Maximizing Home Time for Persons With Cancer

"The biggest challenge is there's never a routine": a qualitative study of the time burdens of cancer care at home

PURPOSE

As cancer care is increasingly delivered in the home, more tasks and responsibilities fall on patients and their informal care partners. These time costs can present significant mental, physical, and financial burdens, and are undercounted in current measures of time toxicity that only consider care received in formal healthcare settings.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with patients with gastrointestinal cancer and informal care partners at a single tertiary cancer center between March and October 2023. Interviews explored cancer care tasks conducted when home, associated time burdens, how these time burdens compared to facility-based care, and whether home-based care should be included in objective measures of time toxicity. Two coders transcribed interviews and analyzed data using a grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

A single interviewer conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 patients and 18 care partners, and identified five major themes: (1) unexpected home-based care activities are time burdensome; (2) other burdens interact with and impact time burdens; (3) time burdens evolve over the disease course and differentially impact patients and care partners; (4) several factors influence the choice of home-based versus in-facility care; and (5) home-based care is generally perceived as less time-burdensome than in-facility care. Overall, 12 of 33 (36%) participants recommended including days with home-based care in the current contact days measure of time toxicity.

CONCLUSION

In addition to characterizing time burdens associated with home-based cancer care, this study builds on existing literature to explore if and how to incorporate days with home-based care into the contact days measure.

Patient, Caregiver, and Clinician Perspectives on the Time Burdens of Cancer Care

Importance

Cancer and its care impose significant time commitments on patients and care partners. The oncology community has only recently conceptualized these commitments and the associated burden as the "time toxicity" of cancer care. As the concept gains traction, there is a critical need to fundamentally understand the perspectives of multiple stakeholders on the time burdens of cancer care.

Objectives

To explore time-consuming aspects of cancer care that were perceived as burdensome, identify the individuals most affected by time burdens of cancer care, and evaluate the consequences of these time burdens.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Participants in this qualitative analysis were recruited from a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in Minnesota, where semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted from February 1 to October 31, 2023. Purposive and criterion sampling methods were used to recruit patients (adults with advanced stage gastrointestinal cancer receiving systemic cancer-directed treatment), care partners (patient-identified informal [unpaid] partners), and clinicians (physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, nurses, social workers, and schedulers). Data were analyzed from February 2023 to February 2024.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Thematic analysis was conducted with a hybrid (inductive and deductive methods) approach. Themes, subthemes, and illustrative quotations are presented.

Results

Interviews included 47 participants (16 patients [8 aged ≤60 years; 12 women (75.0%)], 15 care partners [12 aged ≤60 years; 9 women (60.0%)], and 16 clinicians [11 women (68.7%)]). A total of 31 subthemes were identified that were grouped into 5 themes. Theme 1 captured time burdens due to health care outside the home (eg, travel, parking, and waiting time), while theme 2 identified the often invisible tasks performed at home (eg, handling insurance and medical bills, receiving formal home-based care). Theme 3 explored how care partners are affected alongside patients (eg, burdens extending to the wider network of family, friends, and community) and theme 4 represented the consequences of time burdens (eg, demoralization, seemingly short visits turned into all-day affairs). Finally, theme 5 referenced positive time spent in clinical interactions and hope for change (eg, patients value meaningful care, the "time toxicity" label is a spark for change).

Conclusions and Relevance

This qualitative analysis identifies key sources and effects of time toxicity, as well as the populations affected. The results of this study will guide the oncology community to map, measure, and address future time burdens.

Patients' considerations of time toxicity when assessing cancer treatments with marginal benefit

BACKGROUND

Effective techniques for eliciting patients' preferences regarding their own care, when treatment options offer marginal gains and different risks, is an important clinical need. We sought to evaluate the association between patients' considerations of the time burdens of care ("time toxicity") with decisions about hypothetical treatment options.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter, mixed-methods study that evaluated patients' attitudes and preferences toward palliative-intent cancer treatments that delayed imaging progression-free survival (PFS) but did not improve overall survival (OS). We classified participants based on if they spontaneously volunteered one or more consideration of time burdens during qualitative interviews after treatment trade-off exercises. We compared the percentage of participants who opted for treatments with no PFS gain, some PFS gain, or who declined treatment regardless of PFS gain (in the absence of OS benefit). We conducted narrative analysis of themes related to time burdens.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 100 participants with advanced cancer (55% women, 63% age > 60 years, 38% with gastrointestinal cancer, and 80% currently receiving cancer-directed treatment. Forty-six percent (46/100) spontaneously described time burdens as a factor they considered in making treatment decisions. Participants who mentioned time (vs not) had higher thresholds for PFS gains required for choosing additional treatments (P value .004). Participants who mentioned time were more likely to decline treatments with no OS benefit irrespective of the magnitude of PFS benefit (65%, vs 31%). On qualitative analysis, we found that time burdens are influenced by several treatment-related factors and have broad-ranging impact, and illustrate how patients' experiences with time burdens and their preferences regarding time influence their decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost half of participating patients spontaneously raised the issue of time burdens of cancer care when making hypothetical treatment decisions. These patients had notable differences in treatment preferences compared to those who did not mention considerations of time. Decision science researchers and clinicians should consider time burdens as an important attribute in research and in clinic.

Uptake of ultra-hypofractionated radiation therapy following breast-conserving surgery among patients with early-stage breast cancer: a multi-institutional questionnaire survey

BACKGROUND

In patients with early-stage breast cancer following breast surgery, ultra-hypofractionated (UHF) breast/chest wall radiation therapy (RT) has been shown to be non-inferior to a moderate-hypofractionated (MHF) regimen, with a minimal risk of breast induration, in the FAST-Forward trial, and UHF is now becoming the standard regimen in Europe. Herein, we aimed to investigate Japanese patients' attitudes toward the UHF regimen.

METHODS

A questionnaire-based survey was conducted at 13 RT centers in nine prefectures across Japan. All patients underwent breast-conserving surgery, followed by either conventional fractionation (2 Gy/fr) or MHF (2.66 Gy/fr) whole-breast irradiation (WBI) with or without a tumor bed boost. The questionnaire consisted of 13 questions mainly addressing quality-of-life during RT. Key questions included an 11-point scale (0-10) for rating the patients' enthusiasm for the UHF regimen and prioritization of the following treatment-related effects: treatment efficacy, acute/late adverse effects, physical/emotional/financial burden, and breast cosmesis. The patient and treatment characteristics were assessed by a physician.

RESULTS

In total, 247 questionnaires were administered between November 2022 and June 2023. The age distribution was as follows: < 50:50 s:60 s: ≥ 70 = 59 (24%):76 (30%):63 (26%):49 (20%). Sixty-nine percent of patients rated their enthusiasm for the UHF regimen at ≥ 6 out of 10 points (45% rated 10/10). Treatment efficacy was the highest priority for most patients (89%), whereas breast cosmesis the lowest priority (53%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' enthusiasm for UHF-WBI was observed across the cohort. These results could motivate researchers and clinicians to introduce UHF regimens in clinical practice.

Mitigating time toxicity in lymphoma and multiple myeloma

The concept of time toxicity in oncology refers to the presence of frequent healthcare-related interactions that can interfere with patient well-being. In this review, we examine several manifestations of time toxicity in non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma and discuss their impact on decision-making with patients. For example, time toxicity may influence the choice of chemoimmunotherapy versus lenalidomide-rituximab in follicular lymphoma. In myeloma, it may inform the optimal dosing schedule for proteasome inhibitors and bisphosphonates. In both malignancies, varying time toxicity profiles are a key distinction between chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies and bispecific antibodies. We outline the challenges with measuring time toxicity as a trial endpoint but discuss its importance as a consideration for patient care, both in standard-of-care settings and in clinical trials. Throughout the review, we highlight strategies to lower the time toxicity of therapies in lymphoma and myeloma without compromising their efficacy or patient safety.

Time Toxicity Experienced by Early-Phase Cancer Clinical Trial Participants

PURPOSE

Early-phase clinical trials (EP-CTs) are designed to determine optimal dosing, tolerability, and preliminary activity of novel cancer therapeutics. Little is known about the time that patients spend interacting with the health care system (eg, time toxicity) while participating in these studies.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of consecutive patients enrolled in EP-CTs from 2017 to 2019 to obtain baseline characteristics and number of health care-associated days, defined as all inpatient and outpatient visits while on trial. We used univariable and multivariable analyses to identify predictors of increased time toxicity, defined as the proportion of health care-associated days among total days on trial. For ease of interpretation, we created a dichotomous variable, with high time toxicity defined as ≥20% health care-associated days during time on trial and used regression models to evaluate relationships between time toxicity and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 408 EP-CT participants (mean age, 60.5 years [standard deviation, SD, 12.6]; 56.5% female; 88.2% White; 96.0% non-Hispanic), patients had an average of 22.5% health care-associated days while on trial (SD, 13.8%). Those with GI (B = 0.07; P = .002), head/neck (B = 0.09; P = .004), and breast (B = 0.06; P = .015) cancers and those with worse performance status (B = 0.04; P = .017) and those receiving targeted therapies (B = 0.04; P = .014) experienced higher time toxicity. High time toxicity was associated with decreased disease response rates (odds ratio, 0.07; P < .001), progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 2.10; P < .001), and overall survival (HR, 2.16; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of EP-CT participants, patients spent more than one-fifth of days on trial with health care contact. We identified characteristics associated with higher time toxicity and found that high toxicity correlated with worse clinical outcomes. These data could help inform patient-clinician discussions about EP-CTs, guide future trial design, and identify at-risk patients.

Financial Toxicity, Time Toxicity, and Quality of Life in Multiple Myeloma

BACKGROUND

Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) may be on therapy for years, which can lead to financial toxicity (FinTox) or time toxicity (TimeTox). The prevalence, predictors, and quality of life (QOL) impacts of FinTox and TimeTox during different phases of MM treatment have not been characterized.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a single-center cross-sectional survey of patients with MM who had undergone transplantation. FinTox+ was defined as a COST-FACIT score <23, TimeTox+ as MM-related interactions (including phone calls) ≥1x weekly or ≥1x monthly in-person among far-residing patients, QOL using PROMIS Global Health, and functional status using patient-reported Karnofsky performance status (KPS).

RESULTS

Of 252 patients, 22% and 40% met FinTox+ and TimeTox+ criteria respectively. Respective FinTox+ and TimeTox+ proportions were 22%/37% for patients on maintenance, 22%/82% with active therapy, and 20%/14% with observation. FinTox+ predictors included annual income (P < .01) and out-of-pocket costs (P < .01). TimeTox+ predictors included disease status (P < .001), caregiver status (P = .01), far-residing status (P < .001), and out-of-pocket costs (P = .03). FinTox+ was associated with a clinically meaningful decrease in mental QOL, while TimeTox+ patients were more likely to have KPS ≤ 80.

CONCLUSIONS

In our large study, monetary status but not disease status predicted FinTox. Over a third of patients on maintenance reported TimeTox. FinTox+ was associated with decreased mental health, while TimeTox+ was associated with worse performance status. These two toxicities may negatively impact patient wellbeing, and studies of strategies to mitigate their impact are in development.

The Time Burden of Office Visits in Contemporary Pituitary Care, 2016 to 2019

BACKGROUND

The concept of "time toxicity" has emerged to address the impact of time spent in the healthcare system; however, little work has examined the phenomenon in the field of otolaryngology.

OBJECTIVE

To validate the use of Evaluation and Management (E/M) current procedural terminology codes as a method to assess time burden and to pilot this tool to characterize the time toxicity of office visits associated with a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma between 2016 and 2019.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of outpatient office visits quantified differences between timestamps documenting visit length and their associated E/M code visit length. The IBM MarketScan database was queried to identify patients with a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma in 2016 and to analyze their new and return claims between 2016 and 2019. One-way ANOVA and two-sample t-tests were used to examine claim quantity, time in office, and yearly visit time.

RESULTS

In the validation study, estimated visit time via E/M codes and actual visit time were statistically different (P < 0.01), with E/M codes underestimating actual time spent in 79.0% of visits. In the MarketScan analysis, in 2016, 2099 patients received a primary diagnosis of pituitary adenoma. There were 8490 additional-related claims for this cohort from 2016 to 2019. The plurality of new office visits were with endocrinologists (n = 857; 29.3%). Total time spent in office decreased yearly, from a mean of 113 min (2016) to 69 min (2019) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

E/M codes underestimate the length of outpatient visits; therefore, time toxicity experienced by pituitary patients may be greater than reported. Further studies are needed to develop additional assessment tools for time toxicity and promote increased efficiency of care for patients with pituitary adenomas.

On-body injector pegfilgrastim for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia prophylaxis: Current Status

INTRODUCTION

Myelosuppression, a challenge in cancer treatment, often results in severe complications. Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, particularly pegfilgrastim, mitigate chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. This narrative review evaluates the role of on-body injector (OBI) devices for pegfilgrastim administration. A comprehensive search strategy of PubMed and AI-powered intuitive search tools, complemented by authors' contributions, yielded a body of papers presenting evidence on OBI devices, their effectiveness and safety, the benefits and challenges of OBI versus pre-filled syringe administration, patient preferences for pegfilgrastim administration, and economic considerations.

DISCUSSION

OBI devices prove effective and safe, with advantages such as reduced clinic visits and enhanced adherence. Studies highlight cost-efficiency and expanded access, emphasizing the socioeconomic context. Patient and provider preferences underscore the potential of OBI devices in cancer care, with implications for healthcare resource utilization and pharmacoeconomics.

CONCLUSION

The value proposition of OBI devices lies in improving patient outcomes, convenience, resource optimization, and enhancing the overall cancer care experience. As biosimilar OBIs enter the market, they may offer cost savings, further influencing their adoption and their positioning as a cost-efficient alternative in cancer care. Ongoing research and technological advancements are expected to contribute to the broader acceptance of OBI devices in cancer care delivery.

Cancer Treatment Closer to the Patient Reduces Travel Burden, Time Toxicity, and Improves Patient Satisfaction, Results of 546 Consecutive Patients in a Northern Italian District

Background and Objectives: The distance to cancer facilities may cause disparities by creating barriers to oncologic diagnosis and treatment, and travel burden may cause time and financial toxicity. Materials and Methods: To relieve travel burden, a program to deliver oncologic treatment closer to the patient was initiated in the district of Piacenza (Northern Italy) several years ago. The oncologic activities are performed by oncologists and by nurses who travel from the oncologic ward of the city hospital to territorial centres to provide cancer patient management. This model is called Territorial Oncology Care (TOC): patients are managed near their home, in three territorial hospitals and in a health centre, named "Casa della Salute" (CDS). A retrospective study was performed and the records of patients with cancer managed in the TOC program were analysed. The primary endpoints were the km and time saved, the secondary endpoints: reduction of caregiver need for transport and patient satisfaction. Results: 546 cancer patients managed in the TOC program from 2 January 2021 to 30 June 2022 were included in this study. Primary endpoints: median km to reach the city hospital: 26 (range 11-79 km) median time: 44 min (range 32-116); median km to reach the territorial clinicians in the TOC program: 7 (range 1-35 km), median time: 16 minutes (range 6-54), p < 0.001. Secondary endpoints: 64.8% of patients who needed a caregiver for the city hospital could travel alone in the TOC program and 99.63% of patients were satisfied. Conclusions: The results of this retrospective study highlight the possibility of treating cancer patients near their residence, reducing travel burden and saving time.

Telemedicine in Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation and Chimeric Antigen Receptor-T Cell Therapy

Telemedicine has played an important role in delivering healthcare for primary care, chronic disease patients, and those with solid organ malignancies. However, its application in subspecialties such as hematologic malignancies, hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), or chimeric antigen receptor-T cell (CAR-T) therapy is not widespread since physical examination is a vital component in delivering care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we widely used telemedicine, since protecting our immunocompromised patients became our top priority. The employment of HCT and CAR-T therapies continues to grow for high-risk hematologic malignancies, particularly in older and frail patients who must visit specialty centers for treatment access. Generally, HCT and CAR-T therapy care is highly complex, necessitating commitment from patients, caregivers, and a multidisciplinary team at specialty academic centers. All healthcare systems adapted to the crisis and implemented rapid changes during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE). Telemedicine, a vital modality for delivering healthcare in underserved areas, experienced rapid expansion, regardless of the geographic region, during the COVID-19 PHE. The data emerging from practices implemented during the PHE are propelling the field of telemedicine forward, particularly for specialties with complex medical treatments such as HCT and CAR-T therapy. In this review, we examine the current data on telemedicine in HCT and cellular therapy care models for the acute and long-term care of our patients.

Piloting HealthScore: Feasibility and acceptability of a clinically integrated health coaching program for people living with cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer supportive care interventions often have limited generalizability, goal misalignment, and high costs. We developed and piloted a health coaching intervention, UNC HealthScore, in patients undergoing cancer treatment (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04923997). We present feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary outcome data.

METHODS

HealthScore is a six-month, theory-based, multicomponent intervention delivered through participant-driven coaching sessions. For the pilot study, participants were provided a Fitbit, responded to weekly symptom and physical function digital surveys, and met with a health coach weekly to develop and monitor goals. Coaching notes were discussed in weekly interdisciplinary team meetings and provided back to the treating oncology team. Symptom alerts were monitored and triaged through a study resource nurse to relevant supportive care services. Feasibility was determined based on intervention enrollment and completion. Acceptability was based on satisfaction with coaching and Fitbit-wearing and was informed by semistructured exit interviews. Outcomes evaluated for signs of improvement included several PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) measures, including the primary intervention target, physical function.

RESULTS

From May 2020 to March 2022, 50 participants completed the single-arm pilot. Feasibility was high: 66% enrolled and 71% completed the full intervention. Participants reported an average of 4.8 and 4.7 (out of 5) on the acceptability of coaching calls and using the Fitbit, respectively. Physical function scores rose 3.1 points (SE = 1.1) from baseline to 3 months, and 4.3 (SE = 1.0) from baseline to 6 months, above established minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Improvements above MCID were also evident in anxiety and depression, and smaller improvements were demonstrated for emotional support, social isolation, cognitive function, symptom burden, and self-efficacy.

DISCUSSION

HealthScore shows feasibility, acceptability, and promising preliminary outcomes. Randomized studies are underway to determine the efficacy of preserving physical function in patients with advanced cancer.

The least costly pharmacy for cancer supportive care medications over time: the logistic toxicity of playing catch up

PURPOSE

No single pharmacy in an urban zip code is consistently the least expensive across medications. If medication prices change differently across pharmacies, patients and clinicians will face challenges accessing affordable medications when refilling medications. This is especially pertinent to people with cancer with multiple fills of supportive care medications over time. We evaluated if the lowest-priced pharmacy for a formulation remains the lowest-priced over time.

METHODS

We compiled generic medications used to manage nausea/vomiting (14 formulations) and anorexia/cachexia (12 formulations). We extracted discounted prices in October 2021 and again in March 2022 for a typical fill at 8 pharmacies in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA (zip code 55,414) using GoodRx.com. We examined how prices changed across formulations and pharmacies over time.

RESULTS

Data were available for all 208 possible pharmacy-formulation combinations (8 pharmacies × 26 formulations). For 172 (83%) of the 208 pharmacy-formulation combinations, the March 2022 price was within 20% of the October 2021 price. Across pharmacy-formulation combinations, the price change over time ranged from - 76 to + 292%. For 12 (46%) of the 26 formulations, at least one pharmacy with the lowest price in October 2021 no longer was the least costly in March 2022. For one formulation (dronabinol tablets), the least expensive pharmacy became the most expensive, with an absolute and relative price increase of a fill of $22 and 85%.

CONCLUSION

For almost half of formulations studied, at least one pharmacy with the lowest price was no longer the least costly a few months later. The lowest price for a formulation (across pharmacies) could also change considerably. Thus, even if a patient accesses the least expensive pharmacy for a medication, they may need to re-check prices across all pharmacies with each subsequent fill to access the lowest prices. In addition to safety concerns, directing medications to and accessing medications at multiple pharmacies can add time and logistic toxicity to patients with cancer, their care partners, prescribers, and pharmacy teams.

Finding the Lowest-Cost Pharmacy for Cancer Supportive Care Medications: Not So Easy

PURPOSE

To decrease the financial burden on people with cancer, clinicians and patients increasingly use medication price comparison websites to seek pharmacies where medications may be cheaper. Shopping around at different pharmacies can add additional time and logistic burden to patients and care partners. We sought to determine whether a single pharmacy consistently offered the lowest price for symptom control medications.

METHODS

We compiled medications/formulations used to manage two common cancer-associated symptoms: nausea/vomiting and anorexia/cachexia. We extracted discounted, lowest price with coupon prices for a typical fill of these medications at nine pharmacies in Minneapolis, MN, using GoodRx. We compared prices across formulations and pharmacies to assess whether a pharmacy consistently offered the lowest price.

RESULTS

We included 24 formulations for nausea/vomiting (14 generic and 10 brand-name) and 19 for anorexia/cachexia (12 generic and seven brand-name). Prices for brand-name formulations were similar across pharmacies, but prices of generic formulations varied widely across pharmacies. For example, the prices of a seven-unit fill of generic 5-mg olanzapine tablets ranged from $4 to $57 US dollars. No single pharmacy consistently offered the lowest price across the formulations studied. For example, for the 12 generic formulations for anorexia/cachexia, one pharmacy had the highest price for four formulations and the lowest price for two others.

CONCLUSION

In this study of discounted medication prices, we found that no single pharmacy in an urban zip code consistently offered the lowest price for medications used to manage two common cancer-associated symptoms. Well-intentioned efforts to pursue the cheapest source of each medication by visiting multiple pharmacies may add extra time and logistic toxicity to patients and care partners. This approach can increase redundant scripts and expose patients to medication-related adverse events.

Opportunity Costs of Surgical Resection and Perioperative Chemotherapy for Locoregional Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

Given the perioperative morbidity and intensity of multimodality treatment, patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) spend a substantial amount of time in clinical care. The primary aim was to determine total time spent in multimodality care for patients with locoregional PDAC.

METHODS

A cohort study of all patients who underwent curative-intent resection for PDAC at a single-institution, tertiary care center was performed (2015-2019). Exact times for all relevant visits were abstracted from the primary medical record, and travel time was calculated. Care time was divided into preoperative, surgical, radiation, and systemic therapy phases of care. Primary outcome measures were the percentage of total survival time (TST) and percentage of overall survival (OS) days spent in receipt of care.

RESULTS

One hundred seven patients were included. Patients spent a median of 5.0% (interquartile range [IQR] 2.4%-10.1%) of TST and 11.0% (IQR, 5.7%-20.4%) of OS days in receipt of clinical care. Preoperative, surgical, radiation, and systemic therapy phases of care comprised a median of 0.9% (IQR, 0.4%-2.2%), 3.0% (IQR, 1.9%-6.8%), 4.4% (IQR, 3.6%-6.3%), and 10.0% (IQR, 6.2%-14.1%) of OS days. The median per-visit travel time was 60 minutes (IQR, 32-120), and the median cumulative travel time was 22.0 hours (IQR, 12.0-51.5). 12.1% (n = 13) and 7.8% (n = 4) of patients spent > 10% of TST in receipt of surgical and systemic therapy care, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients with locoregional pancreatic cancer spend a considerable percentage of their survival time in receipt of oncologic care. Further research to determine predictors of increased time burden is warranted to better inform shared decision making.