The Dynamics of Financial Toxicity in Multiple Myeloma

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.

Financial Toxicity and Willingness-to-Pay for Cancer Treatment Among People With Multiple Myeloma

PURPOSE

This study used willingness-to-pay (WTP) exercises to explore the relationships between race, financial toxicity, and treatment decision making among people with cancer.

METHODS

A convenience sample of people with multiple myeloma who attended an academic medical center in 2022 was surveyed. Financial toxicity was assessed by the Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity, with scores <26 indicating financial toxicity. WTP was assessed with (1) a discrete choice experiment (DCE), (2) fixed-choice tasks, and (3) a bidding game.

RESULTS

In total, 156 people were approached, and 130 completed the survey. The majority of the sample was White (n = 99), whereas 24% (n = 31) was African American or Black. Forty-six percent (n = 60) of the sample were experiencing financial toxicity. In the DCE, the relative importance of cost was twice as high for those with financial toxicity (30% compared with 14%; P < .001). In the fixed-choice tasks, they were twice as likely to accept a treatment with shorter progression-free survival but lower costs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.47; P = .049). In the bidding game, the median monthly WTP of those with financial toxicity was half that of those without ($100 in US dollars [USD] compared with $200 USD; P < .001). Only in the bidding game was race statistically associated with WTP; after controlling for financial toxicity, African American or Black participants were three times as likely (aOR, 3.06; P = .007) to report a lower WTP.

CONCLUSION

Across all three exercises, participants with financial toxicity reported lower WTP than those without. As financial toxicity disproportionally affects some segments of patients, it is possible that financial toxicity contributes to cancer disparities.

Mixed-Methods Study on the Responsiveness of the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity Among People With Multiple Myeloma

PURPOSE

Financial toxicity is a contributor to the psychosocial burden of cancer care. There is no consensus measure of financial toxicity; however, recent studies have adopted the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST). Despite its growing popularity, data on the responsiveness to change of the COST instrument are lacking. To address this gap in the literature, we performed a sequential mixed-methods study of people with multiple myeloma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the quantitative phase of the study, we collected COST scores at two time points approximately 8 weeks apart from 72 patients. In the qualitative phase, we conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of 12 patients who reported the largest changes in scores. The qualitative data were analyzed using a deductive coding scheme developed using the Framework Method in the context of a commonly cited conceptual model of financial toxicity.

RESULTS

The median absolute change in COST scores was four points (IQR, 2-6). Only 13% of the sample had the same COST scores at both assessments; 38% had an improved score and 50% had a worsened score. Only, seven of the 12 patients (58%) interviewed reported changes to one or more of the constructs in the conceptual model of financial toxicity. Most commonly, changes to out-of-pocket medical costs were reported (5/12). Changes to nonmedical expenses (n = 2) and subjective financial distress without changes to objective financial burden (n = 2) were also reported.

CONCLUSION

Additional research is needed to explicate changes in COST scores over time.

TACTUM: Trends in Access to Cellular Therapies in Multiple Myeloma, Perspectives of Treating Versus Referring Physicians

Chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR-T) and bispecific T cell engagers (TCE) for multiple myeloma (MM) are readily available at many large US medical centers. However, many potentially eligible patients may not be referred to the specialized centers administering these therapies. Perspectives regarding potential barriers for MM cellular therapy from referring-center oncologists (ROs) versus treating-center oncologists (TOs) have not been reported previously. We conducted TACTUM-23, a survey of US oncologists who treat MM, to identify perceived barriers to these cellular therapies. This 24-question survey, which focused on demographics and perceived barriers to CAR-T and TCE, was conducted between June and August 2023. Of 247 oncologists, 37 (15%) completed the survey including 26 (70%) TOs who prescribed both CAR-T and TCEs, 4 (11%) TOs who only prescribed TCEs, and 7 (19%) ROs who referred patients. The top RO-stated barrier to CAR-T was financial toxicity, while the top TO-stated barrier to CAR-T was leukapheresis/ manufacturing slot availability. The top RO-stated barrier to TCE was financial toxicity, while the top TO-stated barrier to TCE was the hospitalization requirement. In conclusion, financial concerns are perceived by ROs to be the top barrier to both CAR-T and TCEs in myeloma. In contrast, TOs perceive logistical concerns to be the top barrier. Interventions to lower financial toxicity during these therapies, and outreach to raise awareness of such interventions among ROs, are needed alongside strategies to streamline manufacturing (for CAR-T) and monitoring.

Patient-Reported Financial Burden of Treatment for Colon or Rectal Cancer

Importance

The longitudinal experience of patients is critical to the development of interventions to identify and reduce financial hardship.

Objective

To evaluate financial hardship over 12 months in patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) undergoing curative-intent therapy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective, longitudinal cohort study was conducted between May 2018 and July 2020, with time points over 12 months. Participants included patients at National Cance Institute Community Oncology Research Program sites. Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, newly diagnosed stage I to III CRC, not started chemotherapy and/or radiation, treated with curative intent, and able to speak English. Data were analyzed from December 2022 through April 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was financial hardship, measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST), which assesses the psychological domain of financial hardship (range, 0-44; higher score indicates better financial well-being). Participants completed 30-minute surveys (online or paper) at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months.

Results

A total of 450 participants (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [12.0] years; 240 [53.3%] male) completed the baseline survey; 33 participants (7.3%) were Black and 379 participants (84.2%) were White, and 14 participants (3.1%) identified as Hispanic or Latino and 424 participants (94.2%) identified as neither Hispanic nor Latino. There were 192 participants (42.7%) with an annual household income of $60 000 or greater. There was an improvement in financial hardship from diagnosis to 12 months of 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.3) points per month (P < .001). Patients with better quality of life and greater self-efficacy had less financial toxicity. Each 1-unit increase in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (rapid version) score was associated with an increase of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9) points in COST score (P < .001); each 1-unit increase in self-efficacy associated with an increase of 0.6 (95% CI, 0.2 to 1.0) points in COST score (P = .006). Patients who lived in areas with lower neighborhood socioeconomic status had greater financial toxicity. Neighborhood deprivation index was associated with a decrease of 0.3 (95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1) points in COST score (P = .009).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that interventions for financial toxicity in cancer care should focus on counseling to improve self-efficacy and mitigate financial worry and screening for these interventions should include patients at higher risk of financial burden.