Health-related quality of life and its determinants among cancer patients: evidence from 12,148 patients of Indian database.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors experience a decrement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) resulting from the disease as well as adverse effects of therapy. We evaluated the HRQoL of cancer patients, stratified by primary cancer site, stage, treatment response and associated adverse events, along with its determinants. METHODS: Data were collected from 12,148 patients, sampled from seven purposively chosen leading cancer hospitals in India, to elicit HRQoL using the EuroQol questionnaire comprising of 5-dimensions and 5-levels (EQ-5D-5L). Multiple linear regression was used to determine the association between HRQoL and various socio-demographic as well as clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Majority outpatients (78.4%) and inpatients (81.2%) had solid cancers. The disease was found to be more prevalent among outpatients (37.5%) and inpatients (40.5%) aged 45-60 years and females (49.3-58.3%). Most patients were found to be in stage III (40-40.6%) or stage IV (29.4-37.3%) at the time of recruitment. The mean EQ-5D-5 L utility score was significantly higher among outpatients [0.630 (95% CI: 0.623, 0.637)] as compared to inpatients [0.553 (95% CI: 0.539, 0.567)]. The HRQoL decreased with advancing cancer stage among both inpatients and outpatients, respectively [stage IV: (0.516 & 0.557); stage III (0.609 & 0.689); stage II (0.677 & 0.713); stage I (0.638 & 0.748), p value < 0.001]. The outpatients on hormone therapy (B = 0.076) showed significantly better HRQoL in comparison to patients on chemotherapy. However, palliative care (B=-0.137) and surgery (B=-0.110) were found to be associated with significantly with poorer HRQoL paralleled to chemotherapy. The utility scores among outpatients ranged from 0.305 (bone cancer) to 0.782 (Leukemia). Among hospitalized cases, the utility score was lowest for multiple myeloma (0.255) and highest for testicular cancer (0.771). CONCLUSION: Older age, lower educational status, chemotherapy, palliative care and surgery, advanced cancer stage and progressive disease were associated with poor HRQoL. Our study findings will be useful in optimising patient care, formulating individualized treatment plan, improving compliance and follow-up.

Financial toxicity of cancer treatment in India: towards closing the cancer care gap.

Background: The rising economic burden of cancer on patients is an important determinant of access to treatment initiation and adherence in India. Several publicly financed health insurance (PFHI) schemes have been launched in India, with treatment for cancer as an explicit inclusion in the health benefit packages (HBPs). Although, financial toxicity is widely acknowledged to be a potential consequence of costly cancer treatment, little is known about its prevalence and determinants among the Indian population. There is a need to determine the optimal strategy for clinicians and cancer care centers to address the issue of high costs of care in order to minimize the financial toxicity, promote access to high value care and reduce health disparities. Methods: A total of 12,148 cancer patients were recruited at seven purposively selected cancer centres in India, to assess the out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) and financial toxicity among cancer patients. Mean OOPE incurred for outpatient treatment and hospitalization, was estimated by cancer site, stage, type of treatment and socio-demographic characteristics. Economic impact of cancer care on household financial risk protection was assessed using standard indicators of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE) and impoverishment, along with the determinants using logistic regression. Results: Mean direct OOPE per outpatient consultation and per episode of hospitalization was estimated as ₹8,053 (US$ 101) and ₹39,085 (US$ 492) respectively. Per patient annual direct OOPE incurred on cancer treatment was estimated as ₹331,177 (US$ 4,171). Diagnostics (36.4%) and medicines (45%) are major contributors of OOPE for outpatient treatment and hospitalization, respectively. The overall prevalence of CHE and impoverishment was higher among patients seeking outpatient treatment (80.4% and 67%, respectively) than hospitalization (29.8% and 17.2%, respectively). The odds of incurring CHE was 7.4 times higher among poorer patients [Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 7.414] than richest. Enrolment in PM-JAY (CHE AOR = 0.426, and impoverishment AOR = 0.395) or a state sponsored scheme (CHE AOR = 0.304 and impoverishment AOR = 0.371) resulted in a significant reduction in CHE and impoverishment for an episode of hospitalization. The prevalence of CHE and impoverishment was significantly higher with hospitalization in private hospitals and longer duration of hospital stay (p < 0.001). The extent of CHE and impoverishment due to direct costs incurred on outpatient treatment increased from 83% to 99.7% and, 63.9% to 97.1% after considering both direct and indirect costs borne by the patient and caregivers, respectively. In case of hospitalization, the extent of CHE increased from 23.6% (direct cost) to 59.4% (direct+ indirect costs) and impoverishment increased from 14.1% (direct cost) to 27% due to both direct and indirect cost of cancer treatment. Conclusion: There is high economic burden on patients and their families due to cancer treatment. The increase in population and cancer services coverage of PFHI schemes, creating prepayment mechanisms like E-RUPI for outpatient diagnostic and staging services, and strengthening public hospitals can potentially reduce the financial burden among cancer patients in India. The disaggregated OOPE estimates could be useful input for future health technology analyses to determine cost-effective treatment strategies.

Health-related quality of life among breast cancer patients in India.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among breast cancer patients during various phases of treatment and with different treatment modalities, which helps in monitoring treatment outcomes, assessing the well-being of patients, and conducting health technology assessments. METHODS: A total of 534 interviews were conducted among the patients of breast cancer recruited at different stages of disease and with different treatment modalities. HRQoL was determined using EuroQoL five dimensions questionnaire with five levels (EQ-5D-5L), EuroQoL Visual Analogue Scale (EQ VAS), and the EORTC QLQ-BR23 instrument. The utility values were determined based on the Indian EQ-5D-5L value set. The socio-demographic and clinico-therapeutic determinants of HRQoL were evaluated using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: The mean utility value of breast cancer patients was 0.602 (SD = 0.311) and mean EQ VAS score was 75 (SD = 12.3). The mean utility value at diagnosis was 0.628, whereas utility value was 0.55, 0.595, and 0.64 for post-surgery, post-chemotherapy, and post-radiotherapy treatment groups, respectively. The most frequently reported problem was pain/discomfort (in 84.3% patients), followed by anxiety/depression (83.5%). On EORTC QLQ-BR23, the maximum symptom scale scores for systemic therapy side effects were reported in the post chemotherapy group. The body image score and future perspective score were better in patients undergoing breast conservative surgery (BCS) compared to patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy. Age, education, and employment status of the patient, type of treatment modality, and use of taxanes are the determinants of HRQoL in breast cancer patients. CONCLUSION: Clinical interventions should focus upon management of pain and anxiety. BCS should be offered to all eligible patients as it is associated with better HRQoL. Addressing the factors that independently affect the HRQoL will help in improving the treatment compliance and outcomes.