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 sharing for oral lenvatinib among commercially insured patients.

OBJECTIVE: To use a nationwide pharmaceutical claims database to evaluate cost-sharing trends for commercially insured patients with cancer who were prescribed lenvatinib (Lenvima). STUDY DESIGN: IBM MarketScan databases were used to evaluate lenvatinib costs for patients with employer-based commercial insurance, and for patients 65 years and older, Medicare claims for fee-for-service plans. METHODS: Patients were included if they had least 1 outpatient pharmaceutical claim for lenvatinib paid on a noncapitated basis from 2015 to 2019. Median and IQR costs were estimated and inflation adjusted to 2019 US$ for 30-day supplies and reported as total, insurance liability, coordination of benefits, and out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS: A total of 685 patients had at least 1 pharmaceutical claim for lenvatinib, which included patients with thyroid (n = 251; 36.6%), renal cell (n = 202; 29.5%), hepatocellular (n = 160; 23.4%), and endometrial (n = 48; 7.0%) cancer. The median (IQR) number of prescriptions per patient was 3 (2-7), and the median (IQR) total days of supply was 90 (45-210) days. The median (IQR) 30-day cost of lenvatinib was $17,253 ($15,597-$18,120). Median (IQR) 30-day insurance liability was $16,847 ($15,000-$17,981). Median (IQR) 30-day coordination of benefits was $0 ($0-$0). Median (IQR) 30-day patient out-of-pocket cost was $32 ($0-$100). However, the maximum 30-day out-of-pocket cost in our patient cohort was $12,538. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, insurance was liable for the majority of total lenvatinib drug costs, and 75% of patients paid $100 or less per month out of pocket. This information can be used by care teams to counsel insured patients. Health systems and drug manufacturers must identify patients with high out-of-pocket costs and provide convenient access to financial assistance programs so that patients are not forced to forgo the benefits of these drugs due to financial barriers. Value-based payment models and drug pricing reform are also needed to address underlying drivers of high drug costs.

Regionalizing ovarian cancer cytoreduction to high-volume centers and the impact on patient travel in New York State.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the theoretical impact of regionalizing cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer (OC) to high-volume facilities on patient travel. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with OC who underwent cytoreduction between 1/1/2004-12/31/2018 from the New York State Cancer Registry and Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System. Hospitals were stratified by low-volume (<21 cytoreductive surgical procedures for OC annually) and high-volume centers (≥21 procedures annually). A simulation was performed; outcomes of interest were driving distance and time between the centroid of the patient's residence zip code and the treating facility zip code. RESULTS: Overall, 60,493 patients met inclusion criteria. Between 2004 and 2018, 210 facilities were performing cytoreductive surgery for OC in New York; 159 facilities (75.7%) met low-volume and 51 (24.3%) met high-volume criteria. Overall, 10,514 patients (17.4%) were treated at low-volume and 49,979 (82.6%) at high-volume facilities. In 2004, 78.2% of patients were treated at high-volume facilities, which increased to 84.6% in 2018 (P < .0001). Median travel distance and time for patients treated at high-volume centers was 12.2 miles (IQR, 5.6-25.5) and 23.0 min (IQR, 15.2-37.0), and 8.2 miles (IQR, 3.7-15.9) and 16.8 min (IQR, 12.4-26.0) for patients treated at low-volume centers. If cytoreductive surgery was centralized to high-volume centers, median distance and time traveled for patients originally treated at low-volume centers would be 11.2 miles (IQR, 3.8-32.3; P < .001) and 20.2 min (IQR, 13.6-43.0; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Centralizing cytoreductive surgery for OC to high-volume centers in New York would increase patient travel burden by negligible amounts of distance and time for most patients.

The Patient Experience of Prior Authorization for Cancer Care.

Importance: Prior authorization (PA) requires clinicians and patients to navigate a complex approval pathway. Resultant delays and denials can be particularly problematic for patients with cancer, who often need urgent treatment or symptom management. Objective: To investigate the patient perspective of PA for cancer-related care, including perceptions about the process, outcomes (including delays and denials), and patient administrative burden. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, anonymous survey used a convenience sample of patients with PA experience. Participants were recruited using social media and email lists of US-based cancer advocacy organizations from July 1 to October 6, 2022. Exposure: Prior authorization for any cancer-related service. Main Outcomes and Measures: Delays to care, outcome of PA, communication, and changes in anxiety (measured on a scale of 0-100, with 0 indicating no anxiety and higher scores indicating higher levels of anxiety) and trust. Results: Of 178 respondents (158 women [88%], 151 non-Hispanic White respondents [84%], 164 respondents [92%] <65 years), 112 (63%) reported that their cancer care was approved and given as recommended, and 39 (22%) did not receive recommended care due to delays or denials. Most respondents (123 [69%]) reported a PA-related delay in care; of those with delayed care, 90 (73%) reported a delay of 2 or more weeks. Most respondents (119 [67%]) had to personally become involved in the PA process; 35 (20%) spent 11 or more hours dealing with PA issues. Overall, the PA experience was rated as bad (70 [40%]) or horrible (55 of 174 [32%]); ratings were associated with the length of delay (ρ = 0.36; P < .001) and the time spent on PA (ρ = 0.42; P < .001). Self-reported PA-related anxiety was higher than usual anxiety (mean [SD] score, 74.7 [20.2] vs 37.5 [22.6]; P < .001) and was correlated with delay length (ρ = 0.16; P = .04), time spent on PA (ρ = 0.27; P < .001), and overall PA experience (ρ = 0.34; P < .001). After PA, 159 respondents (89%) trusted their insurance company less, and 148 respondents (83%) trusted the health care system less. Patient involvement in the PA process was associated with increased odds of distrusting their insurance company (ß = 6.0; 95% CI, 1.9-19.2) and the health care system (ß = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.4-8.1) and of having a negative experience (ß = 6.6; 95% CI, 3.1-14.3). Conclusions and Relevance: This survey-based cross-sectional study of the patient experience with PA highlights an adverse outcome of PA: 22% of patients did not receive the care recommended by their treatment team because of PA. Most respondents experienced a delay in recommended oncology care, and delays were associated with increased anxiety, a negative perception of the PA process, and patient administrative burden.

Using Real-World Data to Explore the Impact of One-Time Financial Grants Among Young Adult Cancer Survivors.

Young adult (YA) cancer survivors experience worse financial outcomes than older survivors. This analysis used data from Expect Miracles Foundation to explore the impact of one-time financial grants on financial well-being and access to health care. Among 300 respondents, the average grant was $1526 (standard deviation = $587; range $300-$3000). Respondents reported improved ability to pay expenses (t = 4.45, p < 0.001), increased financial decision-making power (t = 2.79, p = 0.06), decreased medical debt impact (t = 2.1, p = 0.04), improved transportation access (t = 2.38, p = 0.02), and fewer challenges in accessing care (t = 3.0, p = 0.005) 6 months after receiving a financial grant. Financial assistance offers YAs an opportunity to meet medical and nonmedical expenses.

Improving risk stratification of indeterminate adnexal masses on MRI: What imaging features help predict malignancy in O-RADS MRI 4 lesions?

PURPOSE: Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) MRI uses a 5-point scale to establish malignancy risk in sonographically-indeterminate adnexal masses. The management of O-RADS MRI score 4 lesions is challenging, as the prevalence of malignancy is widely variable (5-90%). We assessed imaging features that may sub-stratify O-RADS MRI 4 lesions into malignant and benign subgroups. METHOD: Retrospective single-institution study of women with O-RADS MRI score of 4 adnexal masses between April 2021-August 2022. Imaging findings were assessed independently by 2 radiologists according to the O-RADS lexicon white paper. MRI and clinical findingswere compared between malignant and benign adnexal masses, and inter-reader agreement was calculated. RESULTS: Seventy-four women (median age 52 years, IQR 36-61) were included. On pathology, 41 (55.4%) adnexal masses were malignant. Patients with malignant masses were younger (p = 0.02) with higher CA-125 levels (p = 0.03). Size of solid tissue was greater in malignant masses (p = 0.01-0.04). Papillary projections and larger solid portion were more common in malignant lesions; irregular septations and predominantly solid composition were more frequent in benign lesions (p < 0.01). Solid tissue of malignant lesions was more often hyperintense on T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging (p ≤ 0.03). Other imaging findings were not significantly different (p = 0.09-0.77). Inter-reader agreement was excellent-good for most features (ICC = 0. 662-0.950; k = 0. 650-0.860). CONCLUSION: Various MRI and clinical features differed between malignant and benign O-RADS MRI score 4 adnexal masses. O-RADS MRI 4 lesions may be sub-stratified (high vs low risk) based on solid tissue characteristics and CA-125 levels.

Younger Patients with Colon Cancer are More Likely to Experience Financial Toxicity Than Older Patients.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of young-onset colon cancer is increasing. This study investigated the extent to which financial hardships associated with colon cancer care are associated with patient age. METHODS: A consecutive sample of patients with non-metastatic colon cancer who underwent resection at a comprehensive cancer center between 2017 and 2019 were retrospectively enrolled from a clinical database. Patients with one or more of the following events associated with their colon cancer care were categorized as having experienced financial toxicity: two or more bills sent to collections, application for a payment plan, settlement, bankruptcy, or enrollment in a financial assistance program. RESULTS: Of 764 patients identified, 157 (21 %) experienced financial toxicity. In a univariable analysis, financial toxicity was significantly associated with younger age, female sex, nonpartnered marital status, and median income by ZIP code area (p < 0.05). A multivariable analysis showed that with each 10-year decrease in patient age, the odds of financial toxicity increased by 30 % (odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.48). With each $50,000 decrease in median income by ZIP code area, the odds of financial toxicity increased by 35 % (OR, 1.35; 95 % CI, 1.05-1.74). CONCLUSIONS: Younger patients with colon cancer are at greater risk for financial toxicity than older patients. As this population continues to grow, so will the need for timely and effective financial support mechanisms.

Patient-reported symptoms after minimally invasive hysterectomy and association with postoperative complications.

OBJECTIVE: To describe patient-reported postoperative symptoms and to evaluate the use of digital symptom tracking and alerts to detect postoperative complications. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent a minimally invasive hysterectomy and enrolled in our Recovery Tracker program from 4/5/17-12/31/21. The Recovery Tracker is an at-home virtual tool used to track patient-reported postoperative symptoms for 10 days. Predefined thresholds for "red" and "yellow" alerts are based on symptom severity and timing. Data on patient demographics, surgery, and postoperative course were collected to evaluate the association of alerts with complications and compare outcomes of patients who did/did not enroll in the program. RESULTS: Of 2362 eligible patients, 1694 (71.7%) enrolled in the Recovery Tracker program. Pain was the most severe symptom, followed by fatigue. Eighty-seven patients experienced 102 complications (5.1% complication rate) and 32 experienced 39 grade ≥ 2 complications (1.9% severe complication rate). Excluding complications that occurred prior to Recovery Tracker use, 1673 patients experienced 28 grade ≥ 2 complications. Of 345 patients (20.6%) who triggered a red alert, 13 (3.8%) had a grade ≥ 2 complication. Of 1328 patients (79.4%) with no red alerts, 15 (1.13%) had a grade ≥ 2 complication. Relative risk of a grade ≥ 2 complication if a red alert was triggered was 3.25 (95% CI: 1.6-6.9, P = .002). Rate of severe complications was significantly higher among patients who did not use the tool (3.3% vs 1.9%; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: The Recovery Tracker tool may assist in early identification of postoperative symptoms after minimally invasive hysterectomy.

Financial Toxicity Order Set: Implementing a Simple Intervention to Better Connect Patients With Resources.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity of cancer treatment is well described in the literature, including characterizations of its risk factors, manifestations, and consequences. There is, however, limited research on interventions, particularly those at the hospital level, to address the issue. METHODS: From March 1, 2019, to February 28, 2022, a multidisciplinary team conducted a three-cycle Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) process to develop, test, and implement an electronic medical record (EMR) order set to directly refer patients to a hospital-based financial assistance program. The cycles included an assessment of the efficacy of our current practice in connecting patients experiencing financial hardship with assistance, the development and piloting of the EMR referral order, and the broad implementation of the order set across our institution. RESULTS: In PDSA cycle 1, we found that approximately 25% of patients at our institution experienced some form of financial hardship, but most patients were not connected to available resources because of our referral mechanism. In PDSA cycle 2, the pilot referral order set was deemed feasible and received positive feedback. Over the 12-month study period (March 1, 2021-February 28, 2022) of PDSA cycle 3, 718 orders were placed for 670 unique patients across interdisciplinary providers from 55 treatment areas. These referrals resulted in at least $850,000 in US dollars (USD) in financial aid in 38 patients (mean = $22,368 USD). CONCLUSION: The findings from our three-cycle PDSA quality improvement project demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of interdisciplinary efforts to develop a hospital-level financial toxicity intervention. A simple referral mechanism can empower providers to connect patients in need with available resources.

Financial toxicity: A practical review for gynecologic oncology teams to understand and address patient-level financial burdens.

Financial toxicity describes the adverse impact patients experience from the monetary and time costs of cancer care. The financial burden patients experience comes from substantially increased out-of-pocket spending that often occurs concurrent with reduced income due to sick leave from work. Financial toxicity is common affecting approximately half of patients with a gynecological cancer depending on the validated instrument used for measurement. Financial toxicity is experienced by patients in three domains: economic hardship affecting patients' material conditions (i.e., medical debt), psychological response (i.e., distress), and health-related coping behaviors that patients adopt (i.e., foregoing care due to costs). Higher financial toxicity among cancer patients has been associated with decreased quality of life, impaired adherence to recommended care, and worse overall survival. In this review, we describe the current literature on financial toxicity, including how it can be assessed with validated tools, the downstream impact on patients, risk factors, and employment concerns of survivors. Whenever possible, we highlight data from research featuring patients with gynecologic cancer specifically. We also review studies with interventions aimed to mitigate financial toxicity and offer the reader real world examples of interventions currently being used. Lastly, we provide an overview of health policy developments relevant to financial toxicity and advocate for innovation in the development and implementation of strategies to decrease the financial toxicity patients experience following a diagnosis of gynecologic cancer.

The long-term financial experiences of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related financial hardship can negatively impact financial well-being and may prevent adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors (ages 15-39) from gaining financial independence. This analysis explored the financial experiences following diagnosis with cancer among AYA survivors. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, anonymous survey of a national sample of AYAs recruited online. The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) and InCharge Financial Distress/Financial Well-Being Scale (IFDFW) assessed financial hardship (cancer-related and general, respectively), and respondents reported related financial consequences and financial coping behaviors (both medical and non-medical). RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-seven AYA survivors completed the survey (mean 8.3 years from diagnosis). Financial hardship was high: mean COST score was 13.7 (moderate-to-severe financial toxicity); mean IFDFW score was 4.3 (high financial stress). Financial consequences included post-cancer credit score decrease (44%), debt collection contact (39%), spending more than 10% of income on medical expenses (39%), and lacking money for basic necessities (23%). Financial coping behaviors included taking money from savings (55%), taking on credit card debt (45%), putting off major purchases (45%), and borrowing money (42%). In logistic regression models, general financial distress was associated with increased odds of experiencing financial consequences and engaging in both medical- and non-medical-related financial coping behaviors. DISCUSSION: AYA survivors face long-term financial hardship after cancer treatment, which impacts multiple domains, including their use of healthcare and their personal finances. Interventions are needed to provide AYAs with tools to navigate financial aspects of the healthcare system; connect them with resources; and create systems-level solutions to address healthcare affordability. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Survivorship care providers, particularly those who interact with AYA survivors, must be attuned to the unique risk for financial hardships facing this population and make efforts to increase access available interventions.

Reexamining Social Determinants of Health Data Collection in the COVID-19 Era.

This Viewpoint describes the association of various factors, including demographic factors, disease-related factors, and social determinants of health, with cancer treatment delays among a cohort of patients across multiple sites who had all tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Demographic shifts associated with implementation of evidence-based guidelines for ovarian conservation in patients with endometrioid endometrial cancer.

OBJECTIVE: In 2018, evidence-based surgical guidelines were introduced to identify appropriate patients with low-grade endometrioid endometrial cancer for ovarian conservation. We sought to identify trends and demographic shifts associated with guideline implementation. METHODS: We identified women treated for endometrioid endometrial cancer at our institution from January 2010 to June 2021. Eligibility criteria included age ≤50 years, normal-appearing ovaries on preoperative imaging, no family history of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome or Lynch syndrome, and no hormone receptor-positive malignancy. Trends in ovarian conservation were examined with the Cochran-Armitage trend test or in a logistic regression model. Associations between ovarian conservation and clinicodemographic factors before and after guideline implementation were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Of 420 women ≤50 years of age undergoing surgery for endometrioid endometrial cancer, 355 (85%) met the criteria for ovarian conservation-267 (75%) before and 88 (25%) after guideline implementation. Median patient age was 45 years (range 25-50); 62% were non-Hispanic White, 10% Hispanic White, 8% non-Hispanic Black, 0% Hispanic Black, and 20% Asian. Patients were significantly more likely to choose ovarian conservation after (48%) compared with before guideline implementation (21%) (p<0.001). Pre-guidelines, non-Hispanic White women were less likely to elect for ovarian conservation (12%) compared with non-Hispanic Black, Asian, or Hispanic White women (28%) (p=0.002). Similarly, older women were less likely to elect for ovarian conservation compared with younger women (p<0.001). There were no differences by obesity (p=0.68), marital status (p=0.86), or insurance (p=0.89). Post-guidelines, there were no differences in ovarian conservation between non-Hispanic White women (36%) and non-Hispanic Black, Asian, or Hispanic White women (50%) (p=0.56). Older women were still less likely to elect for ovarian conservationcompared with younger women (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After guideline implementation, ovarian conservation increased and uptake disparities across demographic groups decreased.

Factors Associated With Cancer Treatment Delay Among Patients Diagnosed With COVID-19.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic led to disruptions in delivery of cancer treatments; factors associated with treatment delay among patients with cancer who contract COVID-19 need further characterization. Objective: To assess the associations of patient factors, social determinants of health, severity of COVID-19, and timing of COVID-19 diagnosis with the risk of treatment delay. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study was conducted from March 2020 through July 2021 at 60 academic and community medical practices in the United States. Participants included patients with any cancer diagnosis who were scheduled for treatment and contracted COVID-19. Data were analyzed in February 2022. Exposure: Positive test result for SARS-CoV-2. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were treatment delay, defined as more than 14 days between the date originally planned for treatment and the date of initiation of therapy, or discontinuation of therapy. Multivariable analyses were used to assess outcomes. Results: A total of 3028 patients (1470 patients [49%] aged ≥65 years; 1741 [58%] women) were included in the registry. With 962 of 2103 patients (46%) experiencing anticancer drug delay or discontinuation, delays were higher among Black patients compared with White patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.87; 95% CI, 1.40-2.51), Hispanic or Latino patients compared with non-Hispanic or Latino patients (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.34-2.72), patients with 2 or more comorbidities compared with patients with 0 to 1 (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.53), patients with metastatic disease rather than locoregional disease (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.29-2.05), and patients who experienced COVID-19 complications compared with those who did not (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.24-1.86). Residing in an area with a higher proportion of residents reporting Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95) and contracting COVID-19 later in the pandemic, compared with those who were infected in March to June 2020, (eg, January to March 2021: OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.53) were associated with lower likelihood of drug therapy delay. A total of 95 of 202 patients (47%) experienced delay or discontinuation of radiation treatment, with having 2 or more comorbidities associated with delay (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.20-6.20). Higher local-area median household income was associated with lower likelihood of radiation treatment delay (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.94). There were 89 of 125 patients (71%) who experienced surgical treatment delay, and delays were higher among patients in the South compared with those in the Midwest (OR, 9.66; 95% CI, 2.14-52.3). Interestingly, patients with 2 or more comorbidities, compared with those with 0 to 1, experienced lower likelihoods of surgical treatment delay (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.07-0.88). Conclusions and Relevance: Our findings suggest that individual patient factors, social determinants of health, and COVID-19 severity and diagnosis date were associated with exacerbated health disparities during the pandemic in regards to cancer treatment delay.

Sentinel lymph node mapping for endometrial cancer: Opportunity for medical waste reform.

OBJECTIVE: As healthcare expenditures continue to rise, identifying mechanisms to reduce unnecessary costs is critical. The objective of this study is to estimate the annual cost of wasted indocyanine green (ICG) used for sentinel lymph node mapping in patients with endometrial cancer. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database and Premier database, we determined the annual number of cases in which sentinel lymph node mapping with ICG would be used and the median cost of ICG to institutions and patients, respectively. We assumed that gynecologic oncologists use 2-4 mL (20-40%) of the currently available ICG vial kit (25 mg per 10 mL) per case. Estimated waste was then calculated using cost as a measure of institutional waste and charge as excess cost transferred to patients or payers. RESULTS: An estimated 45,864 cases of localized endometrial cancer were identified and eligible for sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping. The mean total cost associated with ICG was 99.20 and the mean charge was $483.64. The estimated excess annual cost to hospitals was $2,729,825 to $3,639,767. Similarly, using mean charge data, the annual cost of wasted drug for patients and payers was $13,308,999 to $17,745,332. CONCLUSIONS: The annual cost of wasted ICG due to its current manufactured vial size exceeds $2 million for hospitals and $13.3-$17.7 million for patients. We suggest ICG vials should be packaged in a 10 mg vial kit (2-4 mL sterile solution) to avoid drug waste and the financial impact to institutions and patients.