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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.