being were significantly higher among survivors who were 19–36 months from diagnosis/relapse compared to those 6–18 months from diagnosis/relapse. Longer time from diagnosis and older current age were associated with higher HRQoL, while more intensive treatment and higher clinical disease stage were negatively associated, particularly in the emotional and physical domains. Overall, HRQoL was low in this population, and further research is needed to inform age-appropriate interventions to improve HRQoL for AYA CRC survivors.

8 August 2023 in Cancer Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
EMErin M. Mobley
Erin M. Mobley
DMDiana J. Moke
Diana J. Moke
JMJoel Milam
Joel Milam
Carol Y OchoaCarol Y Ochoa
Carol Y Ochoa
JSJulia Stal
Julia Stal
SHSusanne Hempel
Susanne Hempel
Background: Childhood cancer survivors (CCS) experience many long‐term health problems that can be mitigated with recommended survivorship care. However, many CCS do not have access to survivorship care nor receive recommended survivorship care. We reviewed the empirical evidence of disparities in survivorship care for CCS.Methods: This systematic review searched PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for studies on survivorship care for CCS (PROSPERO: CRD42021227965) and abstracted the reported presence or absence of disparities in care. We screened 7945 citations, and of those, we reviewed 2760 publications at full text.Results: A total of 22 studies reported in 61 publications met inclusion criteria. Potential disparities by cancer treatment (N = 14), diagnosis (N = 13), sex (N = 13), and current age (N = 13) were frequently studied. There was high quality of evidence (QOE) of survivorship care disparities associated with non‐White race, Hispanic ethnicity, and being uninsured. Moderate QOE demonstrated disparities among CCS who were unemployed and older. Lower QOE was found for disparities based on cancer diagnosis, cancer treatment, age at diagnosis, time since diagnosis, sex, insurance type, income, educational attainment, and geographic area.Conclusions: We found strong empirical evidence of disparities in survivorship care for CCS associated with race, ethnicity, and insurance status. Multiple other disparate groups, such as those by employment, income, insurance type, education, cancer diagnosis, age at diagnosis, time since diagnosis, cancer treatment, geographic area, sex, and self‐identified gender warrant further investigation. Prospective, multilevel research is needed to examine the role of other patient characteristics as potential disparities hindering adequate survivorship care in CCS.

19 August 2023 in Cancer Causes & Control
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JSJulia Stal
Julia Stal
SYSerena Y. Yi
Serena Y. Yi
SCSally Cohen-Cutler
Sally Cohen-Cutler
PGPhuong Gallagher
Phuong Gallagher
ABAfsaneh Barzi
Afsaneh Barzi
KMKimberly A. Miller
Kimberly A. Miller
Purpose: To examine the prevalence of female sexual dysfunction (FSD), male erectile dysfunction (ED), and the prevalence and correlates of sexual health discussions between early-onset CRC survivors and their health care providers. Methods: An online, cross-sectional survey was administered in partnership with a national CRC advocacy organization. Respondents (n = 234; diagnosed < 50 years, 6–36 months from diagnosis/relapse) were colon (36.8%) and rectal (63.3%) cancer survivors (62.5% male). The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI-6) was used to measure FSD, and the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) was used to measure ED. Survivors reported whether a doctor communicated with them about sexual issues during/after treatment. Results: Among females (n = 87), 81.6% had FSD (mean FSFI-6 score = 14.3 [SD±6.1]). Among males (n = 145), 94.5% had ED (mean IIEF-5 score = 13.6 [SD±3.4]). Overall, 59.4% of males and 45.4% of females reported a sexual health discussion. Among the total sample, older age of diagnosis and relapse were significantly associated with reporting a discussion, while female sex was negatively associated with reporting a sexual health discussion. Among males, older age at diagnosis and relapse, and among females, older age of diagnosis, were significantly associated with reporting a sexual health discussion. Conclusion: The prevalence of FSD and ED were high (8 in 10 females reporting FSD, almost all males reporting ED), while reported rates of sexual health discussion were suboptimal (half reported discussion). Interventions to increase CRC provider awareness of patients at risk for not being counseled are needed to optimize long-term health outcomes.

22 June 2021 in Palliative and Supportive Care
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JSJulia Stal
Julia Stal
MNMary Baron Nelson
Mary Baron Nelson
EMErin M. Mobley
Erin M. Mobley
Carol Y OchoaCarol Y Ochoa
Carol Y Ochoa
JMJoel E. Milam
Joel E. Milam
KMKimberly A. Miller
Kimberly A. Miller
Objective Palliative care (PC) is patient and family-centered supportive care intended to improve symptom management, reduce caregiver burden, coordinate care, and improve quality of life for patients diagnosed with serious illness. Optimally, PC is begun close to initial diagnosis and delivered in synchrony with disease-specific treatment until symptom relief or patient death. The purpose of this study was to examine cancer survivors’ knowledge and perceptions of PC using a nationally representative sample of US adults from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). Method A total of 593 HINTS respondents reported a personal history of cancer and were included in the sample (55.56% female; mean age of 65.88 years, SD = 18.21; mean time from diagnosis 13.83 years, SD = 18.21). Weighted logistic regression models were conducted to identify correlates of PC knowledge. Results Of the 593 cancer survivors in the sample, 66% (N = 378) reported that they had never heard of PC, 18% (N = 112) reported knowing a little bit about PC, and 17% (N = 95) reported knowing what PC is and could explain it to someone else. In multivariable analysis, survivors of color (Hispanic/Latino, Black, Asian, American Indian, and Pacific Islander), males, and those less educated were significantly less likely to report knowledge of PC. Among survivors who did report knowledge of PC, a lack of distinction between differing modes of supportive care exists. Significance of results These findings suggest a need to increase PC knowledge among cancer survivors with the ultimate goal of addressing disparities in PC acceptance and utilization.

21 March 2025 in Supportive Care in Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JSJulia Stal
Julia Stal
CTCharleen Theroux
Charleen Theroux
SYSerena Y. Yi
Serena Y. Yi
DFDavid Freyer
David Freyer
RCRachel C. Ceasar
Rachel C. Ceasar
KMKimberly Miller
Kimberly Miller
Purpose: To qualitatively explore the content of fertility discussions between oncologists and their adolescent and young adult (AYA; 15–39 years) cancer patients from the perspective of oncologists at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. Methods: We recruited oncologists of various specialties employed at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center in California who treat AYAs at risk for infertility. We collected demographics and fertility-related information (if they discuss fertility with AYA patients and level of confidence doing so) via REDCap prior to conducting a semi-structured interview via HIPAA-compliant Zoom. Audio files were transcribed verbatim and reviewed for themes using an inductive codebook thematic analysis approach. Results: Oncologists (n = 12) were female (66.7%), of White or Asian race (41.7% each), and were on average in practice for 14.3 years (SD = 6.7). All endorsed discussing fertility with AYAs and were on average somewhat/fairly confident doing so. The detail with which oncologists reported discussing fertility with AYAs varied substantially and only some reported discussing costs associated with fertility preservation. Oncologists also reported assorted information they always mention, mention on a case-by-case basis, avoid, or feel is not necessary when discussing fertility. Conclusion: This study provides a detailed description of information delivered by oncologists during fertility discussions to their AYA patients, revealing unstandardized oncofertility counseling. Fertility discussions were described to vary widely in depth and content, suggesting adherence to clinical practice guidelines limited. Interventions to increase provision of guideline-concordant counseling are needed to provide actionable pathways by which AYAs can proactively mitigate adverse reproductive health outcomes.