Financial Hardship Among Patients With Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: The degree of cancer patients' financial hardship is dynamic and can change over time. Objective: To assess longitudinal changes in financial hardship among patients with early-stage colorectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective longitudinal cohort study, English-speaking adult patients with a new diagnosis of stage I to III colorectal cancer being treated with curative intent at National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices between May 2018 and July 2020 and who had not started chemotherapy and/or radiation were included. Data analysis was conducted from March to December 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients completed surveys at baseline as well as at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after enrollment. Cost-related care nonadherence and material hardship, as adopted by Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, were measured. Factors associated with financial hardship were assessed using longitudinal multivariable logistic regression models with time interaction. Results: A total of 451 patients completed baseline questions, with 217 (48.1%) completing the 24-month follow-up. Mean (SD) age was 61.0 (12.0) years (210 [46.6%] female; 33 [7.3%] Black, 380 [84.3%] White, and 33 [7.3%] American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, multiracial, or Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals or those who did not report race or who had unknown race). Among 217 patients with data at baseline and 24 months, 19 (8.8%) reported cost-related care nonadherence at baseline vs 20 (9.2%) at 24 months (P = .84), and 125 (57.6%) reported material hardship at baseline vs 76 (35.0%) at 24 months (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, lower financial worry (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93), higher education (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.77), and older age (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.98) were associated with lower nonadherence. Receipt of chemotherapy was associated with higher material hardship (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.15-6.29), while lower financial worry was associated with lower material hardship (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96). Over 24 months, female sex was associated with lower nonadherence (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.96), while higher education was associated with higher nonadherence (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17). Being employed was associated with lower material hardship (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93), while receipt of care at safety-net hospitals was associated with higher hardship (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with early-stage colorectal cancer, material hardship was more common than cost-related cancer care nonadherence and decreased over time, while nonadherence remained unchanged. Early and longitudinal financial screening and referral to intervention are recommended to mitigate financial hardship.

Patient-Reported Financial Burden of Treatment for Colon or Rectal Cancer.

Importance: The longitudinal experience of patients is critical to the development of interventions to identify and reduce financial hardship. Objective: To evaluate financial hardship over 12 months in patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) undergoing curative-intent therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, longitudinal cohort study was conducted between May 2018 and July 2020, with time points over 12 months. Participants included patients at National Cance Institute Community Oncology Research Program sites. Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, newly diagnosed stage I to III CRC, not started chemotherapy and/or radiation, treated with curative intent, and able to speak English. Data were analyzed from December 2022 through April 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was financial hardship, measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST), which assesses the psychological domain of financial hardship (range, 0-44; higher score indicates better financial well-being). Participants completed 30-minute surveys (online or paper) at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: A total of 450 participants (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [12.0] years; 240 [53.3%] male) completed the baseline survey; 33 participants (7.3%) were Black and 379 participants (84.2%) were White, and 14 participants (3.1%) identified as Hispanic or Latino and 424 participants (94.2%) identified as neither Hispanic nor Latino. There were 192 participants (42.7%) with an annual household income of $60 000 or greater. There was an improvement in financial hardship from diagnosis to 12 months of 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.3) points per month (P < .001). Patients with better quality of life and greater self-efficacy had less financial toxicity. Each 1-unit increase in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (rapid version) score was associated with an increase of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9) points in COST score (P < .001); each 1-unit increase in self-efficacy associated with an increase of 0.6 (95% CI, 0.2 to 1.0) points in COST score (P = .006). Patients who lived in areas with lower neighborhood socioeconomic status had greater financial toxicity. Neighborhood deprivation index was associated with a decrease of 0.3 (95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1) points in COST score (P = .009). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that interventions for financial toxicity in cancer care should focus on counseling to improve self-efficacy and mitigate financial worry and screening for these interventions should include patients at higher risk of financial burden.

Processes for identifying caregivers and screening for caregiver and patient distress in community oncology: results from WF-1803CD.

BACKGROUND: Despite their vital roles, informal caregivers of adult cancer patients are commonly overlooked in cancer care. This study describes processes for identifying cancer caregivers and processes for distress screening and management among caregivers and patients in the understudied community oncology setting. METHODS: Supportive care leaders from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program practices completed online survey questions regarding caregiver identification, caregiver and patient distress screening, and distress management strategies. We described practice group characteristics and prevalence of study outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression explored associations between practice group characteristics and caregiver identification in the electronic health record (EHR). RESULTS: Most (64.9%, 72 of 111) supportive care leaders reported routine identification and documentation of informal caregivers; 63.8% record this information in the EHR. Only 16% routinely screen caregivers for distress, though 92.5% screen patients. Distress management strategies for caregivers and patients are widely available, yet only 12.6% are routinely identified and screened and had at least 1 referral strategy for caregivers with distress; 90.6% are routinely screened and had at least 1 referral strategy for patients. Practices with a free-standing outpatient clinic (odds ratio [OR] = 0.29, P = .0106) and academic affiliation (OR = 0.01, P = .04) were less likely to identify and document caregivers in the EHR. However, higher oncologist volume was associated with an increased likelihood of recording caregiver information in the EHR (OR = 1.04, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite high levels of patient distress screening and management, few practices provide comprehensive caregiver engagement practices. Existing patient engagement protocols may provide a promising platform to build capacity to better address caregiver needs.

Radon testing and mitigation: an intervention in a primary care setting.

Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer and it is recommended that all homes be tested for radon. Written surveys completed by 692 patients at two primary care clinics in the Minneapolis, MN, area revealed that only 24.7 % had ever tested their home. Testing rate was higher with greater income and education level and in homes without someone who smokes. Of participants whose homes had not been tested, 250 were enrolled in an intervention that included printed information on radon, a coupon for a discounted testing kit, and encouragement by their primary care provider to test. Follow-up indicated minimal effect of this intervention, with only 14.4 % of these participants testing during the ensuing year. Future studies should assess a stronger intervention, perhaps over multiple visits, and providing test kits on site. Targeting patients who smoke may be an effective use of resources.