The financial burden and distress of patients with cancer: Understanding and stepping-up action on the financial toxicity of cancer treatment.

"Financial toxicity" has now become a familiar term used in the discussion of cancer drugs, and it is gaining traction in the literature given the high price of newer classes of therapies. However, as a phenomenon in the contemporary treatment and care of people with cancer, financial toxicity is not fully understood, with the discussion on mitigation mainly geared toward interventions at the health system level. Although important, health policy prescriptions take time before their intended results manifest, if they are implemented at all. They require corresponding strategies at the individual patient level. In this review, the authors discuss the nature of financial toxicity, defined as the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress of patients with cancer, as a result of treatments using innovative drugs and concomitant health services. They discuss coping with financial toxicity by patients and how maladaptive coping leads to poor health and nonhealth outcomes. They cover management strategies for oncologists, including having the difficult and urgent conversation about the cost and value of cancer treatment, availability of and access to resources, and assessment of financial toxicity as part of supportive care in the provision of comprehensive cancer care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:153-165. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Impact of reactive changes on multigene testing: histopathologic analysis of low-grade breast cancers with high-risk 21-gene recurrence scores.

PURPOSE: The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay predicts the recurrence risk and magnitude of chemotherapy benefit in patients with invasive breast cancer (BC). This study examined low-grade tumors yielding a high-risk RS and their outcomes.Kindly check the edit made in the article titleOk  METHODS: We compared patients with grade 1 BC and a high-risk RS to those with low-risk RS. Histologic sections were reviewed and features reported to elevate the RS were noted, mainly biopsy cavity and reactive stromal changes (BXC). RESULTS: A total of 54 patients had high-risk RS (median RS of 28, range 26-36). On review, BXC were seen in all cases. Thirty BCs in this group also had low to negative PR. Treatment regimens included: chemoendocrine therapy (63%), endocrine therapy alone (31%) and no adjuvant therapy (6%). There were no additional breast cancer events over a median follow-up of 54.0 months (range 6.2 to 145.3). A total of 108 patients had low-risk RS (median RS of 7, range 0-9). BXC were seen in 47% of cases and none were PR negative. One patient had a recurrence at 64.8 months while the rest had no additional events over a median of 68.1 months (2.4 to 100). CONCLUSION: We provide further evidence that reactive stromal changes and/or low-PR scores enhance the elevation of the RS. A high-RS result in low grade, PR-positive BC may not reflect actual risk and any suspected discrepancies should be discussed with the management teams. Multigene testing results should be interpreted after correlation with pathologic findings to optimize patient care.

Optimization of alert notifications in electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) remote symptom monitoring systems (AFT-39).

PURPOSE: Clinical benefits result from electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems that enable remote symptom monitoring. Although clinically useful, real-time alert notifications for severe or worsening symptoms can overburden nurses. Thus, we aimed to algorithmically identify likely non-urgent alerts that could be suppressed. METHODS: We evaluated alerts from the PRO-TECT trial (Alliance AFT-39) in which oncology practices implemented remote symptom monitoring. Patients completed weekly at-home ePRO symptom surveys, and nurses received real-time alert notifications for severe or worsening symptoms. During parts of the trial, patients and nurses each indicated whether alerts were urgent or could wait until the next visit. We developed an algorithm for suppressing alerts based on patient assessment of urgency and model-based predictions of nurse assessment of urgency. RESULTS: 593 patients participated (median age = 64 years, 61% female, 80% white, 10% reported never using computers/tablets/smartphones). Patients completed 91% of expected weekly surveys. 34% of surveys generated an alert, and 59% of alerts prompted immediate nurse actions. Patients considered 10% of alerts urgent. Of the remaining cases, nurses considered alerts urgent more often when patients reported any worsening symptom compared to the prior week (33% of alerts with versus 26% without any worsening symptom, p = 0.009). The algorithm identified 38% of alerts as likely non-urgent that could be suppressed with acceptable discrimination (sensitivity = 80%, 95% CI [76%, 84%]; specificity = 52%, 95% CI [49%, 55%]). CONCLUSION: An algorithm can identify remote symptom monitoring alerts likely to be considered non-urgent by nurses, and may assist in fostering nurse acceptance and implementation feasibility of ePRO systems.

Timing of exercise therapy when initiating adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a randomized trial.

AIMS: The most appropriate timing of exercise therapy to improve cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) among patients initiating chemotherapy is not known. The effects of exercise therapy administered during, following, or during and following chemotherapy were examined in patients with breast cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a parallel-group randomized trial design, 158 inactive women with breast cancer initiating (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy were allocated to receive (1:1 ratio): usual care or one of three exercise regimens-concurrent (during chemotherapy only), sequential (after chemotherapy only), or concurrent and sequential (continuous) (n = 39/40 per group). Exercise consisted of treadmill walking three sessions/week, 20-50 min at 55%-100% of peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) for ≈16 (concurrent, sequential) or ≈32 (continuous) consecutive weeks. VO2peak was evaluated at baseline (pre-treatment), immediately post-chemotherapy, and ≈16 weeks after chemotherapy. In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of VO2peak change between concurrent exercise and usual care during chemotherapy vs. VO2peak change between sequential exercise and usual care after chemotherapy [overall difference, -0.88 mL O2·kg-1·min-1; 95% confidence interval (CI): -3.36, 1.59, P = 0.48]. In secondary analysis, continuous exercise, approximately equal to twice the length of the other regimens, was well-tolerated and the only strategy associated with significant improvements in VO2peak from baseline to post-intervention (1.74 mL O2·kg-1·min-1, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There was no statistical difference in CRF improvement between concurrent vs. sequential exercise therapy relative to usual care in women with primary breast cancer. The promising tolerability and CRF benefit of ≈32 weeks of continuous exercise therapy warrant further evaluation in larger trials.

Risk factors for financial toxicity in patients with gynecologic cancer.

BACKGROUND: The cost of cancer care is high and rising. Evidence of increased patient cost burden is prevalent in the medical literature and has been defined as "financial toxicity," the financial hardship and financial concerns experienced by patients because of a disease and its related treatments. With targeted therapies and growing out-of-pocket costs, patient financial toxicity is a growing concern among patients with gynecologic cancer. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of financial toxicity and identify its risk factors in patients with gynecologic cancer treated at a large cancer center using objective data. STUDY DESIGN: Using institutional databases, we identified patients with gynecologic cancer treated from January 2016 to December 2018. Patients with a preinvasive disease were excluded. Financial toxicity was defined according to institutionally derived metrics as the presence of ≥1 of the following: ≥2 bills sent to collections, application or granting of a payment plan, settlement, bankruptcy, financial assistance program enrollment, or a finance-related social work visit. Clinical characteristics were gathered using a 2-year look-back from the time of the first financial toxicity event or a randomly selected treatment date for those not experiencing toxicity. Risk factors were assessed using chi-squared tests. All significant variables on univariate analysis were included in the logistic regression model. RESULTS: Of the 4655 patients included in the analysis, 1155 (25%) experienced financial toxicity. In the univariate analysis, cervical cancer (35%), stage 3 or 4 disease (24% and 30%, respectively), younger age (35% for age <30 years), nonpartnered marital status (31%), Black (45%) or Hispanic (37%) race and ethnicity, self-pay (48%) or commercial insurance (30%), clinical trial participation (31%), more imaging studies (39% for ≥9), ≥1 emergency department visit (36%), longer inpatient stays (36% for ≥20 days), and more outpatient clinician visits (41% for ≥20 visits) were significantly associated with financial toxicity (P<.01). In multivariate analysis, younger age, nonpartnered marital status, Black and Hispanic race and ethnicity, commercial insurance, more imaging studies, and more outpatient physician visits were significantly associated with financial toxicity. CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity is an increasing problem for patients with gynecologic cancer. Our analysis, using objective measures of financial toxicity, has suggested that demographic factors and healthcare utilization metrics may be used to proactively identify at-risk patients for financial toxicity.

Oral Chemotherapy Metric Performance in Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Practices: Updated Trends and Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oral chemotherapy performance measures were first introduced into ASCO's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) in 2013. This study examined performance on these measures among QOPI-participating practices and evaluated whether it differed among practices based on meeting QOPI Certification Program standards. METHODS: A total of 192 QOPI-participating practices (certified, n=50 [26%]; not certified, n=142 [74%]) reported performance on oral chemotherapy measures in 2017 and 2018. Inclusion was limited to practices reporting on ≥3 charts for ≥1 oral chemotherapy measure. Performance was defined as the percentage of charts examined that adhered to the measure. Descriptive analyses were used to characterize performance within and across practices, and mixed-effects logistic regression models were conducted to compare performance based on certification status. RESULTS: Median performance across practices for the 9 oral chemotherapy measures examined ranged from 44% (education before the start of treatment addressing missed doses, toxicities, and clinical contact instructions [composite measure]) to 100% (documented dose, documented plan, and education about toxicities). Certified practices were more likely to provide education about clinic contact instructions than noncertified practices (odds ratio, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.00-24.0). Performance on all other measures was not significantly associated with certification status. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variability in quality related to performance on oral chemotherapy measures across all QOPI-participating practices, and several areas were identified in which administration of oral chemotherapy could be improved. Our findings highlight the need for the development and implementation of appropriate standards that apply to oral chemotherapy and address the complexities that set it apart from parenteral treatment.

Effect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene. Objective: To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021. Interventions: In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available. Results: Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance: In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090.

Dermatologic adverse events related to the PI3Kα inhibitor alpelisib (BYL719) in patients with breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Rash develops in approximately 50% of patients receiving alpelisib for breast cancer, often requiring dose modifications. Here, we describe the clinicopathologic, laboratory, and management characteristics of alpelisib-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs). METHODS: A single center-retrospective analysis was conducted. Data were abstracted from electronic medical records. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients (mean age 56 years, range 27-83) receiving alpelisib most frequently in combination with endocrine therapy (79, 77.5%) were included. We identified 41 (40.2%) patients with all-grade rash distributed primarily along the trunk (78%) and extremities (70%) that developed approximately within two weeks of treatment initiation (mean 12.8 ± 1.5 days) and lasted one-week (mean duration 7.1 ± 0.8 days). Of 29 patients with documented morphology of alpelisib-related dAEs, 26 (89.7%) had maculopapular rash. Histology showed perivascular and interface lymphocytic dermatitis. All-grade rash correlated with an increase in serum eosinophils from 2.7 to 4.4%, p < 0.05, and prophylaxis with non-sedating antihistamines (n = 43) was correlated with a reduction of grade 1/2 rash (OR 0.39, p = 0.09). Sixteen (84.2%) of 19 patients with grade 3 dAEs resulted in interruption of alpelisib, which were managed with antihistamines, topical and systemic corticosteroids. We did not observe rash recurrence in 12 (75%) patients who were re-challenged. CONCLUSIONS: A maculopapular rash associated with increased blood eosinophils occurs frequently with alpelisib. While grade 3 rash leads to alpelisib therapy interruption, dermatologic improvement is evident with systemic corticosteroids; and most patients can continue oncologic treatment at a maintained or reduced dose upon re-challenge with alpelisib.

A pilot randomized controlled trial of cognitive bias modification to reduce fear of breast cancer recurrence.

BACKGROUND: The most common, persistent concern among survivors of breast cancer is the fear that their disease will return, yet to the authors' knowledge, few interventions targeting fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) have been developed to date. The current pilot study examined the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a home-delivered cognitive bias modification intervention to reduce FCR. The intervention, called Attention and Interpretation Modification for Fear of Breast Cancer Recurrence (AIM-FBCR), targeted 2 types of cognitive biases (ie, attention and interpretation biases). METHODS: A total of 110 survivors of breast cancer were randomized to receive 8 sessions of 1 of 2 versions of AIM-FBCR or a control condition program. Computer-based assessments of cognitive biases and a self-report measure of FCR were administered before the intervention, after the intervention, and 3 months after the intervention. RESULTS: Improvements in health worries (P = .019) and interpretation biases (rates of threat endorsement [P<.001] and reaction times for threat rejection [P = .007]) were found in those survivors who received AIM-FBCR compared with the control arm. Although only 26% of participants who screened into the study agreed to participate, the trial otherwise appeared feasible and acceptable, with 83% of those who initiated the intervention completing at least 5 of 8 sessions, and 90% reporting satisfaction with the computer-based program used. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current pilot study suggest the promise of AIM-FBCR in reducing FCR in survivors of breast cancer. Future research should attempt to replicate these findings in a larger-scale trial using a more sophisticated, user-friendly program and additional measures of improvement in more diverse samples. Cancer 2017;123:1424-1433. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Cost-Effectiveness of Adjuvant Olaparib for Patients With Breast Cancer and Germline BRCA1/2 Mutations.

Importance: The OlympiA trial found that 1 year of adjuvant olaparib therapy can improve distant disease-free survival and overall survival from early-stage breast cancer in patients with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation. However, olaparib, an oral poly-adenosine diphosphate ribose polymerase inhibitor, is estimated to cost approximately $14 000 per month in the US. Objective: To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of adjuvant olaparib compared with no olaparib in eligible patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an economic evaluation from a health care system perspective, the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant olaparib was analyzed using a Markov state-transition model. The model simulated costs and lifetime health outcomes of 42-year-old women with high-risk early-stage breast cancer and a known BRCA1/2 mutation who completed definitive primary therapy and neoadjuvant or adjuvant systemic therapy. The study was conducted from August 2021 to July 2023. The effectiveness of olaparib was based on the findings of the OlympiA randomized clinical trial, and other model parameters were identified from the literature. The model was calibrated to the 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-year distant disease-free and overall survival observed in the OlympiA trial, and olaparib was assumed to reduce the risk of distant recurrence only in the first 4 years. Exposure: One year of adjuvant olaparib or no adjuvant olaparib. Main Outcome and Measure: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 2021 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. All outcomes were discounted by 3% annually. Results: In the base case, adjuvant olaparib was associated with a 1.25-year increase in life expectancy and a 1.20-QALY increase at an incremental cost of $133 133 compared with no olaparib. The resulting ICER was approximately $111 000 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY, olaparib was cost-effective at its 2021 price and in more than 92% of simulations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The results were sensitive to assumptions about the effectiveness of olaparib and quality of life for patients with no disease recurrence. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, from a US health care system perspective, adjuvant olaparib was a cost-effective option for patients with high-risk, early-stage breast cancer and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation.

Implementing a breast cancer registry and treatment plan/summary program in clinical practice: a pilot program.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to better measure and improve the quality of oncology care and improve communication with patients and other providers. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Registry (BCR) pilot evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of prospective data collection for quality assessment in daily clinical practice. Data were used to create and share treatment plans/summaries (TPSs) at the point of care. METHODS: Using a web-based tool, 20 diverse practices entered clinical data on each new early-stage breast cancer patient into the BCR for 14 months (September 2009 through November 2010). The tool created individual TPSs that were shared with patients. Practices received practice-specific and aggregate BCR quality measures data, participated in a survey, and received a participation stipend. RESULTS: Twenty practices entered 2014 patients into the BCR, collecting demographic, clinical, and treatment information. Fifty-two percent of practice participants replied to an end-of-pilot survey: 73% were satisfied with the BCR and web-based tool, 31% expressed concern regarding time and effort, and 52% reported additional practice costs during the pilot. Among those who created or shared the TPSs, 90% thought the documents improved oncologist-patient communication, and 95% favored using BCR data for practice quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective data collection for quality assessment is feasible and allows sharing of TPSs with patients at the point of care. Future efforts should focus on decreasing implementation burden to practices, broadening participation, examining costs, and, most importantly, assessing its effects on patient outcomes.

Patient perspectives on breast cancer treatment plan and summary documents in community oncology care: a pilot program.

BACKGROUND: Although the routine use of treatment plans and summaries (TPSs) has been recommended to improve the quality of cancer care, limited data exist about their impact on quality, including patient satisfaction and coordination of care. METHODS: Patients received TPSs as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Registry (BCR) pilot program of 20 community oncology practices. Participants were surveyed 2 to 4 weeks after receiving a TPS to evaluate their perceptions of the document. Patients who were receiving chemotherapy received the TPS as separate plan and summary documents (at the start and the end of treatment) and could complete 2 surveys. Others received a single integrated TPS. Eligible survey participants had stage 0 through III breast cancer and were enrolled in the BCR. RESULTS: Of 292 consented patients, 174 (60%) completed at least 1 survey. Of 157 patients who recalled receiving a TPS, 148 (94%) believed that the documents improved patient-physician communication, and 128 (82%) believed that they improved communication between physicians; 113 (72%) said the documents increased their peace of mind, whereas 2 (1%) had less peace of mind. Of 152 patients (97%) who still had their documents, 147 (97%) said they were useful, and 94 (62%) had given or planned to give the documents to another physician. All 63 patients who were surveyed after receiving a summary recommended that practices continue to provide TPSs to patients. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in this study expressed high satisfaction with TPSs. Additional research is needed to study the broad-scale implementation of the BCR and to evaluate the impact of routine use of TPSs on the quality of care delivered.

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

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity (FT) affects 20% of cancer survivors and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. No large-scale programs have been implemented to mitigate FT. We evaluated the effect of monthly FT screening as part of a larger patient-reported outcomes (PROs) digital monitoring intervention. METHODS: PRO-TECT (AFT-39) is a cluster-randomized trial of patients undergoing systemic therapy for metastatic cancer. Practices were randomly assigned 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring (PRO practices) or usual care (control practices). Digital monitoring consisted of between-visit online or automated telephone patient surveys about symptoms, functioning, and FT (single-item screening question from Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity) for up to 1 year, with automated alerts sent to practice nurses for concerning survey scores. Clinical team actions in response to alerts were not mandated. The primary outcome of this planned secondary analysis was development or worsening of financial difficulties, assessed via the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 financial difficulties measure, at any time compared with baseline. A randomly selected subset of patients and nurses were interviewed about their experiences with the intervention. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred ninety-one patients were enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control) at 52 US community oncology practices. Overall, 30.2% of patients treated at practices that received the FT screening intervention developed, or experienced worsening of, financial difficulties, compared with 39.0% treated at control practices (P = .004). Patients and nurses interviewed stated that FT screening identified patients for financial counseling who otherwise would be reluctant to seek, or unaware of the availability of, assistance. CONCLUSION: In this report of a secondary outcome from a randomized clinical trial, FT screening as part of routine digital patient monitoring with PROs reduced the development, or worsening, of financial difficulties among patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy.

Return to work in low-income Latina and non-Latina white breast cancer survivors: a 3-year longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has found an 80% return-to-work rate in mid-income white breast cancer survivors, but little is known about the employment trajectory of low-income minorities or whites. We set out to compare the trajectories of low-income Latina and non-Latina white survivors and to identify correlates of employment status. METHODS: Participants were low-income women who had localized breast cancer, spoke English or Spanish, and were employed at the time of diagnosis. Interviews were conducted 6, 18, and 36 months after diagnosis. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent correlates of employment status at 18 months. RESULTS: Of 290 participants, 62% were Latina. Latinas were less likely than non-Latina whites to be working 6 months (27% vs 49%; P = .0002) and 18 months (45% vs 59%; P = .02) after diagnosis, but at 36 months there was no significant difference (53% vs 59%; P = .29). Latinas were more likely to be manual laborers than were non-Latina whites (P < .0001). Baseline job type and receipt of axillary node dissection were associated with employment status among Latinas but not non-Latina whites. CONCLUSIONS: Neither low-income Latinas nor non-Latina whites approached the 80% rate of return to work seen in wealthier white populations. Latinas followed a protracted return-to-work trajectory compared to non-Latina whites, and differences in job type appear to have played an important role. Manual laborers may be disproportionately impacted by surgical procedures that limit physical activity. This can inform the development of rehabilitative interventions and may have important implications for the surgical and postsurgical management of patients.

Cancer-Related Care Costs and Employment Disruption: Recommendations to Reduce Patient Economic Burden as Part of Cancer Care Delivery.

Cancer survivors are frequently unprepared to manage the out-of-pocket (OOP) costs associated with undergoing cancer treatment and the potential for employment disruption. This commentary outlines a set of research recommendations stemming from the National Cancer Institute's Future of Health Economics Research Conference to better understand and reduce patient economic burden as part of cancer care delivery. Currently, there are a lack of detailed metrics and measures of survivors' OOP costs and employment disruption, and data on these costs are rarely available at the point of care to guide patient-centered treatment and survivorship care planning. Future research should improve the collection of data about survivors' OOP costs for medical care, other cancer-related expenses, and experiences of employment disruption. Methods such as microcosting and the prospective collection of patient-reported outcomes in cancer care are needed to understand the true sum of cancer-related costs taken on by survivors and caregivers. Better metrics and measures of survivors' costs must be coupled with interventions to incorporate that information into cancer care delivery and inform meaningful communication about OOP costs and employment disruption that is tailored to different clinical situations. Informing survivors about the anticipated costs of their cancer care supports informed decision making and proactive planning to mitigate financial hardship. Additionally, system-level infrastructure should be developed and tested to facilitate screening to identify survivors at risk for financial hardship, improve communication about OOP costs and employment disruption between survivors and their health-care providers, and support the delivery of appropriate financial navigation services.

An interactive mobile application versus an educational booklet to promote job retention in women undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Job loss after a cancer diagnosis can lead to long-term financial toxicity and its attendant adverse clinical consequences, including decreased treatment adherence. Among women undergoing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, access to work accommodations (e.g., sick leave) is associated with higher job retention after treatment completion. However, low-income and/or minority women are less likely to have access to work accommodations and, therefore, are at higher risk of job loss. Given the time and transportation barriers that low-income working patients commonly face, it is crucial to develop an intervention that is convenient and easy to use. METHODS: We designed an intervention to promote job retention during and after (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer by improving access to relevant accommodations. Talking to Employers And Medical staff about Work (TEAMWork) is an English/Spanish mobile application (app) that provides (1) suggestions for work accommodations tailored to specific job demands, (2) coaching/strategies for negotiating with an employer, (3) advice for symptom self-management, and (4) tools to improve communication with the medical oncology team. This study is a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the app as a job-retention tool compared to a control condition that provides the app content in an informational paper booklet. The primary outcome of the study is work status after treatment completion. Secondary outcomes include work status 1 and 2 years later, participant self-efficacy to ask an employer for accommodations, receipt of workplace accommodations during and following adjuvant therapy, patient self-efficacy to communicate with the oncology provider, self-reported symptom burden during and following adjuvant therapy, and cancer treatment adherence. DISCUSSION: This study will assess the use of mobile technology to improve vulnerable breast cancer patients' ability to communicate with their employers and oncology providers, work during treatment and retain their jobs in the long term, thereby diminishing the potential consequences of job loss, including decreased treatment adherence, debt, and bankruptcy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincalTrials.gov NCT03572374 . Registered on 08 June 2018.

Breast Cancer-Related Employment Disruption and Financial Hardship in the Sister Study.

Background: More than one-half of breast cancer cases are diagnosed among women aged younger than 62 years, which may result in employment challenges. This study examined whether cancer-related employment disruption was associated with increased financial hardship in a national US study of women with breast cancer. Methods: Women with breast cancer who were enrolled in the Sister or Two Sister Studies completed a survivorship survey in 2012. Employment disruption was defined as stopping work completely or working fewer hours after diagnosis. Financial hardship was defined as: 1) experiencing financial problems paying for cancer care, 2) borrowing money or incurring debt, or 3) filing for bankruptcy because of cancer. Prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between employment disruption and financial hardship were estimated using multivariable Poisson regression with robust variance. Results: We analyzed data from women employed at diagnosis (n = 1628). Women were a median age of 48 years at diagnosis and 5.6 years from diagnosis at survey completion. Overall, 27.3% of women reported employment disruption (15.4% stopped working; 11.9% reduced hours), and 21.0% experienced financial hardship (16.0% had difficulty paying for care; 12.6% borrowed money or incurred debt; 1.8% filed for bankruptcy). In adjusted analysis, employment disruption was associated with nearly twice the prevalence of financial hardship (prevalence ratio = 1.93, 95% confidence interval = 1.58 to 2.35). Conclusions: Women experiencing employment disruptions after breast cancer may be more vulnerable to financial hardship. Findings highlight the need to target risk factors for employment disruption, facilitate return to work or ongoing employment, and mitigate financial consequences after cancer.

Use of patient-reported controls for secular trends to study disparities in cancer-related job loss.

PURPOSE: Racial/ethnic minorities experience greater job loss than whites during periods of economic downturn and after a cancer diagnosis. Therefore, race/ethnicity-matched controls are needed to distinguish the impact of illness on job loss from secular trends METHODS: Surveys were administered during and 4-month post-completion of breast cancer treatment. Patients were pre-diagnosis employed women aged 18-64, undergoing treatment for stage I-III breast cancers, who spoke English, Chinese, Korean, or Spanish. Each patient was asked to: (1) nominate peers who were surveyed in a corresponding timeframe (active controls), (2) report a friend's work status at baseline and follow-up (passive controls). Both types of controls were healthy, employed at baseline, and shared the nominating patient's race/ethnicity, language, and age. The primary outcome was number of evaluable patient-control pairs by type of control. A patient-control pair was evaluable if work status at follow-up was reported for both individuals. RESULTS: Of the 180 patients, 25% had evaluable active controls (45 patient-control pairs); 84% had evaluable passive controls (151 patient-control pairs). Although patients with controls differed from those without controls under each strategy, there was no difference in the percentage of controls who were working at follow-up (96% of active controls; 91% of passive controls). However, only 65% of patients were working at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients had evaluable passive controls. There was no significant difference in outcome between controls ascertained through either method IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Passive controls are a low-cost, higher-yield option to control for secular trends in racially/ethnically diverse samples.

Updated Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) in Adjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: STEEP Version 2.0.

PURPOSE: The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007, provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer clinical trial end points. Given the evolution of breast cancer clinical trials and improvements in outcomes, a panel of experts reviewed the STEEP criteria to determine whether modifications are needed. METHODS: We conducted systematic searches of ClinicalTrials.gov for adjuvant systemic and local-regional therapy trials for breast cancer to investigate if the primary end points reported met STEEP criteria. On the basis of common STEEP deviations, we performed a series of simulations to evaluate the effect of excluding non-breast cancer deaths and new nonbreast primary cancers from the invasive disease-free survival end point. RESULTS: Among 11 phase III breast cancer trials with primary efficacy end points, three had primary end points that followed STEEP criteria, four used STEEP definitions but not the corresponding end point names, and four used end points that were not included in the original STEEP manuscript. Simulation modeling demonstrated that inclusion of second nonbreast primary cancer can increase the probability of incorrect inferences, can decrease power to detect clinically relevant efficacy effects, and may mask differences in recurrence rates, especially when recurrence rates are low. CONCLUSION: We recommend an additional end point, invasive breast cancer-free survival, which includes all invasive disease-free survival events except second nonbreast primary cancers. This end point should be considered for trials in which the toxicities of agents are well-known and where the risk of second primary cancer is small. Additionally, we provide end point recommendations for local therapy trials, low-risk populations, noninferiority trials, and trials incorporating patient-reported outcomes.