Financial Concerns About Participation in Clinical Trials Among Patients With Cancer

Educating Hematology-Oncology Fellows About How to Communicate with Patients About Clinical Trials: A Needs Assessment

Objectives

Only 5-8% of adults with cancer participate in cancer clinical trials (CCTs), with even lower rates among underrepresented groups. Improving oncologists' communication skills may enhance the frequency and quality of their discussions with patients about CCTs, consequently increasing participation. However, little is known about interest in or presence of CCT-related communication training during Hematology-Oncology (Hem-Onc) fellowships. This study aimed to describe, from the perspective of Hem-Onc fellowship program directors (PDs): (1) the current landscape of CCT education for Hem-Onc fellows; (2) the acceptability and feasibility of implementing a CCT communication skills workshop for Hem-Onc fellows.

Methods

We used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach. PDs were surveyed and interviewed about their graduate medical education (GME) programs' current CCT curriculum, training challenges, fellows' CCT knowledge and CCT communication skills, and preferences for a CCT communication workshop.

Results

PDs were surveyed (n = 40) and interviewed (n = 12). PDs reported that their institutions prioritize CCT accrual (M = 4.58, SD = .78; 1-5 scale, 5 = "Strongly Agree") and clinical research training (M = 4.20, SD = .85). CCT skills that programs least often addressed were how to (1) discuss CCTs with newly diagnosed patients, (2) talk to patients about CCTs when none are available, and (3) help patients find CCTs at other institutions. PDs were interested in a CCT communication workshop for fellows ("yes" = 67.5%, "maybe" = 32.5%) and said training would be feasible (M = 4.28, SD = .78) and useful (M = 4.47, SD = .78). Qualitative results described programs' current approaches to CCT education and insights about developing and implementing CCT communication training.

Conclusions

There is a clear need to improve CCT communication skills training in Hem-Onc fellowship programs and to implement and scale such training to increase CCT participation, especially among diverse patient populations. Furthermore, Hem-Onc GME PDs view such training as feasible and useful.

Perspectives on Access to Novel Therapeutics Through Clinical Trials Among Adolescents and Young Adults with Advanced Cancer: Implications for Patient-Centered Clinical Trials

Purpose: Adolescents and young adults (AYA) with advanced cancer have unequal access to and enrollment in clinical trials. Many AYA use online platforms to share their treatment experiences. The purpose of this analysis was to explore how AYA discuss clinical trials and their access to novel therapeutics through their blogs. Methods: We studied illness blogs from 22 AYA (ages 16-38 years old) with advanced cancer who specifically discussed experiences enrolling in a clinical trial. Nearly 500 excerpts were abstracted from their blogs, and we used qualitative descriptive methodology and thematic analysis to explore their longitudinal perspectives. Results: We describe three themes: (1) "Blinded", which represents the uncertainty in treatment pathway and underrepresentation of AYA in clinical trials, (2) "Totally healthy except for the damn cancer", which represents the numerous challenges associated with meeting eligibility criteria and lack of available clinical trials, and (3) "Go ahead and send me the bill!", which represents the precarious financial challenges associated with participating with clinical trials (both direct costs and indirect costs associated with travel, time away from work) as well as the costs of novel therapeutics. Conclusions: By studying AYA online narratives, we can outline several gaps in accessing clinical trials and generate future research priorities. AYA with advanced cancer are known to have aggressive trajectories, and there are opportunities to integrate patient-reported outcomes and supportive care frameworks embedded within clinical trial study design.

Financial toxicity and mental well-being of the oral cancer survivors residing in a developing country in the era of COVID 19 pandemic - A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The primary outcome measures evaluated the financial toxicity and mental well-being of the oral cancer survivors.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of oral cancer survivors who were disease-free for more than 6 months after treatment and visited the hospital for a routine follow-up is included in the study. Mental well-being and financial toxicity were evaluated using the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale - 21 (DASS 21) and Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST- Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy) questionnaires. A literature review was done to compare the results with financial toxicity and mental health in cancer patients from the pre-pandemic era.

RESULTS

A total of 79 oral cancer survivors were included in the study, predominantly males (M: F = 10:1). The age ranged from 26 to 75 years (The median age is 49). The full-time employment dropped from 83.5% in the pre-treatment period to 21.5% post-treatment. Depression was observed in 58.2% and anxiety in 72.2%. Unemployed survivors were observed to have more depression (OR = 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.3-5.4, p = 0.6), anxiety (OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 0.3-21.2, p = 0.1) and stress (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 0.3-6.6, p = 0.5) than rest of the cohort. On univariate analysis, unemployed survivors (M = 11.8 ± 3.8, p = 0.01) had significantly poorer financial toxicity scores. Survivors with depression (M = 16.4 ± 7.1, p = 0.06) and stress (M = 14.4 ± 6.8, p = 0.002) had poor financial toxicity scores. On multifactorial analysis of variance, current employment (p = 0.04) and treatment modality (p = 0.05) were significant factors impacting the financial toxicity.

CONCLUSION

There is a trend towards increased incidence of depression, anxiety, and stress among oral cancer survivors compared to the literature from the pre-COVID era. There is significant financial toxicity among either unemployed or part-time workers. This calls for urgent public/government intervention to prevent the long-term impact of financial toxicity on survival and quality of life.

Underutilization of Guideline-Recommended Mismatch Repair/Microsatellite Instability Biomarker Testing in Advanced Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

In 2017, DNA mismatch repair/microsatellite instability (MMR/MSI) testing was nationally recommended for advanced colorectal cancers based on favorable immune checkpoint inhibitor responses among patients with MMR-deficient/MSI-high tumors.

METHODS

Patients ages ≥20-years-old presenting with stage IV colorectal adenocarcinoma from 2010 to 2017 were identified from the National Cancer Database. 2017 was the latest year with available testing utilization data. Patient, tumor, socioeconomic, and care setting characteristics were evaluated for association with upfront MMR/MSI testing in 2017 using multivariable logistic regression and average adjusted predicted probabilities (%AAP).

RESULTS

Among 72,830 stage IV colorectal cancers, upfront MMR/MSI testing levels increased from 16.4% in 2010 to 56.4% in 2017. For patients diagnosed in 2017 (i.e., following national recommendations, n = 10,022), testing levels were lower for older patients (Padj < 0.001), and were independent of patients' race/ethnicity and insurance status. Patients from the poorest quartile of households received less testing [49.6%AAP, 99.9% confidence interval (CI) 45.5-53.7] than patients from the 3rd (56.9%AAP, 99.9% CI, 53.3-60.6; Padj < 0.001) or 4th quartiles (57.6%AAP, 99.9% CI, 54.3-60.9; Padj < 0.001). Although testing levels improved most at community programs, they remained lower in 2017 (46.6%AAP, 99.9% CI, 41.0-52.1) compared with academic/NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers (62.8%AAP, 99.9% CI, 59.7-65.8; Padj < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Upfront MMR/MSI testing utilization for patients with advanced colorectal cancer has increased but there is still substantial need for optimization. Testing utilization disproportionately lagged for patients who were older, from the poorest quartile of households, or managed at community cancer programs.

IMPACT

Our findings indicate opportunities for improving rates of MMR/MSI testing and reporting, possibly through incorporation into quality control and accreditation metrics.

Patient Experience in Clinical Trials: Quality of Life, Financial Burden, and Perception of Care in Patients With Multiple Myeloma or Lymphoma Enrolled on Clinical Trials Compared With Standard Care

PURPOSE

Patients' concerns regarding clinical trial (CT) participation include apprehension about side effects, quality of life (QoL), financial burden, and quality of care.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the experience of patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma who were treated on CTs (CT group, n = 35) versus patients treated with standard approaches (non-CT group, n = 88) focusing on QoL, financial burden of care, and patients' perception of quality of care over a 1-year period.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in any of the patient-reported outcomes in CT versus non-CT groups. We observed an initial decline in overall QoL in the first 3 months across both groups, driven primarily by physical and functional well-being. QoL gradually improved and was above baseline by month 12. Patients reported highest improvement in the functional well-being subdomain. Patients in both groups reported high satisfaction with the quality of care received, and there were no differences in overall satisfaction, communication with team, or access to care. At baseline, 16%-19% of patients reported financial burden, which increased to a peak of 33% in the CT group and to 49% in the non-CT group over the course of 1 year. There was no significant difference in financial burden in the two groups overall. Most of the patients reported getting all the care that was deemed medically necessary in both groups. However, a significant proportion of patients reported having to make other kinds of financial sacrifices because of their cancer (CT group: 33% of patients at baseline and 21%-40% over 1 year; non-CT group: 19% at baseline and 25%-36% over 1 year).

CONCLUSION

Patients treated on CTs reported comparable QoL and quality of care with the non-CT group. A high proportion of patients reported financial burden over time in both groups. Our findings can serve as a guide to educate patients regarding CT participation and highlight the need to address the significant financial burden experienced by patients with cancer.

Financial Toxicity, Symptom Burden, Illness Perceptions, and Communication Confidence in Cancer Clinical Trial Participants

PURPOSE

Cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants are at risk for experiencing adverse associations from financial toxicity, but these remain understudied.

METHODS

From July 2015 to July 2017, we prospectively enrolled CCT participants referred for financial assistance and a group of patients matched by age, sex, cancer type, trial, and trial phase. We assessed financial burden of cancer care, cost concerns about CCTs, physical (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale [ESAS]) and psychologic (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4]) symptoms, illness perceptions (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), and communication confidence (Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions). Adjusting for age, sex, race, performance status, marital status, income, insurance, and disease status, we examined associations of financial burden and cost concerns with patients' symptoms, illness perceptions, and communication confidence.

RESULTS

Of 198 patients, 112 (56.6%) reported financial burden and 82 (41.4%) reported cost concerns. Higher ESAS-total (odds ratio [OR] = 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.06; P = .001), PHQ-4 depression (OR = 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.08; P < .001), PHQ-4 anxiety (OR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.55; P = .025), and more negative illness perceptions (OR = 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.07; P = .029) were associated with financial burden, but not communication confidence (OR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.02 to 1.05; P = .587). Higher ESAS-total (OR = 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.05; P = .004), PHQ-4 depression (OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.71; P = .03), PHQ-4 anxiety (OR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.53; P = .018), more negative illness perceptions (OR = 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.10; P = .001), and decreased communication confidence (OR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.00; P = .029) were associated with cost concerns.

CONCLUSION

In this study of CCT participants, greater symptom burden, more negative illness perceptions, and lower communication confidence were associated with financial toxicity, underscoring the importance of addressing these issues when seeking to alleviate adverse associations of financial toxicity.

Feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of a decision aid versus an informational website to promote clinical trial decision-making among cancer patients: A pilot randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess intervention feasibility and acceptability, and compare the effectiveness of the CHOICES Decision Aid (DA) versus the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Clinical Trials (CCT) website to improve knowledge about CCTs and preparedness to make an informed decision.

METHODS

Oncology patients (n = 101) with a scheduled clinic visit were enrolled and randomized. Decision-making variables were collected at two timepoints. Post-intervention scores were examined via paired t-tests and multivariate regression analyses. Predictors of the magnitudes of the change in scores were examined in multivariable regression analyses.

RESULTS

The interventions were feasible to implement and acceptable to participants. Both interventions increased objective and subjective knowledge, improved clarity of opinions, and reduced decisional conflict (p-values < 0.01). Improvements in the belief that one could find out about CCTs were observed in the CHOICES DA arm (p < 0.001). Multivariable analyses controlling for educational attainment showed no significant differences in the magnitude of change in outcome variables between intervention arms, but did find that improvements in some variables in the NCI arm - but not CHOICES DA arm - were associated with previous educational attainment.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions were feasible to implement and acceptable. Improvements in knowledge and decision-making outcomes were observed in both arms, supporting the view that interventions to improve CCT decision making are effective and feasible. Our results suggest that the CHOICES DA may be more effective than an informational website in improving decision-making outcomes regardless of participants' educational attainment.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

CCT resources should support informed decision-making among all cancer survivors, regardless of educational attainment.

The DISCO App: A pilot test of a multi-level intervention to reduce the financial burden of cancer through improved cost communication☆

Objective

Financial toxicity affects 30–50% of people with cancer in the US. Although experts recommend patients and physicians discuss treatment cost, cost discussions occur infrequently. We pilot-tested the feasibility, acceptability and influence on outcomes of the DIScussions of COst (DISCO) App, a multi-level communication intervention designed to improve cost discussions and related outcomes.

Methods

While waiting to see their physician, patients (n = 32) used the DISCO App on a tablet. Physicians were given a cost discussion tip sheet. Clinic visits were video recorded and patients completed pre- and post-intervention measures of self-efficacy for managing costs, self-efficacy for interacting with physicians, cost-related distress, and perceptions of the DISCO App. Coders observed the recordings to determine the presence of cost discussions, initiators, and topics.

Results

Most patients reported needing ≤15 min to use the DISCO App, and that it made it easier to ask cost-related questions. Findings showed increased self-efficacy for managing treatment costs (p = .02) and for interacting with physicians (p = .001). All visits included a cost discussion.

Conclusions

Prompting patients to discuss costs may improve cost treatment discussions and related outcomes.

Innovation

An app-based and tailorable treatment-cost communication intervention is feasible, acceptable, and demonstrates promise in prompting cost discussions and improving outcomes.

Trial registration: Clinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT03676920 (September 19, 2018).

DISCO App: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a patient intervention to reduce the financial burden of cancer in a diverse patient population

Background

Financial toxicity, the material and psychological burden of the cost of treatment, affects 30–50% of people with cancer, even those with health insurance. The burden of treatment cost can affect treatment adherence and, ultimately, mortality. Financial toxicity is a health equity issue, disproportionately affecting patients who are racial/ethnic minorities, have lower incomes, and are < 65 years old. Patient education about treatment cost and patient-oncologist cost discussions are recommended as ways to address financial toxicity; however, research shows cost discussions occur infrequently (Altice et al. J Natl Cancer Inst 109:djw205, 2017; Schnipper et al. J Clin Oncol 34:2925-34, 2016; Zafar et al. Oncologist 18:381-90, 2013; American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network 2010). Our overall goal is to address the burden of financial toxicity and work toward health equity through a tailorable education and communication intervention, the DISCO App. The aim of this longitudinal randomized controlled trial is to test the effectiveness of the DISCO App on the outcomes in a population of economically and racially/ethnically diverse cancer patients from all age groups.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer at a NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center in Detroit, MI, will be randomized to one of three study arms: one usual care arm (arm 1) and two intervention arms (arms 2 and 3). All intervention patients (arms 2 and 3) will receive the DISCO App before the second interaction with their oncologist, and patients in arm 3 will receive an intervention booster. The DISCO App, presented on an iPad, includes an educational video about treatment costs, ways to manage them, and the importance of discussing them with oncologists. Patients enter socio-demographic information (e.g., employment, insurance status) and indicate their financial concerns. They then receive a tailored list of questions to consider asking their oncologist. All patients will have up to two interactions with their oncologist video recorded and complete measures at baseline, after the recorded interactions and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the second interaction. Outcome measures will assess discussions of cost, communication quality, knowledge of treatment costs, self-efficacy for treatment cost management, referrals for support, short- and longer-term financial toxicity, and treatment adherence.

Discussion

If effective, this intervention will improve awareness of and discussions of treatment cost and alleviate the burden of financial toxicity. It may be especially helpful to groups disproportionately affected by financial toxicity, helping to achieve health equity.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04766190. Registered on February 23, 2021

Effect of Clinical Trial Participation on Costs to Payers in Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

The costs associated with clinical trial enrollment remain uncertain. We hypothesized that trial participation is associated with decreased total direct medical costs to health care payers in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we linked clinical data from electronic medical records to sociodemographic data from a cancer registry and claims data from Medicare and two private insurance plans. We used a difference-in-difference analysis to estimate mean per patient per month total direct medical costs for patients enrolled on a second-line (2L) trial versus patients receiving standard-of-care 2L systemic therapy.

RESULTS

Among 70 eligible patients, the difference-in-difference of mean per patient per month total direct medical costs between 2L trial participants and nonparticipants was -$6,663 (P = .01), for a mean savings of $45,308 per patient for the duration of 2L trial therapy. In a secondary analysis by primary insurance payer, this difference-in-difference was -$5,526 (P = .26) for patients with commercial insurance and -$7,432 (P = .01) for patients with Medicare.

CONCLUSION

Participation in a 2L trial was associated with a $6,663 per month cost savings to health care payers for the duration of trial participation. Further studies are necessary to elucidate differences in cost savings from trial participation for Medicare and commercial payers. If confirmed, these results support health care payer investment in programs to improve clinical trial access and enrollment.

Fair payment and just benefits to enhance diversity in clinical research

Routine, nonmedical and ancillary medical costs associated with participation in clinical research create barriers to enrollment for economically disadvantaged individuals. To the extent that race, ethnicity, and gender are linked to SES, such barriers impact efforts to diversify clinical research enrollment. But payment policies and practices often reflect the longstanding and singular concern that payment to participants will bias decision-making and compromise informed consent. We argue that this concern must be viewed in a larger ethical context in which the untoward consequences for the individual participant and for the broader research enterprise are considerable when either inadequate or no payment is provided for expenses incurred ("reimbursement") and time committed ("compensation"). Fairness in payment and protection from undue influence of payment on the informed consent process are important but distinct ethical considerations. Fundamentally, approaches to payment that leave participants financially worse off as a consequence of taking part in research are inherently unjust as they have a differential impact on recruitment and retention based on socioeconomic status. Sponsors, funders, investigators, and IRBs must be cognizant of the impact of inadequate payment on clinical trial inclusion of historically understudied groups. We address practical and fair payment strategies to advance inclusion, the additional barrier of ancillary medical costs, and potential unintended consequences of payment.

Decisional control preference among Chinese patients with advanced kidney disease: the role of mastery, perceived social support and self-efficacy

Although previous studies have shown a correlation between mastery, self-efficacy, and perceived social support among Chinese patients with advanced kidney disease, few studies have examined their relationship pathways. This study aimed to examine decisional control preference and the relationship between mastery, perceived social support, and self-efficacy among patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. A cross-sectional survey was conducted, and 350 participants were investigated using Control Preference Scale, Personal Mastery Scale, Perceived Social Support Scale, and Self-efficacy Scale. The mediating relationships were determined via structural equation modeling. Results showed that education and economic status were demographic factors influencing patients' decisional control preference. The model showed that mastery and self-efficacy had a direct effect on decisional control preference while perceived social support had an indirect effect mediated via mastery and self-efficacy. Therefore, improving self-efficacy can increase patient willingness to involve in medical decision-making. This study provides new interventions and future directions for promoting decisional control preference.

Randomized trial of a web-based nurse education intervention to increase discussion of clinical trials

Background

Clinical trials are a critical source of evidence for oncology care, yet very few patients participate. Among healthcare providers, nurses spend the most time with cancer patients and are the most highly trusted professionals. We developed and evaluated an educational program for oncology nurses targeting knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and perceived norms to facilitate discussion about clinical trials and support patient decision making.

Methods

A nationwide sample of oncology nurses were randomly assigned to receive general clinical trials education delivered as text (attention control) vs. tailored video vignettes (intervention) in a web-based continuing education program. Participants completed a baseline assessment and follow up assessments immediately after the educational program and three months later. The primary outcome was intention to discuss clinical trials with patients. Secondary outcomes were knowledge and attitudes about clinical trials, self-efficacy, and perceived norms.

Results

1393 nurses enrolled and completed the educational program and post-intervention assessment (720 control, 673 video). Both text education and tailored video education increased intention to discuss clinical trials with patients, with a greater effect in the video group (p < .0001). Likewise, knowledge, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, and perceived norms were all improved with education in both groups, and the magnitude of benefit was greater (p < .001) for the video group in all outcomes except knowledge.

Conclusion

A one-time online educational program for oncology nurses improves knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and intention to engage patients in discussions about clinical trials. A tailored video format was associated with a greater effect than standard text only material.

Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Trial Participation: Outcomes of a National Clinical Trial Matching and Navigation Service for Patients With a Blood Cancer

PURPOSE

There are numerous barriers to cancer clinical trial participation in the United States. This paper describes the approach and outcomes of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's Clinical Trial Support Center (CTSC), whose nurse navigators assist patients with a blood cancer and their oncologists by identifying all appropriate trials based on clinical data and patient preference, facilitating informed and shared decision making, and minimizing enrollment barriers.

METHODS

Data on patients served from October 2017 to October 2019 were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate analyses to determine demographic and clinical characteristics associated with enrollment. Reasons for nonenrollment were examined.

RESULTS

The CTSC opened 906 patient cases during this time frame. Among all US patients with a closed case (n = 750), the clinical trial enrollment rate was 16.1%. Among those with a known enrollment outcome after a trial search (n = 537), the enrollment rate was 22.5%. Multivariate analysis controlling for variables significant in bivariate analyses (insurance, treatment status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and urban or rural residence) revealed that patients with Medicaid were less likely to enroll than those with private or commercial insurance (adjusted odds ratio, 0.054; CI, 0.003 to 0.899), and patients in treatment or maintenance were less likely to enroll than those relapsed or refractory to most recent therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.312; CI, 0.139 to 0.702). Primary reasons for nonenrollment were preference for standard of care (66.3%) and patient passed away (16.1%).

CONCLUSION

The CTSC is an effective, replicable model for addressing multilevel barriers to clinical trial participation. The findings highlight the need to increase opportunities for trial participation sooner after diagnosis and among patients with Medicaid.

Automated Electronic Health Record-Based Tool for Identification of Patients With Metastatic Disease to Facilitate Clinical Trial Patient Ascertainment

PURPOSE

To facilitate identification of clinical trial participation candidates, we developed a machine learning tool that automates the determination of a patient's metastatic status, on the basis of unstructured electronic health record (EHR) data.

METHODS

This tool scans EHR documents, extracting text snippet features surrounding key words (such as metastatic, progression, and local). A regularized logistic regression model was trained and used to classify patients across five metastatic categories: highly likely and likely positive, highly likely and likely negative, and unknown. Using a real-world oncology database of patients with solid tumors with manually abstracted information as reference, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV). We validated the performance in a real-world data set, evaluating accuracy gains upon additional user review of tool's outputs after integration into clinic workflows.

RESULTS

In the training data set (N = 66,532), the model sensitivity and specificity (% [95% CI]) were 82.4 [81.9 to 83.0] and 95.5 [95.3 to 96.7], respectively; the PPV was 89.3 [88.8 to 90.0], and the NPV was 94.0 [93.8 to 94.2]. In the validation sample (n = 200 from five distinct care sites), after user review of model outputs, values increased to 97.1 [85.1 to 99.9] for sensitivity, 98.2 [94.8 to 99.6] for specificity, 91.9 [78.1 to 98.3] for PPV, and 99.4 [96.6 to 100.0] for NPV. The model assigned 163 of 200 patients to the highly likely categories. The error prevalence was 4% before and 2% after user review.

CONCLUSION

This tool infers metastatic status from unstructured EHR data with high accuracy and high confidence in more than 75% of cases, without requiring additional manual review. By enabling efficient characterization of metastatic status, this tool could mitigate a key barrier for patient ascertainment and clinical trial participation in community clinics.

Patient-Reported Out-of-Pocket Costs and Financial Toxicity During Early-Phase Oncology Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are an important therapeutic option for patients with cancer. Although financial burden in cancer treatment is well documented, the financial burden associated with clinical trials is not well understood.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a survey regarding economic burden and financial toxicity in patients with cancer enrolled in phase I clinical trials for >1 month. Financial toxicity score was assessed using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity survey. Patients also reported monthly out-of-pocket (OOP) costs.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirteen patients completed the survey (72% non-Hispanic White; 45% with annual income ≤$60,000; 50% lived >300 miles from the clinic; 37% required air travel). Forty-eight percent of patients had monthly OOP costs of at least $1,000. Fifty-five percent and 64% of patients reported unanticipated medical and nonmedical expenses, respectively. Worse financial toxicity was associated with yearly household income <$60,000 (odds ratio [OR]: 2.7; p = .008), having unanticipated medical costs (OR: 3.2; p = .024), and living >100 miles away from the clinical trial hospital (OR: 2.3; p = .043). Non-White or Hispanic patients (OR: 2.5; p = .011) and patients who were unemployed or not working outside the home (OR: 2.5; p = .016) were more likely to report high unanticipated medical costs.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with cancer participating in clinical trials, economic burden is high, and most of patients' OOP costs were nonmedical costs. Financial toxicity is disproportionally higher in patients with lower income and those who travel farther, and unexpected medical costs were more common among non-White or Hispanic patients. OOP costs can be substantial and are often unexpected for patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The financial burden of cancer treatment is well documented, but there are limited data regarding the financial burden associated with cancer clinical trials. This study surveyed 213 patients enrolled in early-phase clinical trials. Monthly out-of-pocket costs were at least $1000 for nearly half of patients. Worse financial toxicity was associated with income <$60,000 and living farther away from the hospital. Racial/ethnic minorities had higher rates of unanticipated medical costs. These data help to quantify the high financial burden for patients and may reveal a cause of disparities in clinical trial enrollment for underrepresented populations.

Financial Burdens of Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Risk Factors and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer experience financial toxicity from the costs of treatment, as well as material and psychologic stress related to this burden. A synthesized understanding of predictors and outcomes of the financial burdens associated with cancer care is needed to underpin strategic responses in oncology care. This study systematically reviewed risk factors and outcomes associated with financial burdens related to cancer treatment.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched from study inception through June 2018, and reference lists were scanned from studies of patient-level predictors and outcomes of financial burdens in US patients with cancer (aged ≥18 years). Two reviewers conducted screening, abstraction, and quality assessment. Variables associated with financial burdens were synthesized. When possible, pooled estimates of associations were calculated using random-effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 74 observational studies of financial burdens in 598,751 patients with cancer were identified, among which 49% of patients reported material or psychologic financial burdens (95% CI, 41%-56%). Socioeconomic predictors of worse financial burdens with treatment were lack of health insurance, lower income, unemployment, and younger age at cancer diagnosis. Compared with patients with health insurance, those who were uninsured demonstrated twice the odds of financial burdens (pooled odds ratio [OR], 2.09; 95% CI, 1.33-3.30). Financial burdens were most severe early in cancer treatment, did not differ by disease site, and were associated with worse health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and nearly twice the odds of cancer medication nonadherence (pooled OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.13-2.56). Only a single study demonstrated an association with increased mortality. Studies assessing the comparative effectiveness of interventions to mitigate financial burdens in patients with cancer were lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence showed that financial burdens are common, disproportionately impacting younger and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with cancer, across disease sites, and are associated with worse treatment adherence and HRQoL. Available evidence helped identify vulnerable patients needing oncology provider engagement and response, but evidence is critically needed on the effectiveness of interventions designed to mitigate financial burden and impact.

Financial Toxicity and Equitable Access to Clinical Trials

Financial barriers to clinical trial enrollment are an area of active investigation. Financial toxicity as a concept describes how high costs and financial burden can lead to compromised care and outcomes. Despite the potential to yield large survival benefits and improved access to cutting-edge therapies, less than 5% of adult patients with cancer are enrolled in a clinical trial. Disparities in trial enrollment exist along age, ethnic, and sociodemographic lines, with younger, poorer, nonwhite patients with private insurance-the exact population who may be at highest risk for financial toxicity-less likely to participate. Cost and insurance concerns remain an obstacle for clinical trial enrollment for certain patient populations. Changing the clinical trial paradigm with a focus on addressing structural and clinical barriers to clinical trial enrollment is paramount. This includes expanding access to clinical trials within community populations, advocating for health policy changes to guarantee insurance coverage of clinical trial standard-of-care health care, and considering noncoercive financial assistance (particularly for indirect costs like travel and lodging) for participants to defray their additional costs of participation. Additional steps toward education, cost transparency, and expansion of foundation assistance may also improve equitable access to clinical trials for all.

A comparison of patients with acute myeloid leukemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome treated on versus off study

Patients with newly diagnosed (ND) and relapsed/refractory (RR) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS, ≥10% blasts) often receive intensive chemotherapy at diagnosis and relapse. We retrospectively identified 365 patients and categorized the reasons for receiving treatment off study (medical, logistical, or unclear). The pretreatment characteristics of the on and off study groups were similar. Rates of the complete remission (CR) without measurable residual disease were significantly higher for ND patients treated on versus off study (61% versus 35%), but CR rates and survival were low for all RR patients regardless of study assignment. The subset of ND patients treated off study for medical reasons had significantly decreased overall survival and relapse-free survival. Standard, stringent study eligibility criteria may delineate a population of ND, but not RR, patients with improved outcomes with intensive induction chemotherapy.

Addressing Financial Barriers to Patient Participation in Clinical Trials: ASCO Policy Statement

Research conducted through clinical trials is essential for evaluating new treatment modalities, establishing new standards of cancer care, and ultimately improving and prolonging the lives of patients with cancer. However, participation in trials has been low, and this is attributable to various factors including patient financial barriers. Such financial barriers include the rising cost of cancer care; a lack of transparency in coverage policy; and the perception of ethical, compliance, or institutional impediments to patient financial support. ASCO convened a roundtable discussion with a variety of stakeholders to define the scope of the problem, as well as to identify clinical practice and policy solutions applicable at the institutional and system-wide levels. This statement summarizes key discussions from the ASCO Roundtable, as well as findings from the literature, and provides ASCO's recommendations for overcoming financial barriers that may otherwise prevent participation in clinical trials. These recommendations broadly address the following key areas: (1) improving the policy environment for coverage of clinical trials; (2) facilitating transparency among providers, patients, and payers for trial-related out-of-pocket costs; (3) refuting the specter of inducement to enable targeted financial support for patients; and (4) improving the available data on costs of cancer clinical trials.

Conflict of interest among Italian medical oncologists: a national survey

OBJECTIVES

To assess Italian medical oncologists' opinion on the implications of conflict of interest (COI) on medical education, care and research, and to evaluate their direct financial relationships.

DESIGN

National cross-sectional survey conducted between March and April 2017 among Italian oncologists.

SETTING

Online survey sponsored by the Italian College of Medical Oncology Chiefs through its website.

PARTICIPANTS

Italian oncologists who filled out an anonymous questionnaire including 19 items and individual and working characteristics.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The proportion of medical oncologists perceiving COI as an outstanding issue and those receiving direct payments from industry.

RESULTS

There were 321 respondents, representing 13% of Italian tenured medical oncologists. Overall, 62% declared direct payments from the pharmaceutical industry in the last 3 years. Sixty-eight per cent felt the majority of Italian oncologists have a COI with industry, but 59% suppose this is not greater than that of other specialties. Eighty-two per cent consider that most oncology education is supported by industry. More than 75% believe that current allocation of industry budget on marketing and promotion rather than research and development is unfair, but 75% consider it appropriate to receive travel and lodging hospitality from industry. A median net profit margin of €5000 per patient enrolled in an industry trial was considered appropriate for the employee institution. Sixty per cent agree to receive a personal fee for patients enrolled in industry trials, but 79% state this should be reported in the informed consent. Over 90% believe that scientific societies should publish a financial report of industry support. Finally, 79% disagree to being a coauthor of an article written by a medical writer when no substantial scientific contribution is made.

CONCLUSIONS

Among Italian oncologists COI is perceived as an important issue influencing costs, education, care and science. A more rigorous policy on COI should be implemented.

Socioeconomic burden of participation in clinical trials in patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms

OBJECTIVE

To determine the financial and psycho-social impact of participation in clinical trials of patients with BCR/ABL-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN).

METHODS

An international, observational cross-sectional study was performed in 143 consecutive MPN patients (51% myelofibrosis, 36% polycythemia vera, 13% essential thrombocythemia), 68% from Italy, 17% from USA, and 15% from Spain.

RESULTS

Thirty-five percent of patients reported having spent more money during the trial than in previous treatments and 21% having missed more workdays. Twelve percent replied that they would not have participated in the trial if the financial consequences would have been known beforehand. In 10% of the patients, the interpersonal relationships were more affected during the trial than in previous treatment but, overall, 91% subjects believed that participating in the clinical trial was worth the financial or emotional suffering. Concerning patients' suggestions, 54% of them indicated that the number of visits required for the trial should be clearly specified in the informed consent, 60% recommended travel cost reimbursement, and 23% hotel cost reimbursement.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians and pharmaceutical companies involved in clinical trials with patients with hematological diseases should be aware of these problems and make efforts to attenuate the socioeconomic burden of participation in the trials.

Addressing Patients' Priorities as a Strategy to Improve Value

The individual patient perspective is critical to inform assessments of value that drive treatment decisions. There are many elements that patients and providers must weigh, and novel decision support tools are needed to help patients clarify their preferences and goals for treatment and, ultimately, assess the value of therapeutic options.

Barriers to Clinical Trial Enrollment in Racial and Ethnic Minority Patients With Cancer

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials that study cancer are essential for testing the safety and effectiveness of promising treatments, but most people with cancer never enroll in a clinical trial - a challenge exemplified in racial and ethnic minorities. Underenrollment of racial and ethnic minorities reduces the generalizability of research findings and represents a disparity in access to high-quality health care.

METHODS

Using a multilevel model as a framework, potential barriers to trial enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities were identified at system, individual, and interpersonal levels. Exactly how each level directly or indirectly contributes to doctor-patient communication was also reviewed. Selected examples of implemented interventions are included to help address these barriers. We then propose our own evidence-based intervention addressing barriers at the individual and interpersonal levels.

RESULTS

Barriers to enrolling a diverse population of patients in clinical trials are complex and multilevel. Interventions focused at each level have been relatively successful, but multilevel interventions have the greatest potential for success.

CONCLUSION

To increase the enrollment of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials, future interventions should address barriers at multiple levels.

Relationships Among Financial Distress, Emotional Distress, and Overall Distress in Insured Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE

Recent studies have demonstrated increasing rates of financial toxicities and emotional distress related to cancer treatment. This study assessed and characterized the relationships among financial distress, emotional symptoms, and overall distress in patients with cancer.

METHODS

A cross-sectional sample of patients with cancer who visited our outpatient medical oncology and psychiatry clinics completed a pen-and-paper survey. The survey assessed demographics; cost concerns; and financial, emotional, and overall distress.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty insured patients completed the survey. Sixty-five percent reported clinically significant overall distress scores, with the same percentage reporting at least one emotional problem (worry, anxiety, depression, etc). Twenty-nine percent scored in the range of high to overwhelming financial distress. By using structural equation modeling, we found that financial distress was associated with overall distress. This association was both direct (accounting for 76% of the effect) and indirect (accounting for 24% of the effect) via mediation by emotional distress.

CONCLUSION

This cohort of patients with cancer reported significant levels of emotional distress, financial distress, and overall distress. These factors were interrelated, with both financial and emotional distress contributing to overall distress. Interventions targeted at alleviating financial distress may help to decrease levels of overall distress.