Prevalence of anal cytology screening among persons with HIV and lack of access to high-resolution anoscopy at HIV care facilities.

BACKGROUND: Persons with HIV (PWH) at highest risk of anal cancer include gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) and transgender women aged ≥ 35 years, and other PWH aged ≥ 45 years. Identifying and treating precancerous lesions can reduce anal cancer incidence in these groups. We assessed prevalence of anal cytology and access to high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) among PWH, overall and those at highest risk. METHODS: Data were obtained from the CDC's Medical Monitoring Project (MMP), a population-based survey of PWH aged ≥ 18 years, and a supplemental MMP facility survey. We report weighted percentages of PWH receiving anal cytology during the past 12 months, access to HRA, and characteristics of HIV care facilities by availability of HRA. RESULTS: Overall, 4.8% (95% CI 3.4 to 6.1) of PWH had anal cytology in the prior 12 months. Only 7.7% (95% CI 5.1 to 10.6) of GBMSM and transgender women aged ≥ 35 years, and 1.9% (95% CI 0.9 to 2.9) of all other PWH aged ≥ 45 years, had anal cytology. Prevalence was statistically significantly low among PWH with the following characteristics: non-Hispanic/Latino Black/African American, ≤ high school education, heterosexual orientation, and living in Southern MMP states. Among PWH, 32.8% (95% CI 28.0 to 37.7) had no HRA access on-site/through referral at their care facility; 22.2% (95% CI 19.5 to 24.9) had on-site access; 45.0% (95% CI 41.5 to 48.5) had HRA available through referral. Most facilities that received Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program funding, cared for > 1000 PWH, or provided on-site colposcopy also provided HRA on-site/through referral. CONCLUSIONS: Anal cytology and access to HRA was low among PWH, including those at highest risk of anal cancer. Our data may inform large-scale implementation of anal cancer prevention efforts.

Access to High-Resolution Anoscopy Among Persons With HIV and Abnormal Anal Cytology Results.

This cross-sectional study evaluates use and availability of follow-up anoscopy among persons at highest risk for anal cancer.

Human papillomavirus-associated anal squamous cell carcinoma: sociodemographic, geographic, and county-level economic trends in incidence rates-United States, 2001-2019.

BACKGROUND: Incidence of anal squamous cell carcinoma is increasing, but vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) and removal of precancerous anal lesions could prevent new cases. The overall HPV-associated cancer incidence is reported to be higher in rural populations and in counties with lower economic status. We assessed these differences specifically for HPV-associated anal squamous cell carcinoma and described the geographic, county-level economic, and sociodemographic variations in incidence rates and trends. METHODS: We analyzed data from the US Cancer Statistics to assess age-standardized incidence rates of HPV-associated squamous cell carcinomas among adults aged 18 years and older from 2001 to 2019. We calculated rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals to examine differences in incidence rates. We also quantified changes in incidence rates over time using joinpoint regression. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2019, 72 421 new cases of HPV-associated anal squamous cell carcinoma were diagnosed among women (2.8 per 100 000) and 37 147 among men (1.7 per 100 000). Age-standardized incidence rates were higher in the South compared with other census regions and in counties ranked in the bottom 25% and 25%-75% economically than in the top 25%. The overall incidence rate increased in women but remained stable in men during 2009-2019. Incidence rates increased in adults aged 50 years and older but decreased among those aged 40-44 years from 2001 to 2019 in women and from 2007 to 2019 in men. CONCLUSIONS: There were inequities in HPV-associated anal squamous cell carcinoma incidence by geographic and county-level economic characteristics. Failure to improve vaccine and treatment equity may widen existing disparities.

Rationale and Methodologic Approach for Assessing Ovarian Cancer Treatment and Gynecologic Oncologist Involvement in the Midwest Region of the United States.

Introduction: A study was conducted to examine treatment patterns and outcomes among women with a primary ovarian cancer diagnosis in the Midwest region of the United States, an area that has relatively fewer gynecologic oncologists (GOs) and diverse geography with respect to urban and rural areas. In this paper, we examine the methodology of working with central cancer registries (CCRs) to collect additional data items, including those related to GO involvement and detailed treatment. Methods: Westat recruited 3 state CCRs from the Midwest to participate in the study. Cases were randomly selected from 2010-2012 ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer diagnoses in participating registry databases that met the selection criteria. CCRs abstracted additional information for selected cases, including study-specific data items regarding surgery and chemotherapy, GO involvement, and recurrence, where applicable. Results: Abstracts with study-specific data items were collected among a total of 1,003 incidence ovarian cancer cases, with 432 additional abstracts for those cases identified as having recurrence. Variables with the highest frequency of unknowns were mostly for patients who had chemotherapy. While data were available for whether the patient received chemotherapy, the specifics about that chemotherapy were not always available, with dosing and unit being unknown in 27% of cases. There were several challenges with initiating and completing this study associated with recruitment, the data collection timeline, and the collection of study-specific data items. Conclusion: This paper outlines the methodologic approach and experience of collecting additional surgical and chemotherapy treatment variables and data on GO involvement in care from medical records. Experiences from this study provide critical lessons that can be applied to future data collection in this area. Ultimately, the accurate collection of these elements enables researchers to identify groups of women who are not receiving the benefit of optimal surgery or GO care and provides critical data on interventions for improved outcomes and survival in ovarian cancer patients.

Translating an Economic Analysis into a Tool for Public Health Resource Allocation in Cancer Survivorship.

Background. The complexity of decision science models may prevent their use to assist in decision making. User-centered design (UCD) principles provide an opportunity to engage end users in model development and refinement, potentially reducing complexity and increasing model utilization in a practical setting. We report our experiences with UCD to develop a modeling tool for cancer control planners evaluating cancer survivorship interventions. Design. Using UCD principles (described in the article), we developed a dynamic cohort model of cancer survivorship for individuals with female breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer over 10 y. Parameters were obtained from the National Program of Cancer Registries and peer-reviewed literature, with model outcomes captured in quality-adjusted life-years and net monetary benefit. Prototyping and iteration were conducted with structured focus groups involving state cancer control planners and staff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Public Health Association. Results. Initial feedback highlighted model complexity and unclear purpose as barriers to end user uptake. Revisions addressed complexity by simplifying model input requirements, providing clear examples of input types, and reducing complex language. Wording was added to the results page to explain the interpretation of results. After these updates, feedback demonstrated that end users more clearly understood how to use and apply the model for cancer survivorship resource allocation tasks. Conclusions. A UCD approach identified challenges faced by end users in integrating a decision aid into their workflow. This approach created collaboration between modelers and end users, tailoring revisions to meet the needs of the users. Future models developed for individuals without a decision science background could leverage UCD to ensure the model meets the needs of the intended audience. Highlights: Model complexity and unclear purpose are 2 barriers that prevent lay users from integrating decision science tools into their workflow.Modelers could integrate the user-centered design framework when developing a model for lay users to reduce complexity and ensure the model meets the needs of the users.

Economic burden of skin cancer treatment in the USA: an analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Data, 2012-2018.

PURPOSE: We report the prevalence and economic cost of skin cancer treatment compared to other cancers overall in the USA from 2012 to 2018. METHODS: Using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey full-year consolidated data files and associated medical conditions and medical events files, we estimate the prevalence, total costs, and per-person costs of treatment for melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer among adults aged ≥ 18 years in the USA. To understand the changes in treatment prevalence and treatment costs of skin cancer in the context of overall cancer treatment, we also estimate the prevalence, total costs, and per-person costs of treatment for non-skin cancer among US adults. RESULTS: During 2012-15 and 2016-18, the average annual number of adults treated for any skin cancer was 5.8 (95% CI: 5.2, 6.4) and 6.1 (95% CI: 5.6, 6.6) million, respectively, while the average annual number of adults treated for non-skin cancers rose from 10.8 (95% CI: 10.0, 11.5) to 11.9 (95% CI: 11.2, 12.6) million, respectively. The overall estimated annual costs rose from $8.0 (in 2012-2015) to $8.9 billion (in 2016-18) for skin cancer treatment and $70.2 to $79.4 billion respectively for non-skin cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: The prevalence and economic cost of skin cancer treatment modestly increased in recent years. Given the substantial cost of skin cancer treatment, continued public health attention to implementing evidence-based sun-safety interventions to reduce skin cancer risk may help prevent skin cancer and the associated treatment costs.

Collaborating with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program to Increase Receipt of Ovarian Cancer Care from a Gynecologic Oncologist.

Background: Treatment by a gynecologic oncologist is an important part of ovarian cancer care; however, implementation strategies are needed to increase care by these specialists. We partnered with National Comprehensive Cancer Control Programs in Iowa, Michigan, and Rhode Island in a demonstration project to deepen the evidence base for promising strategies that would facilitate care for ovarian cancer by gynecologic oncologists. Methods: Five main implementation strategies (increase knowledge/awareness; improve models of care; improve payment structures; increase insurance coverage; enhance workforce) were identified in the literature and used to develop initiatives. Specific activities were chosen by state programs according to feasibility and needs. Results: Activities included: (1) qualitative interviews with patients to determine barriers to receipt of specialized care; (2) development of patient/provider educational materials; (3) creation of patient/provider checklists to facilitate appropriate referrals; (4) expansion of a toll-free patient navigation hotline for ovarian cancer patients; (5) training of the health care workforce. The programs developed resources (educational handouts, toolkits, 2 webinars, 2 podcasts); trained 167 medical and nursing students during 8 Survivors Teaching Students® workshops; and conducted 3 provider education sessions reaching 362 providers in 45 states. Evaluations showed increases in providers' knowledge, awareness, abilities, and intentions to refer ovarian cancer patients to a gynecologic oncologist. Conclusion: The state program resources we discussed are available for other cancer control programs interested in initiating or expanding activities to improve access/referrals to gynecologic oncologists for ovarian cancer care. They serve as a valuable repository for public health professionals seeking to implement similar interventions.

Preventive care use among Hispanic adults with limited comfort speaking English: An analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data.

Language barriers have been associated with worse access to healthcare and poorer health outcomes. To assess differences in access to care and utilization of healthcare services between Hispanic adults and non-Hispanic white adults (NHW), we used the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2013-2016) to compare Hispanic adults who expressed limited comfort speaking in English (LCE) with Hispanic adults who were comfortable speaking in English (CE) and NHW adults. Hispanic adults with CE were less likely than NHW adults to have a usual source of care, use preventive services, including cervical cancer screening, and healthcare services. However, after adjustment breast and cervical cancer screening exceeded that of NHW adults. Hispanic adults with LCE fared substantially worse than their Hispanic counterparts with CE in having a usual source of care, use of preventive services, breast and colorectal cancer screening, and healthcare services. After adjustment, use of all cancer screening tests were similar. Eliminating disparities for Hispanic adults will require a multi-pronged approach to address access to healthcare and other social determinants of health, including poverty, employment discrimination, and educational inequities. The public health community can help improve health literacy, address barriers to care, and provide appropriate language assistance at point of care using culturally-competent means to promote greater utilization of preventive services, including demand for and delivery of cancer screenings.

Potential Strategies to Increase Gynecologic Oncologist Treatment for Ovarian Cancer.

Evidence shows that treatment by gynecologic oncologists (GOs) increases overall survival among women with ovarian cancer. However, specific strategies for institutions and community-based public health programs to promote treatment by GOs are lacking. To address this, we conducted a literature review to identify evidence-based and promising system- and environmental-change strategies for increasing treatment by GOs, in effort to ensure that all women with ovarian cancer receive the standard of care. We searched for English-language literature published from 2008 to 2018. We used PubMed, PubMed Central, OVID, and EBSCO for peer-reviewed literature and Google and Google Scholar for gray literature related to increasing receipt of care by GOs among ovarian cancer patients. Numerous suggested and proposed strategies that have potential to increase treatment by GOs were discussed in several articles. We grouped these approaches into five strategic categories: increasing knowledge/awareness of role and importance of GOs, improving models of care, improving payment structures, improving/increasing insurance coverage for GO care, and expanding or enhancing the GO workforce. We identified several strategies with the potential for increasing GO care among ovarian cancer patients, although currently there is little evidence regarding their effectiveness across US populations. Public health programs and entities that measure delivery of quality health care may pilot the strategies in their populations. Certain strategies may work better in certain environments and a combination of strategies may be necessary for any one entity to increase GO ovarian cancer care. Findings, lessons learned, and recommendations from implementation projects would inform community and public health practice.

Geographic Co-Occurrence of Mesothelioma and Ovarian Cancer Incidence.

Background: Asbestos is an established cause of several cancers, including mesothelioma and ovarian cancer. Incidence of mesothelioma, the sentinel asbestos-associated cancer, varies by state, likely reflecting different levels of asbestos exposure. We hypothesized that states with high mesothelioma incidence may also have high ovarian cancer incidence. Materials and Methods: Using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Program for Cancer Registries and the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, we examined the geographic co-occurrence of mesothelioma and ovarian cancer incidence rates by U.S. state for 2003-2015. Results: By state, mesothelioma incidence ranged from 0.5 to 1.3 cases per 100,000 persons and ovarian cancer incidence ranged from 9 to 12 cases per 100,000 females. When states were grouped by quartile of mesothelioma incidence, the average ovarian cancer incidence rate was 10% higher in states with the highest mesothelioma incidence than in states with the lowest mesothelioma incidence. Ovarian cancer incidence tended to be higher in states with high mesothelioma incidence (Pearson correlation r = 0.54; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Data from state cancer registries show ovarian cancer incidence was positively correlated with mesothelioma incidence, suggesting asbestos may be a common exposure. The potential for asbestos exposure has declined since the 1970s because fewer products contain asbestos; however, some products, materials, and buildings may still release asbestos and thousands of workers may be exposed. Ensuring that people are protected from exposure to asbestos in their workplaces, homes, schools, and communities may reduce the risk of several cancers.

Cost-effectiveness of patient navigation for breast cancer screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

OBJECTIVES: Patient navigation (PN) services have been shown to improve cancer screening in disparate populations. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of implementing PN services within the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). METHODS: We adapted a breast cancer simulation model to estimate a population cohort of women aged 40-64 years from the NBCCEDP through their lifetime. We incorporated their screening frequency and screening and diagnostic costs. RESULTS: Within the NBCCEDP, Program with PN (vs. No PN) resulted in a greater number of mammograms per woman (4.23 vs. 4.14), lower lifetime mortality from breast cancer (3.53% vs. 3.61%), and fewer missed diagnostic resolution per woman (0.017 vs. 0.025). The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for a Program with PN was $32,531 per quality-adjusted life-years relative to Program with No PN. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating PN services within the NBCCEDP may be a cost-effective way of improving adherence to screening and diagnostic resolution for women who have abnormal results from screening mammography. Our study highlights the value of supportive services such as PN in improving the quality of care offered within the NBCCEDP.

Has the Quality of Patient-Provider Communication About Survivorship Care Improved?

PURPOSE: The aim of the current study was to assess whether the quality of patient-provider communication on key elements of cancer survivorship care changed between 2011 and 2016. METHODS: Participating survivors completed the 2011 or 2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer Surveys (N = 2,266). Participants reported whether any clinician ever discussed different aspects of survivorship care. Responses ranged from "Did not discuss at all" to "Discussed it with me in detail". Distributions of responses were compared among all respondents and only among those who had received cancer-directed treatment within 3 years of the survey. RESULTS: In 2011, the percentage of survivors who did not receive detailed instructions on follow-up care, late or long-term adverse effects, lifestyle recommendations, and emotional or social needs were 35.1% (95% CI, 31.9% to 38.4%), 54.2% (95% CI, 50.7% to 57.6%), 58.9% (95% CI, 55.3% to 62.5%), and 69.2% (95% CI, 65.9% to 72.3%), respectively, and the corresponding proportions for 2016 were 35.4% (95% CI, 31.9% to 37.8%), 55.5% (95% CI, 51.7% to 59.3%), 57.8% (95% CI, 54.2% to 61.2%), and 68.2% (95% CI, 64.3% to 71.8%), respectively. Findings were similar among recently treated respondents. Only 24% in 2011 and 22% in 2016 reported having detailed discussions about all four topics. In 2016, 47.6% of patients (95% CI, 43.8% to 51.4%) reported not having detailed discussions with their providers about a summary of their cancer treatments. CONCLUSION: Clear gaps in the quality of communication between survivors of cancer and providers persist. Our results highlight the need for continued efforts to improve communication between survivors of cancer and providers, including targeted interventions in key survivorship care areas.

Annual Out-of-Pocket Expenditures and Financial Hardship Among Cancer Survivors Aged 18-64 Years - United States, 2011-2016.

In the United States in 2019, an estimated 16.9 million persons are living after receiving a cancer diagnosis (1). These cancer survivors face many challenges, including functional limitations, serious psychological distress (2), and other lasting and late effects of cancer treatments. Because of the high cost of cancer therapy, many cancer survivors are more likely to face substantial out-of-pocket health care expenditures and financial hardship, compared with persons without a history of cancer (3,4). Out-of-pocket expenditures and financial hardship associated with cancer have been higher among survivors aged 18-64 years than they have been among older survivors (5). To estimate annual out-of-pocket expenditures and financial hardship among cancer survivors aged 18-64 years, compared with persons without a cancer history, CDC, the American Cancer Society, and the National Cancer Institute analyzed data from the 2011-2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS).* The average annual out-of-pocket spending per person was significantly higher among cancer survivors ($1,000; 95% confidence interval [CI] = $886-$1,113) than among persons without a cancer history ($622; CI = $606-$639). Financial hardship was common; 25.3% of cancer survivors reported material hardship (e.g., problems paying medical bills), and 34.3% reported psychological hardship (e.g., worry about medical bills). These findings add to accumulating evidence documenting the financial difficulties of many cancer survivors. Mitigating the negative impact of cancer in the United States will require implementation of strategies aimed at alleviating the disproportionate financial hardship experienced by many survivors. These strategies include systematic screening for financial hardship at cancer diagnosis and throughout cancer care, integration of discussions about the potential for adverse financial consequences of treatments in shared treatment decision-making, and linkage of patients and survivors to available resources to ensure access to high-quality evidence-based care.

Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

PURPOSE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). METHODS: Using a modified CISNET breast cancer simulation model, we estimated outcomes for women aged 40-64 years associated with three scenarios: breast cancer screening within the NBCCEDP, screening in the absence of the NBCCEDP (no program), and no screening through any program. We report screening outcomes, cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and sensitivity analyses results. RESULTS: Compared with no program and no screening, the NBCCEDP lowers breast cancer mortality and improves QALYs, but raises health care costs. Base-case ICER for the program was $51,754/QALY versus no program and $50,223/QALY versus no screening. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis ICER for the program was $56,615/QALY [95% CI $24,069, $134,230/QALY] versus no program and $51,096/QALY gained [95% CI $26,423, $97,315/QALY] versus no screening. CONCLUSIONS: On average, breast cancer screening in the NBCCEDP was cost-effective compared with no program or no screening.

Preventive care service use among cancer survivors with serious psychological distress: An analysis of the medical expenditure panel survey data.

Serious psychological distress (SPD) can adversely impact health and quality of life after cancer. The purpose of this study is to examine the association between SPD and the receipt of preventive care services and cancer screening among survivors and adults without a cancer history. A total of 12,564 cancer survivors and 160,023 adults without a cancer history as comparison group were identified from the population-based Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2008-2015). SPD was assessed using the 6-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. We examined use of preventive care and cancer screening services in cancer survivors and comparison adults with/without SPD. Multivariable logistic regression models were conducted for each outcome: preventive service (i.e. blood pressure, cholesterol, influenza vaccination, routine and dental check-up) or cancer screening (i.e. mammography, Papanicolau test, colorectal cancer screening) adjusting for demographic, comorbidity, usual source of care covariates. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Prevalence of SPD was 9.8% in cancer survivors compared to 4.6% in comparison adults. Survivors with SPD were more frequent utilizers of medical care, reporting 10 or more visits to the doctor's office in the past 12 months (29.3% vs. 14.1% without SPD). Having SPD was associated with lower odds of being up-to-date with preventive service use and cancer screening among age- and gender-eligible individuals. The magnitude of the effect was greater in adults' age ≥65 years. Better coordination of care and patient-physician discussions are likely needed to improve delivery of recommended preventive services for persons with SPD.

Primary Care Providers' Intended Use of Decision Aids for Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing for Prostate Cancer Screening.

Decision aids are tools intended to help people weigh the benefits and harms of a health decision. We examined primary care providers' perspective on use of decision aids and explored whether providers' beliefs and interest in use of a decision aid was associated with offering the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for early detection of prostate cancer. Data were obtained from 2016 DocStyles, an annual, web-based survey of U.S. healthcare professionals including primary care physicians (n = 1003) and nurse practitioners (n = 253). We found that the majority of primary care providers reported not using (patient) decision aids for prostate cancer screening, but were interested in learning about and incorporating these tools in their practice. Given the potential of decision aids to guide in informed decision-making, there is an opportunity for evaluating existing decision aids for prostate cancer screening for clinical use.

Primary Care Physicians Beliefs about Prostate-Specific Antigen Evidence Uncertainty, Screening Efficacy, and Test Use.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Little is known about primary care physicians' (PCPs) beliefs about prostate cancer screening efficacy, evidence uncertainty, and their actual screening behaviors. We examined factors associated with PCP beliefs about screening efficacy and uncertainty and whether beliefs were associated with prostate specific-antigen (PSA) test use. METHODS: The 2008 National Survey of Primary Care Physicians' Practices Regarding Prostate Cancer Screening collected information on physicians' attitudes, beliefs, and practices related to prostate cancer and screening (n=1,256). Two factors were constructed that measured belief in certainty of evidence for PSA testing and belief in screening efficacy. These factors, along with PCP sociodemographic and practice-related factors, were used to examine associations with offering the PSA test. RESULTS: Most PCPs were male (70%), Caucasian (76%), under age 50 (56%), and practiced in communities with more than 50,000 residents (54%). In bivariate analysis, variables associated with PCP belief in evidence uncertainty included female gender, younger age, and lower patient volume. Variables associated with belief in screening efficacy included older age and general and family practice specialty. After adjustment, PCPs with high belief in evidence uncertainty were less likely (OR=0.19, 95% CI=0.06, 0.62) to offer PSA and more likely to practice shared decision making (OR=1.80, 95% CI=1.22-2.67). PCPs with high belief in screening efficacy were more likely (OR=2.99, 95% CI=1.15, 7.77) to offer PSA and less likely to practice shared decision making (OR=0.47, 95% CI=0.32-0.70). CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that belief patterns about evidence uncertainty and the efficacy of using PSA may play a role in whether PCPs offer PSA.

Systematic review of healthcare costs related to mental health conditions among cancer survivors.

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review examines healthcare costs associated with mental health conditions among cancer survivors in the United States. AREAS COVERED: Ten published studies were identified. Studies varied substantially in terms of population, mental health conditions examined, data collection methods, and type of cost reported. Cancer survivors with mental health conditions incurred significantly higher total medical costs and costs of most service types compared to cancer survivors without a mental health condition. Additionally, the total healthcare expenditure related to mental health was higher among cancer survivors compared with people without history of cancer. EXPERT COMMENTARY: Mental health conditions are associated with increased healthcare costs among cancer survivors. Future examination of other components of economic burden, including patient out-of-pocket costs, nonmedical costs, such as transportation, childcare, and productivity losses for patients and their caregivers, will be important. Additionally, evaluation of economic burden by cancer site, stage at diagnosis, duration of survivorship, and treatment(s) will increase understanding of the overall impact of mental health conditions on cancer survivors and on the healthcare system.