Financial Toxicity Monitoring in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Patient-Reported Outcomes During Cancer Treatment (Alliance AFT-39)

Implementation of the 2024 ASCO guidelines for the prevention and management of osteoradionecrosis in patients with head & neck cancer treated with radiation therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Osteoradionecrosis may often be prevented in context of interprofessional healthcare that includes dental specialists prior to and following completion of the patient's head and neck radiation therapy. Important factors, however, compromise delivery of guideline-concordant management of osteoradionecrosis (ORN), including patient access to this interprofessional care. This review is directed to these and related issues, in order to foster enhanced approaches for ORN management.

RECENT FINDINGS

The review is centered in the 2024 Journal of Clinical Oncology publication 'Prevention and Management of Osteoradionecrosis in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer Treated With Radiation Therapy: ISOO-MASCC-ASCO Guideline', and the companion 2024 JCO Oncology Practice publication in which clinical insights for the guideline are addressed. Key recent literature is cited in order to provide contemporary context to clinical decision-making for prevention and early diagnosis and treatment of ORN. Although a relatively infrequent complication in head and neck radiation patients, ORN can have profound clinical and financial impact when it occurs.

SUMMARY

Interprofessional oncology care is essential for ORN management. Future research is needed in order to enhance this management, including studies directed to predicting risk of development of ORN based on patient-centered risk factors.

Symptom monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes during cancer treatment: final results of the PRO-TECT cluster-randomized trial

Symptoms are often underdetected during cancer treatment. To determine if symptom monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes (PROs) improves clinical outcomes, we conducted a cluster-randomized trial in which 52 oncology practices were assigned to PRO or usual care. At PRO practices, patients with metastatic cancer were invited to complete weekly symptom surveys. Severe or worsening symptoms generated alerts to the care team. The primary outcome was overall survival, and secondary outcomes included emergency visits, time to deterioration of physical function, symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQL) and patient satisfaction with PRO. Among 1,191 enrolled patients, there was no difference in survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.83-1.17); P = 0.86). Time to first emergency visit was significantly prolonged with PRO compared to usual care (HR 0.84 ((95% CI, 0.71-0.98); P = 0.03), with a 6.1% reduction in the cumulative incidence of emergency visits and fewer mean visits at 12 months with PRO (1.02 versus 1.30; P < 0.001). Benefits also significantly favored PRO for delayed deterioration of physical function (median 12.6 versus 8.5 months, HR 0.73; P = 0.002), symptoms (12.7 versus 9.9, HR 0.69; P < 0.001) and HRQL (15.6 versus 12.2, HR 0.72; P = 0.001), which remained significant when considering deaths in analyses. Most patients felt that PRO improved discussions with the care team (77.0% (188/244)), made them feel more in control of their care (84.0% (205/244)) and would recommend it to other patients (91.4% (223/244)). Patients completed 91.5% (20,565/22,486) of expected weekly symptom surveys. These findings demonstrate that symptom monitoring with PRO meaningfully improves clinical outcomes, the patient experience and utilization of services and should be included as a standard part of quality cancer clinical care. Future studies of PRO in clinical care should focus on these outcomes rather than mortality as primary endpoints. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03249090.

Financial Toxicity Screening Preferences in Patients With Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Financial toxicity is an important issue in cancer that affects quality of life and treatment adherence. Screening can identify patients at risk but consensus on appropriate timing or methods is lacking.

METHODS

We sent an anonymous survey to e-mail subscribers of a nationwide breast cancer-specific philanthropic organization in July 2023 asking about financial toxicity screening preferences. Frequencies, percentages, and medians were calculated for categorical and continuous variables.

RESULTS

Of 5,774 potential participants, 738 respondents with a confirmed cancer diagnosis participated (12.7% response rate). Participants were 93% female (n = 690), had a median age of 50 years (IQR, 44-57), were 57% non-Hispanic White (n = 418), 20% Black/African-American (n = 149), 9.2% Hispanic (n = 68). 93% confirmed a breast cancer diagnosis (n = 689), and 54% were currently undergoing treatment (n = 400). Most indicated not being asked about financial stressors by (58%, n = 425) and not receiving assistance from their care team (68%, n = 498). Most preferred for providers to reach out regarding financial needs (83%, n = 615). Most wished for these discussions to take place early (when first diagnosed [45%, n = 334] or when treatment selected [37%, n = 275]) and to be asked frequently (each appointment [42%, n = 312] or once per month [36%, n = 268]). Participants felt most comfortable discussing financial needs with a social worker or patient/financial navigator (92%, n = 679), in person (75%, n = 553), or via telephone (65%, n = 479).

CONCLUSION

Patients in this sample primarily consisting of women with breast cancer desired financial screening to occur early, often, and to be initiated by their providers. Patient preferences can inform optimal implementation of financial toxicity screening practices. Continued work refining best practices for financial toxicity screening should incorporate these patient preferences.

A Scoping Review of Interventions to Address Financial Toxicity in Pediatric and Adult Patients and Survivors of Cancer

BACKGROUND

Financial toxicity (FT) is a common and significant challenge for people with cancer, impacting immediate clinical outcomes such as treatment adherence, as well as long-term outcomes such as quality of life and mortality. Multiple studies have tested interventions to address FT and develop recommendations for their implementation.

METHODS

In this scoping review, we analyzed thirty-six studies across 35,405 participants examining institution-based interventions for FT in both pediatric and adult patients and survivors of cancer in the U.S.

RESULTS

Common interventions included: financial navigation (n = 15), direct financial/medical assistance (n = 8), financial counseling or coaching (n = 5), and cost conversations prompters or encounter decision aids for treatment and cost (n = 5). Outcome measures varied widely, including the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST), the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), total out-of-pocket costs or savings, and mental/psychological quality-of-life measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Many interventions showed promising results on improving FT, including financial assistance (e.g., free medication, copay assistance), treatment and insurance decision aids, and financial counseling. These strategies improved FT-related metrics, including patient out-of-pocket costs, care-related financial burden, health insurance knowledge, quality of life, and even overall survival. There was no dominant intervention method, with both low- and high-resource options proving effective.

DISCUSSION

Future research should seek to understand causal relationships between interventions and FT through robust study designs, such as randomized controlled trials with longitudinal follow-up, and evaluate interventions' implementation potential. There is also a need for standardized metrics for evaluating and reporting FT to better compare different interventions' success.

SOHO State of the Art Updates and Next Questions | Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Treatment Tolerability in Patients With Hematologic Malignancies

There has been a rapid expansion of novel therapeutics for hematologic malignancies, including monoclonal antibodies, small molecules, and cellular therapies, which confer different treatment-related toxicities and symptomatic adverse events (AEs) than traditional cytotoxic chemotherapies. Given that patients with blood cancers are living longer with these newer treatments, with some therapies requiring indefinite or time-intensive administration, consideration of patient-reported tolerability and effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are increasingly relevant. Historically, clinical trials have focused on the efficacy and safety of therapies. While related to safety and not intended to replace it, "treatment tolerability" is a distinct construct defined as the extent to which symptomatic and nonsymptomatic AEs impact a patient's ability and desire to continue with current treatment dosing, which also encompasses how patients feel and function while undergoing anticancer therapies. Assessment of tolerability requires the systematic and rigorous measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In this review, we discuss the introduction of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) into hematology clinical trials and how PROs inform the measurement of treatment tolerability, including symptomatic adverse events, physical and role functioning, and overall side effect burden. Selected PROMs for measurement of these core tolerability domains are outlined, with a focus on novel analytic tools that have been developed for the longitudinal analysis of tolerability data. Further, we outline ongoing studies to accelerate integration of PROs throughout the cancer care spectrum, from early-stage drug development to routine clinical care, with the goal of improving both HRQoL and survival.

Development of A Caregiver-Reported Scale for Pediatric Cancer Financial Toxicity (CRS-PCFT)

BACKGROUND

Financial toxicity is common among families of pediatric patients with cancer. However, the availability of survey and/or screening instruments specific to pediatric family financial toxicity is limited.

METHODS

A two-round cross-sectional survey was conducted in Shandong Province, China. We combined classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) to validate items of the caregiver-reported scale for pediatric cancer financial toxicity (CRS-PCFT) after Delphi. The scale structure, reliability, and validity were determined and validated by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The threshold was discussed based on the correlations between CRS-PCFT and socio-factors.

FINDINGS

A 16-item initial scale was determined after Delphi. The data from 206 pilot survey samples was used to select and validate items, and a 10-item CRS-PCFT was developed. The scale showed satisfactory reliability and validity based on data from 398 formal survey samples. When the CRS-PCFT scores were into high and low toxicity groups by the median, they were significantly correlated with education (r = -0.284, p < 0.0001), household income (r = -0.253, p < 0.0001), work status (r = -0.173, p = 0.001), and cancer stages (r = 0.147, p = 0.003).

INTERPRETATION

CRS-PCFT demonstrates robust reliability and validity and makes it more accurate to obtain the pediatric cancer financial toxicity conditions. Additional research should be done to validate CRS-PCFT.

Validation of a Single Item Measure for Financial Toxicity Screening in Patients With Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Financial toxicity (FT) has been linked to higher symptom burden and poorer clinical outcomes for patients with cancer. Despite the availability of validated tools to measure FT, a simple screen remains an unmet need. We evaluated item 12 ("My illness has been a financial hardship to my family and me") of the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) measure as a single-item FT screening measure.

METHODS

In this secondary analysis, 711 patients with cancer (690 with breast cancer) were recruited via a web-based survey from a philanthropic organization. COST items 1-11 were scored according to Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy scoring guidelines, with lower scores indicating worse FT. Analyses focused on establishing a correlation, examining item properties, and sensitivity/specificity of item 12 relative to the total COST score.

RESULTS

Item 12 had a correlation of r = 0.53 with the COST-11 score, and an increase of one point on item 12 is associated with a decrease of approximately three total points on the full scale (b, 3.35; P < .001; adjusted R2, 0.28). Item analysis with the graded-response item in response theory modeling showed very good discrimination (a, 2.096) for item 12, indicating that it can reliably distinguish between low and high FT in patients. Sensitivity ranged between 75.6% and 95.7% on all item 12 thresholds to screen positive for FT using two COST cutoffs as criteria. Maximizing both sensitivity and specificity was to be found for higher item 12 scores.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first validation of a single-item screening measure for FT. Overall, these results illustrate that item 12 from the COST measure is a good candidate for a single-item screener. Clinicians can choose among item 12 screening thresholds depending on their tolerance for low specificity.

National survey of financial burden and experience among patients with cancer and autoimmune disease receiving charitable copay assistance

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the role that charitable copay assistance (CPA) plays in addressing access to care and financial distress. The study sought to evaluate financial distress and experience with CPA among patients with cancer and autoimmune disease.

METHODS

This is a national cross-sectional self-administered anonymous electronic survey conducted among recipients of CPA to cover the costs of a drug for cancer or autoimmune disease. Self-reported financial distress as measured by Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity as well as health care spending and experience with financial barriers to care were evaluated, as were perspectives on policy questions related to CPA and costs of care.

RESULTS

Among 1566 respondents (1108 with cancer and 458 with autoimmune disease, median age 71, 51% female, 89% White, 69% household income <$60,000), 53% reported mild and 31% moderate/severe financial distress, despite CPA. Eighteen percent reported missing recommended care because of costs. Most respondents (96%) had Medicare, 55% reported supplemental insurance, and 66% believed that insurance would prevent them from facing high costs of health care. A total of 52% reported paying more than $100 monthly in drug costs and 41% spending more than 10% of monthly income on health care. Financial distress was similar among patients with cancer and autoimmune diseases. In multivariable regression analysis, younger age, less education, unemployment, higher comorbidity, and lower income were independently associated with higher financial distress.

CONCLUSIONS

This study informs policy debate over the role of CPA foundations in the U.S. health insurance safety net and highlights the inadequacy of Medicare to guarantee access to care for older patients with chronic illness.

Financial toxicity in early-phase cancer clinical trial participants

BACKGROUND

Little is known about financial toxicity in early-phase clinical trial (EP-CT) participants. This study sought to describe financial toxicity in EP-CT participants and assess associations with patient characteristics and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

Prospectively enrolled EP-CT participants from were followed from April 2021 through January 2023. Participants completed the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (<26 = financial toxicity) at time of treatment. Quality of life (QOL), symptoms, coping, and resource concerns were surveyed. Associations of financial toxicity with patient characteristics, PROs, and clinical outcomes were explored.

RESULTS

Of 261 eligible patients, 197 completed baseline assessments (75.5%, median age = 63.4 years [31.8-88.6], 57.4% female). Most common cancers were gastrointestinal (33.0%) and breast (20.8%). More than one third (34.0%) of patients reported financial toxicity. Patients with financial toxicity were more likely to be <65 years (70.2% vs 48.5%, p = .004), unemployed (45.5% vs 16.9%, p < .001), not have attended college (53.1% vs 26.4%, p = .002), and have income <$60,000 (59.7% vs 25.4%, p < .001). In adjusted models, patients with financial toxicity reported lower QOL (B = -6.66, p = .004) and acceptance (B = -0.78, p = .002), and increased self-blame (B = 0.87, p < .001). They were more likely to have concerns regarding housing (10.6% vs 2.3%, p = .025), bills (31.8% vs 3.8%, p < .001), food (9.1% vs 0.8%, p = .006), and employment (21.2% vs 1.5%, p < .001). There was no difference in time on trial (hazard ratio, 1.03; p = .860) or survival (hazard ratio, 1.16; p = .496).

CONCLUSIONS

More than one third of EP-CT participants reported financial toxicity. Factors associated with financial toxicity and demonstrated novel associations among financial toxicity with QOL, coping, and resource concerns were identified, highlighting the need to address financial toxicity among this population.

Screening for Financial Toxicity in Oncology Research and Practice: A Narrative Review

Financial toxicity (FT) is now a well-recognized issue affecting many patients with cancer and their families. The field is rapidly moving from a focus on describing this problem to efforts to optimize screening and identify management solutions. There are now multiple validated tools to study FT in the research setting. Although there is currently no standard tool for screening in the setting of routine clinical practice, many of the scales for FT were developed with clinical screening in mind, and there is emerging evidence regarding potential to screen with one or two questions to detect financial distress. This narrative review is intended to provide an update on validated scales that have been used to study FT in the research context and provide examples of tools of varying length that are being studied for implementation of screening in clinical practice. It is important for clinicians to seek to identify and assist patients who may be experiencing FT as a result of cancer or cancer therapy.

Interventions to Address Cancer-Related Financial Hardship: A Scoping Review and Call to Action

PURPOSE

As oncology practices implement routine screening for financial hardship (FH) and health-related social needs, interventions that address these needs must be implemented. A growing body of literature has reported on FH interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of the literature using PubMed, EMBASE, PsychInfo, and CINAHL to identify key studies (2000-2024) reporting on interventions to address cancer-related FH. Full-length manuscripts were included in the review if they detailed a research, quality improvement, or community-based intervention to address at least one element of FH and drew association with an outcome of interest. Studies were categorized by intervention type and qualitatively analyzed to identify critical components, outcomes, and limitations.

RESULTS

Forty-four publications reporting on 43 interventions were included in the final analysis and were categorized as research interventions (n = 20) and real-world programs (n = 20). Studies reporting on financial navigation programs (n = 17) and specialty pharmacy assistance programs (n = 11) were most common; enrolled patients received concrete assistance with direct medical costs and cost-of-living expenses (eg, transportation and food). In addition, several of these programs improved overall patient-reported financial toxicity, decreased appointment no-shows, and improved enrollment in clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

Interventions to address FH are feasible and can address all domains of FH-material, behavioral, and psychosocial. Future research should address the uptake and implementation of these interventions across diverse cancer care delivery settings. Such programs will be an essential part of cancer care delivery until broad social and policy changes can address the underlying factors that contribute to FH in Americans with cancer.

Financial Toxicity in Older Adults With Cancer and Their Caregivers

With advances in cancer treatment, long-term survival rates have improved in recent decades, resulting in extended life expectancies for many patients. This progress brings substantial challenges, however, particularly in terms of the costs associated with cancer care. The financial burden, often considerable, poses difficulties for older adults with cancer and their caregivers. Financial toxicity refers to the unintended financial consequences and distress that patients and families incur from cancer and its treatment. The prevalence of financial toxicity varies (some estimates with over half experiencing this challenge), and certain subgroups (eg, race other than White and those with lack of social support) are at greater risk. Although studies focusing on older adults are limited, existing research has shown that financial toxicity is associated with adverse outcomes, including delayed care, poorer physical, social, and psychological well-being, and lower overall quality of life. Moreover, financial toxicity may result in negative caregiver health outcomes, which can in turn affect patient outcomes. These negative caregiver effects may persist into the bereavement phase. Various methods are available to assess financial toxicity, and they consist of three domains: material, psychological, and behavioral. Available interventions focus on identifying those at risk and providing financial counseling, navigation, and literacy, as well as tangible assistance. Although the impact of financial toxicity is increasingly recognized, studies in older adults and their caregivers are lacking. A better understanding of their needs is important to develop interventions aimed at mitigating financial toxicity in older adults with cancer and their caregivers.

Development and Validation of a Simplified Financial Toxicity Screening Tool for Use in Clinical Practice

PURPOSE

Cancer-related financial toxicity occurs frequently and is a key driver of inequities in access to care and disparities in treatment outcomes. Current practices to screen for financial toxicity are inconsistent because of the lack of a validated and clinically integrated screening tool. This analysis aimed to create and assess an abbreviated version of the validated Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool, a measure of financial toxicity used for research purposes, which could easily be added into often-lengthy clinical screening workflows.

METHODS

At an urban comprehensive cancer center with suburban satellite locations, a financial toxicity screening quality improvement project was conducted from June 2022 to August 2023 as part of routine clinical care: 57,526 longitudinal COST surveys were completed by 38,249 patients with cancer. An iterative algorithm selected the items with highest correlation with the total score. Using a separate validation data set, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) of the abbreviated tool (two-item) were assessed against the full COST score, with varying risk thresholds.

RESULTS

Inclusion of two COST questions (Q3: "I worry about the financial problems I will have in the future as a result of my illness or treatment"; Q6: "I am satisfied with my current financial situation") yielded a score that had a correlation of 0.922 with the full instrument score. For the two-item scale, PPV ranged from 74% to 91%, and NPV ranged from 91% to 98% when compared with the full COST tool.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of a large data set finds that a simplified COST tool has high predictive value when compared with the full validated measure. An abbreviated COST measure of two questions is suitable for implementation into clinical screening workflows.

Exploring the Relationship Among Financial Hardship, Anxiety, and Depression in Patients With Cancer: A Longitudinal Study

PURPOSE

Financial hardship (FH) is a complex issue in cancer care, affecting material conditions, well-being, and coping behaviors. This study aimed to longitudinally examine FH, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and their associations while incorporating social determinants of health and health care cost covariates in a sample of patients diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

This prospective, longitudinal cohort study analyzed data from 2,305 participants from the Northwestern University Improving the Management of Symptoms during and following Cancer Treatment trial. Outcomes assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postbaseline included depressive symptoms, anxiety, and FH. Analysis involved random intercept cross-lagged panel models to explore between- and within-person effects, incorporating factors such as age, sex, insurance status, neighborhood area deprivation, health care charges, out-of-pocket costs, and health literacy.

RESULTS

The cohort had a mean age of 60.7 (standard deviation [SD] = 12.7) years and was mostly female (64.9%) and White (86.2%). Correlations were found between FH and depressive symptoms (r = 0.310) and anxiety (r = 0.289). A predictive relationship was observed between FH and depressive symptoms, with baseline and 6-month depressive symptom levels predicting later FH (baseline β = .079, P = .070; 6-month β = .072, P = .081) and 9-month FH significantly predicting 12-month depressive symptoms (β = .083, P = .025), even after accounting for health care charges and out-of-pocket costs. Baseline and 9-month anxiety showed a predictive relationship with subsequent FH (baseline β = .097, P = .023; 9-month β = .071, P = .068).

CONCLUSION

FH emerged as a prominent issue, with nearly half of participants experiencing some level of FH. Depressive symptoms and anxiety were related to FH. These findings underscore the need for a comprehensive approach in cancer care that concurrently addresses anxiety, depressive symptoms, and FH, recognizing their interconnected impact.

A Qualitative Study of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring After Thoracic Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Thoracic surgery is a mainstay of therapy for lung cancer and other chronic pulmonary conditions, but recovery is often complicated. Digital health systems can facilitate remote postoperative symptom management yet obstacles persist in their routine clinical adoption. This study aimed to identify patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to using an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) monitoring platform specially designed to detect complications from thoracic surgery postdischarge.

METHODS

Patients (n = 16) who underwent thoracic surgery and participated in an ePRO parent study completed semistructured interviews, which were analyzed using thematic content analysis and iterative team-based coding. Themes were mapped onto the three domains of the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of behavior framework to inform ePRO design and implementation improvements.

RESULTS

Analysis demonstrated seven dominant themes, including barriers (1. postoperative patient physical and mental health, 2. lack of access to email and poor internet connectivity, 3. lack of clarity on ePRO use in routine clinical care, and 4. symptom item redundancy) as well as facilitators (5. ease of the ePRO assessment completion, 6. engagement with the surgical care team on ePRO use, and 7. increased awareness of symptom experience through ePRO use). Suggested ePRO improvements included offering alternatives to web-based completion, tailoring symptom assessments to individual patients, and the need for patient education on ePROs for perioperative care.

CONCLUSIONS

Addressable barriers and facilitators to implementation of ePRO symptom monitoring in the thoracic surgical patient population postdischarge have been identified. Future work will test the impact of design improvements on implementation outcomes of feasibility and acceptability.

Antineoplastic Therapy Administration Safety Standards for Adult and Pediatric Oncology: ASCO-ONS Standards

PURPOSE

To update the ASCO-Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) standards for antineoplastic therapy administration safety in adult and pediatric oncology and highlight current standards for antineoplastic therapy for adult and pediatric populations with various routes of administration and location.

METHODS

ASCO and ONS convened a multidisciplinary Expert Panel with representation of multiple organizations to conduct literature reviews and add to the standards as needed. The evidence base was combined with the opinion of the ASCO-ONS Expert Panel to develop antineoplastic safety standards and guidance. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript.

RESULTS

The standards presented here include clarification and expansion of existing standards to include home administration and other changes in processes of ordering, preparing, and administering antineoplastic therapy; the advent of immune effector cellular therapy; the importance of social determinants of health; fertility preservation; and pregnancy avoidance. In addition, the standards have added a fourth verification.

STANDARDS

Standards are provided for which health care organizations and those involved in all aspects of patient care can safely deliver antineoplastic therapy, increase the quality of care, and reduce medical errors.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/standards and www.ons.org/onf.

Cost-of-care discussions for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma: Findings from a large, population-based pilot study

BACKGROUND

Costs of cancer care can result in patient financial hardship; many professional organizations recommend provider discussions about treatment costs as part of high-quality care. In this pilot study, the authors examined patient-provider cost discussions documented in the medical records of individuals who were diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma-cancers with recently approved, high-cost treatment options.

METHODS

Individuals who were newly diagnosed in 2017-2018 with stage III/IV NSCLC (n = 1767) and in 2018 with stage III/IV melanoma (n = 689) from 12 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results regions were randomly selected for the National Cancer Institute Patterns of Care Study. Documentation of cost discussions was abstracted from the medical record. The authors examined patient, treatment, and hospital factors associated with cost discussions in multivariable logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Cost discussions were documented in the medical records of 20.3% of patients with NSCLC and in 24.0% of those with melanoma. In adjusted analyses, privately insured (vs. publicly insured) patients were less likely to have documented cost discussions (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.80). Patients who did not receive systemic therapy or did not receive any cancer-directed treatment were less likely to have documented cost discussions than those who did receive systemic therapy (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.19-0.81] and 0.46 [95% CI, 0.30-0.70], respectively), as were patients who were treated at hospitals without residency programs (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Cost discussions were infrequently documented in the medical records of patients who were diagnosed with advanced NSCLC and melanoma, which may hinder identifying patient needs and tracking outcomes of associated referrals. Efforts to increase cost-of-care discussions and relevant referrals, as well as their documentation, are warranted.

Screening for Health-Related Social Needs and Financial Toxicity Among Patients With Cancer Treated With Radiation Therapy: Findings From a Quality Improvement Project

INTRODUCTION

Financial toxicity is common among patients with cancer, as are co-occurring health-related social risks (HRSRs). There is limited evidence to support best practices in screening for HRSRs and financial toxicity in the cancer context. This analysis sought to understand variations of identified needs based on treatment course using data from a large screening program.

METHODS

This 2022 to 2023 screening quality improvement program included four services (breast, gastrointestinal, gynecologic, thoracic) at an urban comprehensive cancer center. The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity measured financial toxicity. Patients completed an HRSR checklist documenting food, housing, medication, or transportation insecurity and financial borrowing practices. Differences were evaluated by treatment course (radiation therapy [RT] versus other treatment and RT plus chemotherapy versus other treatment).

RESULTS

Screening surveys were sent to 70,983 unique patients; 38,249 completed a screening survey (54% response rate). Of responders, 4% (n = 1,686) underwent RT in the 120 days before their survey, and 3% (n = 1,033) received RT in combination with chemotherapy. Overall, patients receiving RT had lower unadjusted Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity scores, indicating worse financial toxicity. The proportion of patients receiving RT reporting unmet transportation (15% versus 12%, P < .001) and food (13% versus 11%, P = .02) needs was significantly higher than for patients not receiving RT. More patients receiving RT borrowed money than did patients not receiving RT (17% versus 15%, P = .02). In multivariable models, RT (alone or in combination) was associated with worse financial toxicity and transportation difficulties.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening for financial toxicity and HRSR is possible at a large cancer center. Patients receiving RT have higher transportation insecurity and worse financial toxicity compared with those receiving other treatments. Tailored intervention throughout the treatment trajectory is essential.

Feasibility of Screening for Financial Hardship and Health-Related Social Needs at Radiology Encounters

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence of financial hardship and health-related social needs (HRSNs) among outpatients undergoing advanced imaging services and assess the feasibility of screening for financial and social needs during radiology encounters.

METHODS

Adult patients receiving CT, MRI, or PET/CT at outpatient imaging centers of an academic tertiary center were asked to complete a 15-minute survey with adapted validated questions inquiring about their experience of financial hardship related to imaging and HRSNs, and the appropriateness of screening for financial and social needs at radiology encounters. Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess factors associated with perceived appropriateness of screening and level of interest in meeting with financial counselors.

RESULTS

A total of 430 patients responded (10.0% response rate; mean age: 57.1 years; 57.4% female; 54.5% White; 22.1% Hispanic; 19.1% Asian; 1% Black). A total of 35% reported experiencing financial hardship with imaging; 47.5% reported material hardship, 15.3% reported cost-related care nonadherence, and 5.3% reported cost-related imaging nonadherence. Overall, 35.9% had at least one HRSN, with food insecurity being the most common (28.3%). The majority (79.7%) felt that being screened for HRSNs at radiology encounters is appropriate, with those experiencing imaging hardship being more likely to feel that screening is appropriate (odds ratio [OR]: 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-6.56). Overall, 29.5% were interested in meeting with a financial counselor, with those with imaging hardship (OR: 3.70; 95% CI, 1.96-6.97) and HRSNs (OR: 2.87; 95% CI, 1.32-6.24) and who felt uncomfortable with screening (OR: 2.83; 95% CI, 1.14-7.03) being more likely to be interested.

DISCUSSION

Financial hardship and HRSNs are common among outpatients undergoing advanced imaging, with the majority reporting that getting screened at radiology encounters is appropriate.

Care Delivery Interventions for Individuals with Cancer: A Literature Review and Focus on Gastrointestinal Malignancies

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal malignancies represent a particularly challenging condition, often requiring a multidisciplinary approach to management in order to meet the unique needs of these individuals and their caregivers.

PURPOSE

In this literature review, we sought to describe care delivery interventions that strive to improve the quality of life and care for patients with a focus on gastrointestinal malignancies.

CONCLUSION

We highlight patient-centered care delivery interventions, including patient-reported outcomes, hospital-at-home interventions, and other models of care for individuals with cancer. By demonstrating the relevance and utility of these different care models for patients with gastrointestinal malignancies, we hope to highlight the importance of developing and testing new interventions to address the unique needs of this population.