Cross-sectional study to develop and describe psychometric characteristics of a patient-reported instrument (PROFFIT) for measuring financial toxicity of cancer within a public healthcare system

ESMO expert consensus statements on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Financial toxicity, defined as both the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress from a cancer diagnosis and its treatment, is a topic of interest in the assessment of the quality of life of patients with cancer and their families. Current evidence implicates financial toxicity in psychosocial, economic and other harms, leading to suboptimal cancer outcomes along the entire trajectory of diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, survivorship and palliation. This paper presents the results of a virtual consensus, based on the evidence base to date, on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with and beyond cancer organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) in 2022.

METHODS

A Delphi panel of 19 experts from 11 countries was convened taking into account multidisciplinarity, diversity in health system contexts and research relevance. The international panel of experts was divided into four working groups (WGs) to address questions relating to distinct thematic areas: patients with cancer at risk of financial toxicity; management of financial toxicity during the initial phase of treatment at the hospital/ambulatory settings; financial toxicity during the continuing phase and at end of life; and financial risk protection for survivors of cancer, and in cancer recurrence. After comprehensively reviewing the literature, statements were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment, and voting.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 25 evidence-informed consensus statements were developed, which answer 13 questions on financial toxicity. They cover evidence summaries, practice recommendations/guiding statements and policy recommendations relevant across health systems. These consensus statements aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of financial toxicity and guide clinicians globally in mitigating its impact, emphasizing the importance of further research, best practices and guidelines.

Financial Toxicity in Renal Patients (FINTORE) Study: A Cross-Sectional Italian Study on Financial Burden in Kidney Disease-A Project Protocol

Financial toxicity (FT) refers to the negative impact of health-care costs on clinical conditions. In general, social determinants of health, especially poverty, socioenvironmental stressors, and psychological factors, are increasingly recognized as important determinants of non-communicable diseases, such as chronic kidney disease (CKD), and their consequences. We aim to investigate the prevalence of FT in patients at different stages of CKD treated in our universal health-care system and from pediatric nephrology, hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis and renal transplantation clinics. FT will be assessed with the Patient-Reported Outcome for Fighting Financial Toxicity (PROFFIT) score, which was first developed by Italian oncologists. Our local ethics committee has approved the study. Our population sample will answer the sixteen questions of the PROFFIT questionnaire, seven of which are related to the outcome and nine the determinants of FT. Data will be analyzed in the pediatric and adult populations and by group stratification. We are confident that this study will raise awareness among health-care professionals of the high risk of adverse health outcomes in patients who have both kidney disease and high levels of FT. Strategies to reduce FT should be implemented to improve the standard of care for people with kidney disease and lead to truly patient-centered care.

The socioeconomic impact of cancer on patients and their relatives: Organisation of European Cancer Institutes task force consensus recommendations on conceptual framework, taxonomy, and research directions

Loss of income and out-of-pocket expenditures are important causes of financial hardship in many patients with cancer, even in high-income countries. The far-reaching consequences extend beyond the patients themselves to their relatives, including caregivers and dependents. European research to date has been limited and is hampered by the absence of a coherent theoretical framework and by heterogeneous methods and terminology. To address these shortages, a task force initiated by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) produced 25 recommendations, including a comprehensive definition of socioeconomic impact from the perspective of patients and their relatives, a conceptual framework, and a consistent taxonomy linked to the framework. The OECI task force consensus statement highlights directions for future research with a view towards policy relevance. Beyond descriptive studies into the dimension of the problem, individual severity and predictors of vulnerability should be explored. It is anticipated that the consensus recommendations will facilitate and enhance future research efforts into the socioeconomic impact of cancer and cancer care, providing a crucial reference point for the development and validation of patient-reported outcome instruments aimed at measuring its broader effects.

Financial Toxicity and Health-Related Quality of Life Profile of Patients With Hematologic Malignancies Treated in a Universal Health Care System

PURPOSE

We investigated the association of financial toxicity (FT) with the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) profile of patients with hematologic malignancies treated in a universal health care system.

METHODS

We did a secondary analysis of six multicenter studies enrolling patients with hematologic malignancies. FT was evaluated using the financial difficulties item of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Multivariable linear regression models were used to assess the mean differences in HRQoL scores between patients with or without FT, while adjusting for key potential confounding factors. We also examined the prevalence of clinically important problems and symptoms by the experience of FT, using established thresholds for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis was performed to explore the risk factors associated with FT.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,847 patients were analyzed, of whom 441 (23.9%) reported FT. We observed statistically and clinically relevant worse scores for patients with FT compared with those without FT for all the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. The three largest clinically relevant mean differences between patients with and without FT were observed in pain (∆ = 19.6 [95% CI, 15.7 to 23.5]; P < .001), social functioning (∆ = -18.9 [95% CI, -22.5 to -15.2]; P < .001), and role functioning (Δ = -17.7 [95% CI, -22.1 to -13.3]; P < .001). Patients with FT tended to report a higher prevalence of clinically important problems and symptoms across all EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. In the univariable and multivariable analyses, the presence of FT was associated with the presence of comorbidities, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥1, and not receiving a salary.

CONCLUSION

Patients with hematologic malignancies treated in the setting of a universal health care system who experience FT have a worse HRQoL profile compared with those without FT.

Measuring financial toxicity in head and neck cancer: a systematic review

Objective

The current study systematically reviews the literature about financial toxicity (FT) in head and neck cancer patients. Three databases were reviewed: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science.

Methods

Full text English papers published from 2000 to 2022 reporting on quantitative results about FT in head and neck cancer survivors collected through structured questionnaires or interviews were included.

Results

Twenty-seven articles were included. Most of the articles were published after 2015 and from United States. There was a slight prevalence of papers dealing with oropharyngeal cancer, squamous-cell carcinoma and locally advanced head and neck cancer. Measures of FT were obtained through validated questionnaires like COST, FIT and FDQ. Collected data were mostly referrable to financial spending, financial resources, psychosocial aspect, support seeking, coping care and coping lifestyle subdomain. FT scores by COST were found to be worse in the COVID era. Financial counseling and adequate information about the costs of treatment were two effective strategies to mitigate FT.

Conclusions

FT is a relatively new challenge in head and neck cancer treatment, whose expenses are higher than therapies for other cancers. A universal method to assess FT and a unified guideline for the administration of questionnaires are needed to mitigate FT and to improve patient outcomes.

Cross-cultural adaptation of the PROFFIT Instrument to measure financial toxicity in people living with cancer within a UK population

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to develop a British version of the Patient Reported Outcomes for Fighting Financial Toxicity of Cancer (PROFFIT): originally designed to measure financial toxicity in cancer for an Italian universal healthcare system. The instrument was carefully evaluated for crosscultural equivalence, face validity and practicality.

METHODS

A systematic approach to cross-cultural adaptation was used, including forward translation, synthesis, backward translation, consolidation of translations with an expert committee, and cognitive interviews. As part of the cognitive interview process, 18 cancer patients completed a structured interview of 60-90 min in length.

RESULTS

The translated and modified PROFFIT questionnaire demonstrated good psycho-linguistic properties, including high compliance (only one item was revised for clarity), high retrieval from memory, high decision-making processes, and high response processes.

CONCLUSION

PROFFIT has been found to be functional and adaptable in a new social environment. The tool may be useful for tailoring interventions to address and measure financial hardships within the cancer population, which appear to be a current challenge for public health.

POLICY SUMMARY

Even in universal healthcare systems, financial toxicity due to the increase in outof-pocket expenses poses a significant problem. The FT phenomenon warrants proper attention in the United Kingdom since it may negatively impact financial well-being, quality of life, psychosocial health, and treatment adherence.

Confirmatory validation analysis of the PROFFIT questionnaire to assess financial toxicity in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The Patient Reported Outcome for Fighting FInancial Toxicity (PROFFIT) questionnaire was developed to measure financial toxicity (FT) and identify its determinants. The aim of the present study was to confirm its validity in a prospective cohort of patients receiving anticancer treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From March 2021 to July 2022, 221 patients were enrolled at 10 Italian centres. Selected items of the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire represented the anchors, specifically, question 28 (Q-28) on financial difficulties, and questions 29-30 measuring global health status/quality of life (HR-QOL). The study had 80% power to detect a 0.20 correlation coefficient (r) between anchors and PROFFIT-score (items 1-7, range 0-100, 100 indicating maximum FT) with bilateral alpha 0.05 and 80% power. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. FT determinants (items 8-16) were described.

RESULTS

Median age of patients was 65 years, 116 (52.5%) were females, 96 (43.4%) had low education level. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed goodness of fit of the PROFFIT-score. Significant partial correlation of PROFFIT-score was found with Q-28 (r = 0.51) and HR-QOL (r = -0.23). Mean (SD) PROFFIT-score at baseline was 36.5 (24.9); it was statistically significantly higher for patients living in South Italy, those with lower education level, those who were freelancer/unemployed at diagnosis and those who reported significant economic impact from the COVID-19 pandemic. Mean (SD) scores of determinants ranged from 17.6 (27.1) for item 14 (support from medical staff) to 49.0 (36.3) for item 10 (expenses for medicines or supplements). PROFFIT-score significantly increased with worsening response to determinants.

CONCLUSIONS

External validation of PROFFIT-score in an independent sample of patients was successful. The instrument is now being used in clinical studies.

Out-of-pocket costs sustained in the last 12 months by cancer patients: an Italian survey-based study on individual expenses between 2017 and 2018

PURPOSE

Out of Pocket costs (OOP) sustained by cancer patients also in public NHS contribute to disease-related financial toxicity. Aim of the study was to investigate the amount and the types of OOP sustained by Italian cancer patients for care services.

METHODS

A sample survey was conducted by FAVO in December 2017-June 2018, in 39 adhering hospitals and 1289 patients diagnosed from 1985 to 2018, by standardized questionnaire inquiring on: yearly expenditure by cancer service, age, year of diagnosis, disease phase, cancer site, sex, marital status, education, residence. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed between OOP and each variable. Multilevel mixed-effects negative binomial regression was used to assess the combined effects of patients characteristics on the differences in acquiring health services.

RESULTS

The yearly average OOP was 1841.81€, with the highest values for transports (359.34€) and for diagnostic examinations (259.82€). Significantly higher OOP were found in North and Centre than South and Islands (167.51 vs. 138.39). In the fully adjusted multivariable analysis, the variables significantly associated with higher than reference expenditure were: medium/high education (OR 1.22 [1.05-1.42], upper gastrointestinal tract cancer (OR 1.37 [1.06-1.77]), disease phase of treatments for cancer progression or pain therapy (OR 1.59 [1.30-1.93]).

CONCLUSION

Italian cancer patients in 2018 sustained OOP quite similar to those measured in 2012 to supplement NHS services. The main component of the OOP costs were diagnostic examination and transportation. The NHS should pay attention to potentiate its ability to answer unmet needs of patients with advanced cancer who are the most fragile ones.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Reinforcing the services where the main OOP expenses are located can help in promoting public health actions and reduce socio-economic needs that could compromise the receipt of optimal care along the whole disease course, from diagnosis to rehabilitation.

Is Financial Toxicity Captured in Assessments of Quality of Life In Oncology Randomized Clinical Trials?

BACKGROUND

Financial difficulties in relation with diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer affects their quality-of-life (QoL). We aim to characterize how financial toxicity was captured in oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and to estimate how often the study-drug or other expenses were covered by sponsors.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional analysis of articles published in six high impact journals (The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, The Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, and JAMA Oncology). Selected articles needed to report on a RCT published between January 2018 and December 2019, study an anti-cancer drug, and have reported QoL results. We abstracted the QoL questionnaires used; whether the survey was directly assessing financial difficulties; whether a difference in financial toxicity was reported between arms; and whether the sponsor supplied the study-drug or covered other expenses.

RESULTS

For all 73 studies that met inclusion criteria, 34 studies (47%) utilized QoL questionnaires without direct assessment of financial difficulties. The study drug was provided by the sponsor in at least 51 trials (70%), provided according to local rules in 3 trials (4%), and undeterminated in the remaining 19 trials (26%). We found 2 trials (3%) with payments or compensation to enrolled patients.

CONCLUSION

This cross-sectional study found 47% of articles reporting on QoL in oncology RCTs did not use QoL questionnaires directly assessing financial toxicity. Additionnaly, the study drug was supplied by the sponsor in most trials. Financial toxicity occurs in real-life settings when patients have to pay for the drugs and other medical expenses. QoL assessments from oncology RCTs lack generalizability to real-world settings, due to limited querying of financial toxicity.

POLICY SUMMARY

Real-world evidence could be demanded by regulators as post-requirement studies to ensure QoL results observed in trials will replicate in patients treated outside investigational trials.

Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell Therapy in Hematologic Malignancies and Patient-reported Outcomes: A Scoping Review

The inclusion of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy research is critical for understanding the impact of this novel approach from a unique patient standpoint. We performed a scoping review to map the available literature on the use of PRO measures in CAR T-cell therapy studies of patients with hematologic malignancies published between January 2015 and July 2022. Fourteen studies were identified, of which 7 (50%) were investigational early-phase trials, 6 (42.9%) were observational studies, and 1 (7.1%) was a pilot study. The EQ-5D and the PROMIS-29 were the 2 most frequently used PRO measures, being included in 6 (42.9%) and 5 (35.7%) studies, respectively. Despite differences in study designs, there seems to be evidence of improvements over time since CAR T-cell infusion in important domains such as physical functioning and fatigue, at least in patients who respond to therapy. Overall, the studies identified in our review have shown the added value of PRO assessment in CAR T-cell therapy research by providing novel information that complements the knowledge on safety and efficacy. However, there are several questions which remain to be answered in future research. For example, limited evidence exists regarding patient experience during important phases of the disease trajectory as only 4 (28.6%) and 5 (35.7%) studies provided information on PROs during the first 2 weeks from CAR T-cell infusion and after the first year, respectively. Time is ripe for a more systematic implementation of high-quality PRO assessment in future clinical trials and in real-life settings of patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy.

Psychometric properties of self-reported financial toxicity measures in cancer survivors: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) measuring financial toxicity (FT) in cancer survivors.

DESIGN

This systematic review was conducted according to the guidance of the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology.

DATA SOURCES

Comprehensive searches were performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest and Cochrane Library from database inception to February 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included studies that reported any PROMs for measuring FT in cancer survivors who were ≥18 years old. FT was defined as perceived subjective financial distress resulting from objective financial burden. Studies that were not validation studies and that used a PROM only as an outcome measurement were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included papers. We used the COSMIN criteria to summarise and evaluate the psychometric properties of each study regarding structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing for construct validity, cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, criterion validity and responsiveness.

RESULTS

A total of 23 articles (21 PROMs) were eligible for inclusion in this study. The findings highlighted that the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) had an adequate development process and showed better psychometric properties than other PROMs, especially in internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.92), reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.80) and hypothesis testing (r=0.42-0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

From a psychometric property perspective, the COST could be recommended as the most suitable worldwide available measure for use in research and clinical practice across different contexts. We suggest that PROMs should be selected only after careful consideration of the local socioeconomic context. Future studies are warranted to develop various FT PROMs based on different social and cultural backgrounds and to clarify the theoretical grounds for assessing FT.

Validity of the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) in patients with gynecologic cancer

OBJECTIVE

Financial toxicity is a financial burden of cancer care itself, which leads to worse quality of life and higher mortality and is considered an adverse effect. The COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) tool is a patient-reported outcome measurement used to evaluate financial toxicity. We aimed to validate the internal consistency and reproducibility of the COST tool in patients with gynecologic cancer.

METHODS

In this multicenter study covering the period April 2019 to July 2021, using the COST tool in Japan, patients diagnosed with ovarian, cervical, or endometrial cancer receiving systemic anti-cancer drug therapy for more than 2 months were eligible. Patients with no out-of-pocket costs for direct medical costs were excluded. The patients answered the initial test and a retest, which was completed from 2 to 14 days after the initial test. Internal consistency and reproducibility were assessed using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. Cronbach's alpha ≥0.8 indicates good internal consistency, and ICC ≥0.8 is highly reliable.

RESULTS

A total of 112 patients (ovarian: 50, cervical: 26, endometrial: 36) responded to the initial test, and 89 patients answered the retest from 2 to 14 days after the initial test. The median patient age was 58 (range, 28-78) years. The median COST score was 19. Cronbach's alpha showed good internal consistency at 0.83 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.87). The ICC at 0.850 (95% CI 0.777 to 0.900) showed high reliability.

CONCLUSIONS

The COST tool has good internal consistency and reliable reproducibility in patients with gynecologic cancer in Japan. The COST tool quantifies financial toxicity in the insurance system, where patients have limited out-of-pocket direct medical costs. The results support the use of the COST tool in patients with gynecologic cancer.

Patient-reported benefit from proposed interventions to reduce financial toxicity during cancer treatment

INTRODUCTION

Financial toxicity is common and pervasive among cancer patients. Research suggests that gynecologic cancer patients experiencing financial toxicity are at increased risk for engaging in harmful cost-coping strategies, including delaying/skipping treatment because of costs, or forsaking basic needs to pay medical bills. However, little is known about patients' preferences for interventions to address financial toxicity.

METHODS

Cross-sectional surveys to assess financial toxicity [Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST)], cost-coping strategies, and preferences for intervention were conducted in a gynecologic cancer clinic waiting room. Associations with cost-coping were determined using multivariate modeling. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) explored associations between financial toxicity and intervention preferences.

RESULTS

Among 89 respondents, median COST score was 31.9 (IQR: 21-38); 35% (N = 30) scored < 26, indicating they were experiencing financial toxicity. Financial toxicity was significantly associated with cost-coping (adjusted OR = 3.32 95% CI: 1.08, 14.34). Intervention preferences included access to transportation vouchers (38%), understanding treatment costs up-front (35%), minimizing wait times (33%), access to free food at appointments (25%), and assistance with minimizing/eliminating insurance deductibles (23%). In unadjusted analyses, respondents experiencing financial toxicity were more likely to select transportation assistance (OR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.04, 6.90), assistance with co-pays (OR = 9.17, 95% CI: 2.60, 32.26), and assistance with deductibles (OR = 12.20, 95% CI: 3.47, 43.48), than respondents not experiencing financial toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirm the presence of financial toxicity in gynecologic cancer patients, describe how patients attempt to cope with financial hardship, and provide insight into patients' needs for targeted interventions to mitigate the harm of financial toxicity.