Secondary Endpoint Utilization and Publication Rate among Phase III Oncology Trials.

Secondary endpoints (SEP) provide crucial information in the interpretation of clinical trials, but their features are not yet well understood. Thus, we sought to empirically characterize the scope and publication rate of SEPs among late-phase oncology trials. We assessed SEPs for each randomized, published phase III oncology trial across all publications and ClinicalTrials.gov, performing logistic regressions to evaluate associations between trial characteristics and SEP publication rates. After screening, a total of 280 trials enrolling 244,576 patients and containing 2,562 SEPs met the inclusion criteria. Only 22% of trials (62/280) listed all SEPs consistently between ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial protocol. The absolute number of SEPs per trial increased over time, and trials sponsored by industry had a greater number of SEPs (median 9 vs. 5 SEPs per trial; P < 0.0001). In total, 69% of SEPs (1,770/2,562) were published. The publication rate significantly varied by SEP category [X2 (5, N = 2,562) = 245.86; P < 0.001]. SEPs that place the most burden on patients, such as patient-reported outcomes and translational correlatives, were published at 63% (246/393) and 44% (39/88), respectively. Trials with more SEPs were associated with lower overall SEP publication rates. Overall, our findings are that SEP publication rates in late-phase oncology trials are highly variable based on the type of SEP. To avoid undue burden on patients and promote transparency of findings, trialists should weigh the biological and clinical relevance of each SEP together with its feasibility at the time of trial design. SIGNIFICANCE: In this investigation, we characterized the utilization and publication rates of SEPs among late-phase oncology trials. Our results draw attention to the proliferation of SEPs in recent years. Although overall publication rates were high, underpublication was detected among endpoints that may increase patient burden (such as translational correlatives and patient-reported outcomes).

Patient out-of-pocket costs for cannabis use during cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: We assessed patient costs associated with cannabis use during cancer treatment. METHODS: Adults treated for cancer at a large, comprehensive center completed an anonymous survey regarding their thoughts and experiences with cannabis and cancer. Bivariate and weighted multivariable logistic regression assessed clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with patient-reported out-of-pocket costs for cannabis products. RESULTS: Overall, 248 cannabis users provided data on cost and were analyzed. Median monthly out-of-pocket cost for cannabis was $80 (interquartile range = $25-$150). On regression analysis, male gender (odds ratio = 2.5, 95% confidence interval = 1.2 to 5.5, P = .026) and being 45 years of age or older (odds ratio = 7.5, 95% confidence interval = 1.9 to 30.0, P = .0042) were associated with spending $100 a month or more on cannabis. Of the 166 patients who stopped using cannabis early or used less than preferred, 28% attributed it to cost and 26% to lack of insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: Cannabis use during cancer treatment may contribute to significant out-of-pocket costs, with men and younger patients more likely to pay higher costs.

Pediatric cancers and family financial toxicity in the Philippines: insights for Southeast Asia and similarly resourced settings.

Cancer is a leading cause of death among children in the Philippines, a low-middle-income country of over 110 million people. In this Comment, we describe how financial toxicity affects families of pediatric patients with cancer in the Philippines. We explore direct costs of care, indirect costs such as transportation and lodging, and psychosocial sequelae, in the Filipino medical system and sociocultural contexts. We present examples of successful interventions in the Philippines and in similarly resourced settings, with the goal of galvanizing further research, clinical interventions, and policy-level changes, aimed at mitigating family financial toxicity for pediatric patients with cancer in the Philippines and globally.

Cancer Doesn't Know the Day of the Week: Temporal Trends in Day of Death.

Studies support the existence of psychosomatic phenomena that enable critically ill patients to postpone death until a specific event. We assessed for this effect in cancer by examining variability in deaths at the month and weekend levels using the National Center for Health Statistics database. We found that deaths from cancer were not uniformly distributed temporally. There was a relative 3.3% difference death rate between the peak on Saturday and nadir on Monday, and relative 10.2% difference in rate of death between the peak of deaths in January and nadir in February. The "weekend effect" could be present in 1 in 200 cancer deaths and the "holiday effect" in 1 in 100 cancer deaths. Temporal variation may reflect a small portion of patients are able to "hold on" for a limited amount of time. This uneven distribution of cancer deaths highlights the importance of improving communication and facilitating end-of-life discussions.

Characterizing disparities in receipt of palliative care for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders with metastatic cancer in the United States.

PURPOSE: Palliative care plays essential roles in cancer care. However, differences in receipt among individuals identifying as Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific Islanders (AA&NHPI) with cancer are not well-characterized, especially when these diverse groups are disaggregated. We characterized disparities in receipt of palliative care among AA&NHPI patients with AJCC Stage IV prostate, breast, or lung cancer. METHODS: We performed multivariable logistic regressions were performed in this retrospective cohort analysis, using deidentified data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) of patients diagnosed with AJCC analytic group stage IV breast, lung, or prostate cancer (2004-2018) who were White or of Asian Indian/Pakistani, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Hmong, Japanese, Kampuchean, Korean, Laotian, Other Pacific Islander, Thai, or Vietnamese descent. We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses in a retrospective cohort study using deidentified data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The study included patients diagnosed with AJCC analytic group Stage IV breast, lung, or prostate cancer between 2004 and 2018, who were White or identified as Asian Indian/Pakistani, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Hmong, Japanese, Kampuchean, Korean, Laotian, Other Pacific Islander, Thai, or Vietnamese descent. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of receiving palliative care were measured when comparing White vs. AA&NHPI patients as one cohort and White vs. disaggregated AA&NHPI patients, adjusting for clinical, socioeconomic, and demographic covariates. RESULTS: Among 775,289 individuals diagnosed with cancer (median age: 68 years), no significant differences in palliative care receipt were observed between White patients and aggregated AA&NHPI patients among patients with prostate, breast, or lung cancer. However, disaggregated analyses revealed reduced palliative care receipt for breast cancer patients of Asian Indian/Pakistani descent (AOR 0.75, 95% CI, 0.60-0.94, P = 0.011) and for lung cancer patients of Chinese, Vietnamese, Thai, and Asian Indian/Pakistani descent compared to White patients (Chinese AOR 0.88, [0.81-0.94], P = 0.001; Vietnamese AOR 0.89, [0.80 to 0.99], P = 0.032; Thai AOR 0.64, [0.44-0.92], P = 0.016; Asian Indian/Pakistani AOR 0.83, [0.74-0.93], P = 0.001). Palliative care was greater for patients of Japanese and Hawaiian descent with prostate cancer (Japanese AOR 1.92, [1.32-2.75], P = 0.001; Hawaiian AOR 2.09, [1.20-3.66], P = 0.009), breast cancer (Japanese AOR 1.72, [1.21-2.43], P = 0.001; Hawaiian AOR 1.70, [1.08-2.67], P = 0.021), and lung cancer (Japanese AOR 1.92, [1.70-2.17], P < 0.001; Hawaiian AOR 2.95, [2.5-3.5], P < 0.001), as well as patients of Other Pacific Islander descent with lung cancer (AOR 1.62, [1.34-1.96], P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our findings demonstrate disparities in receipt of palliative care upon disaggregation of diverse AA&NHPI groups, the need for disaggregated research and targeted interventions that address the unique cultural, socioeconomic, and healthcare system barriers to palliative care receipt.

Isolation, discrimination, and feeling "constant Guilt": A mixed-methods analysis of female physicians' experience with fertility, family planning, and oncology careers.

INTRODUCTION: Family planning among female physicians is harmed by high risks of infertility, workload burden, poor family leave policies, and gender discrimination. Many women report feeling unsupported in the workplace, despite national policies to protect against unfair treatment. METHODS: This secondary analysis applied a modified version of the rigorous and accelerated data reduction technique to conduct a thematic analysis of comments to an open-ended prompt. Comments were coded by multiple trained researchers then grouped and merged into illustrative themes via qualitative techniques. RESULTS: Of 1004 responses to the quantitative survey, 162 physicians completed the open-ended prompt. Initial codes (n = 16) were combined into eight groups including, from which three overarching themes were identified. Institutional barriers were highlighted with comments discussing the increased need for parental leave, part-time options and the concern for academic or professional punishment for being pregnant and/or having children. Departmental barriers were explored with comments grouped around codes of discrimination/negative culture and challenges with breastfeeding/pumping and childcare. Personal barriers were discussed in themes highlighting the difficulties that female physicians faced around the timing of family planning, challenges with reproductive health and assistance, and alternative circumstances and/or decisions against family planning. CONCLUSION: Barriers to family planning in oncology exist across career domains from dysfunctional maternity leave to poor education on infertility risk. Solutions include improving institutional support, expanding parental leave, and general cultural change to improve awareness and promotion of family and career balance.

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.

Associations of State Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Eligibility Policies With Mammography.

PURPOSE: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) addresses food insecurity for low-income households, which is associated with access to care. Many US states expanded SNAP access through policies eliminating the asset test (ie, restrictions based on SNAP applicant assets) and/or broadening income eligibility. The objective of this study was to determine whether state SNAP policies were associated with the use of mammography among women eligible for breast cancer screening. METHODS: Data for income-eligible women 40 to 79 years of age were obtained from the 2006 to 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Difference-in-differences analyses were conducted to compare changes in the percentage of mammography in the past year from pre- to post-SNAP policy adoption (asset test elimination or income eligibility increase) between states that and did not adopt policies expanding SNAP eligibility. RESULTS: In total, 171,684 and 294,647 income-eligible female respondents were included for the asset test elimination policy and income eligibility increase policy analyses, respectively. Mammography within 1 year was reported by 58.4%. Twenty-eight and 22 states adopted SNAP asset test elimination and income increase policies, respectively. Adoption of asset test elimination policies was associated with a 2.11 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07-4.15; P = .043) percentage point increase in mammography received within 1 year, particularly for nonmetropolitan residents (4.14 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.07-7.21 percentage points; P = .008), those with household incomes <$25,000 (2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.68-4.97 percentage points; P = .01), and those residing in states in the South (3.08 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.17-5.99 percentage points; P = .038) or that did not expand Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (3.35 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.36-6.34; P = .028). There was no significant association between mammography and state-level policies broadening of SNAP income eligibility. CONCLUSIONS: State policies eliminating asset test requirements for SNAP eligibility were associated with increased mammography among low-income women eligible for breast cancer screening, particularly for those in the lowest income bracket or residing in nonmetropolitan areas or Medicaid nonexpansion states.

Disease Site Specialization in the Academic Radiation Oncology Workforce: Evidence of Gender Differences.

PURPOSE: Because some stakeholders within medicine seek to diversify and attain greater workforce equity, it is critical to understand gender-based divisions within specialization. Radiation oncology (RO) has one of the smallest proportions of women representation of all specialties, and to our knowledge, no prior studies have investigated gender differences in all the disease site specializations within RO. Thus, we analyzed the relationship between gender and disease site(s) treated in academic RO (ARO). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Faculty gender and disease site(s) treated by faculty from ARO departments were collected via publicly available department websites in January 2020. X2 analyses were conducted to assess differences between the proportions of women faculty treating each disease site. RESULTS: Of 1337 ARO faculty, 408 (30.5%) were identified as women. Breast, gynecology, and pediatrics had the largest proportions of women faculty (all >40%; P < .001). A majority (53%; P < .001) of women ARO faculty treated breast. Genitourinary, thoracic, and head and neck had the smallest proportions of women faculty (all <25%; P < .001). Women ARO faculty were twice as likely to treat breast and gynecologic malignancies compared with men faculty (risk ratio [RR] with 95% CI, 2.01 [1.75-2.50]; P < .001 and RR [95% CI], 2.06 [1.72-2.79]; P <.001, respectively). Men ARO faculty were 3 times more likely to treat genitourinary cancer compared with women faculty (RR [95% CI], 0.40 [0.34-0.48]; P < .001). There was no difference in the mean number of disease sites treated between women and men ARO faculty (2.63 vs 2.53; P = .29). CONCLUSIONS: Gender differences in disease site specialization were observed in ARO. Future research into the drivers of disease site selection should be explored.

Race and Ethnicity Representation in Phase 2/3 Oncology Clinical Trial Publications: A Systematic Review.

Importance: The five 1997 Office of Management and Budget races in the US include American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White, with Hispanic ethnicity. Despite the Affordable Care Act mandating Office of Management and Budget-based collecting and reporting standards, race and ethnicity publishing in medical journals is inconsistent, despite being necessary to achieve health equity. Objective: To quantify race and ethnicity reporting rates and calculate representation quotients (RQs) in published oncology clinical trials. Evidence Review: In this systematic review, PubMed and Embase were queried for phase 2/3 clinical trials of the 6 most common noncutaneous solid cancers, published between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, in 4 high-impact journals. Trial characteristics were recorded. The RQs for each race and ethnicity were calculated by dividing the percent of representation in each clinical trial publication by the percent of year-matched, site-specific incident cancers in the US, compared with Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni correction (BC). Reporting was compared between journal publications and ClinicalTrials.gov. Findings: Among 1202 publications evaluated, 364 met inclusion criteria: 16 JAMA, 241 Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19 Lancet, and 88 New England Journal of Medicine. Publications included 268 209 patients (171 132 women [64%]), with a median of 356 (IQR, 131-800) patients per publication. Reported race and ethnicity included American Indian or Alaska Native in 52 (14%) publications, Asian in 196 (54%), Black or African American in 215 (59%), Hispanic in 67 (18%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander in 28 (8%), and White in 254 (70%). Median RQ varied across race (P < .001 BC), with 1.04 (IQR, 0.09-4.77) for Asian, 0.98 (IQR, 0.86-1.06) for White, 0.42 (IQR, 0.12-0.75) for Black or African American, and 0.00 (IQR, 0.00-0.00) for both American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander patients. Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings on subset analysis for US-only clinical trials. There was significantly less race and ethnicity reporting in the clinical trial publications compared with ClinicalTrials.gov documentation for American Indian or Alaska Native (14% vs 45%; P < .001 per McNemar χ2 test with continuity correction [MC]) and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (8% vs 43%; P < .001 MC). Conclusions and Relevance: While most phase 2/3 oncology clinical trials published in high-impact journals report race and ethnicity, most did not report American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander racial categories. Our findings support a call to action for consistent journal policies and transparent race and ethnicity reporting, in alignment with Affordable Care Act-concordant race and ethnicity federal reporting requirements.

Patient Safety and Satisfaction With Fully Remote Management of Radiation Oncology Care.

Importance: Patients of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, are now offered a choice of either in-person or remote telehealth visits for radiation oncology care. However, safety and satisfaction among patients receiving treatment with fully remote physician management is unclear. Objective: To analyze patient safety and satisfaction, financial implications, and environmental consequences associated with fully remote management among a cohort of patients treated with radiotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-institution retrospective cohort study was performed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, with patients treated with radiation who opted for fully remote management between October 1, 2020, and October 31, 2022. Data on patient safety events were prospectively collected with an in-house quality improvement reporting system. Patient satisfaction surveys were distributed electronically before, during, and after treatment. Patient transportation costs and environmental consequences were estimated based on differences in travel distance. Data analysis was performed from March 14 through September 19, 2023. Exposure: Radiotherapy with fully remote physician management. Main Outcomes and Measures: Satisfaction rates among patients opting for fully remote management were analyzed via surveys administered electronically after visits with clinicians. Patient safety events, defined as staff-reported actual events and near misses that had the potential to affect patient care, were reviewed. Rates and types of safety events were analyzed and compared with patients treated by onsite clinicians. Distances between patient home zip codes and treatment site locations were compared with estimated cost savings and decreased emissions. Results: This study included 2817 patients who received radiation oncology care with fully remote physician management. The median age of patients was 65 (range, 9-99) years, and more than half were men (1467 [52.1%]). Of the 764 safety events reported, 763 (99.9%) did not reach patients or caused no harm to patients. Nearly all survey respondents (451 [97.6%]) rated patient satisfaction as good to very good across all domains. For treatment with fully remote physician management, out-of-pocket cost savings totaled $612 912.71 ($466.45 per patient) and decreased carbon dioxide emissions by 174 metric tons. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, radiation oncology care provided by fully remote clinicians was safe and feasible, with no serious patient events. High patient satisfaction, substantial cost savings, and decreased environmental consequences were observed. These findings support the continuation of a fully remote management option for select patients in the post-COVID-19 era.

Insurance Denials and Patient Treatment in a Large Academic Radiation Oncology Center.

Importance: Insurance barriers to cancer care can cause significant patient and clinician burden. Objective: To investigate the association of insurance denial with changes in technique, dose, and time to delivery of radiation oncology treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this single-institution cohort analysis, data were collected from patients with payer-denied authorization for radiation therapy (RT) from November 1, 2021, to December 8, 2022. Data were analyzed from December 15, 2022, to December 31, 2023. Exposure: Insurance denial for RT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Association of these denials with changes in RT technique, dose, and time to treatment delivery was assessed using χ2 tests. Results: A total of 206 cases (118 women [57.3%]; median age, 58 [range, 26-91] years) were identified. Most insurers (199 [96.6%]) were commercial payers, while 7 (3.4%) were Medicare or Medicare Advantage. One hundred sixty-one patients (78.2%) were younger than 65 years. Of 206 cases, 127 (61.7%) were ultimately authorized without any change to the requested RT technique or prescription dose; 56 (27.2%) were authorized after modification to RT technique and/or prescription dose required by the payer. Of 21 cases with required prescription dose change, the median decrease in dose was 24.0 (range, 2.3-51.0) Gy. Of 202 cases (98.1%) with RT delivered, 72 (34.9%) were delayed for a mean (SD) of 7.8 (9.1) days and median of 5 (range, 1-49) days. Four cases (1.9%) ultimately did not receive any authorization, with 3 (1.5%) not undergoing RT, and 1 (0.5%) seeking treatment at another institution. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with payer-denied cases, most insurance denials in radiation oncology were ultimately approved on appeal; however, RT technique and/or effectiveness may be compromised by payer-mandated changes. Further investigation and action to recognize the time and financial burdens on clinicians and clinical effects on patients caused by insurance denials of RT is needed.

Cancer diagnosis and treatment in working-age adults: Implications for employment, health insurance coverage, and financial hardship in the United States.

The rising costs of cancer care and subsequent medical financial hardship for cancer survivors and families are well documented in the United States. Less attention has been paid to employment disruptions and loss of household income after a cancer diagnosis and during treatment, potentially resulting in lasting financial hardship, particularly for working-age adults not yet age-eligible for Medicare coverage and their families. In this article, the authors use a composite patient case to illustrate the adverse consequences of cancer diagnosis and treatment for employment, health insurance coverage, household income, and other aspects of financial hardship. They summarize existing research and provide nationally representative estimates of multiple aspects of financial hardship and health insurance coverage, benefit design, and employee benefits, such as paid sick leave, among working-age adults with a history of cancer and compare them with estimates among working-age adults without a history of cancer from the most recently available years of the National Health Interview Survey (2019-2021). Then, the authors identify opportunities for addressing employment and health insurance coverage challenges at multiple levels, including federal, state, and local policies; employers; cancer care delivery organizations; and nonprofit organizations. These efforts, when informed by research to identify best practices, can potentially help mitigate the financial hardship associated with cancer.

Survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer: MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared to those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end-of-life. These MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: An expert panel comprising MASCC and ASCO members was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting: (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including 8 people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low-to-middle resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥ 94.8% agreement for seven standards (1. Person-Centred Care; 2. Coordinated and Integrated Care; 3. Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; 4. Evaluated and Communicated Care; 5. Accessible and Equitable Care; 6. Sustainable and Resourced Care; 7. Research and Data-Driven Care) and ≥ 84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards will support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders in cancer care (healthcare professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers. Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.

Survivorship Care for People Affected by Advanced or Metastatic Cancer: MASCC-ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared with those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end of life. These Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: A MASCC-ASCO expert panel was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including eight people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low- to middle-resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥94.8% agreement for seven standards, (1) Person-Centered Care; (2) Coordinated and Integrated Care; (3) Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; (4) Evaluated and Communicated Care; (5) Accessible and Equitable Care; (6) Sustainable and Resourced Care; and (7) Research and Data-Driven Care, and ≥84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders (health care professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers). Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.Additional information is available at www.mascc.org, www.asco.org/standards and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Palliative Care as a Component of High-Value and Cost-Saving Care During Hospitalization for Metastatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that palliative care (PC) can improve quality of life and survival for outpatients with advanced cancer, but there are limited population-based data on the value of inpatient PC. We assessed PC as a component of high-value care among a nationally representative sample of inpatients with metastatic cancer and identified hospitalization characteristics significantly associated with high costs. METHODS: Hospitalizations of patients 18 years and older with a primary diagnosis of metastatic cancer from the National Inpatient Sample from 2010 to 2019 were analyzed. We used multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to assess medical services, patient demographics, and hospital characteristics associated with higher charges billed to insurance and hospital costs. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to determine cost savings associated with provision of PC. RESULTS: Among 397,691 hospitalizations from 2010 to 2019, the median charge per admission increased by 24.9%, from $44,904 in US dollars (USD) to $56,098 USD, whereas the median hospital cost remained stable at $14,300 USD. Receipt of inpatient PC was associated with significantly lower charges (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.64]; P < .001) and costs (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.61]; P < .001). Factors associated with high charges were receipt of invasive medical ventilation (P < .001) or systemic therapy (P < .001), Hispanic patients (P < .001), young age (18-49 years, P < .001), and for-profit hospitals (P < .001). PC provision was associated with a $1,310 USD (-13.6%, P < .001) reduction in costs per hospitalization compared with no PC, independent of the receipt of invasive care and age. CONCLUSION: Inpatient PC is associated with reduced hospital costs for patients with metastatic cancer, irrespective of age and receipt of aggressive interventions. Integration of inpatient PC may de-escalate costs incurred through low-value inpatient interventions.

Financial Toxicity in Radiation Oncology: Impact for Our Patients and for Practicing Radiation Oncologists.

With rising costs of diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship, financial burdens on patients with cancer and negative effects from high costs, called financial toxicity (FT), are growing. Research suggests that FT may be experienced by more than half of working-age cancer survivors and a similar proportion may incur debt or avoid recommended prescription medications due to treatment costs. As FT can lead to worse physical, psychological, financial, and survival outcomes, there is a discrete need to identify research gaps around this issue that constrain the development and implementation of effective screening and innovative care delivery interventions. Prior research, including within a radiation oncology-specific context, has sought to identify the scope of FT among patients with cancer, develop assessment tools to evaluate patient risk, quantify financial sacrifices, and qualify care compromises that occur when cancer care is unaffordable. FT is a multifactorial problem and potential solutions should be pursued at all levels of the health care system (patient-provider, institutional, and systemic) with specific regard for patients' individual/local contexts. Solutions may include selecting alternative treatment schedules, discussing financial concerns with patients, providing financial navigation services, low-cost transportation options, and system-wide health policy shifts. This review summarizes existing FT research, describes tools developed to measure FT, and suggests areas for intervention and study to help improve FT and outcomes for radiation oncology patients.