A proactive financial navigation intervention in patients with newly diagnosed gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Many cancer patients and caregivers experience financial hardship, leading to poor outcomes. Gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer patients are particularly at risk for financial hardship given the intensity of treatment. This pilot randomized study among gastric/GEJ cancer patients and caregivers tested a proactive financial navigation (FN) intervention to obtain a signal of efficacy to inform a larger, more rigorous randomized study. METHODS: We tested a 3-month proactive FN intervention among gastric/GEJ cancer patients and caregivers compared to usual care. Caregiver participation was optional. The primary endpoint was incidence of financial hardship, defined as follows: accrual of debt, income decline of ≥ 20%, or taking loans to pay for treatment. Data from participant surveys and documentation by partner organizations delivering the FN intervention was analyzed and outcomes were compared between study arms. RESULTS: Nineteen patients and 12 caregivers consented. Primary FN resources provided included insurance navigation, budget planning, and help with out-of-pocket medical expenses. Usual care patients were more likely to experience financial hardship (50% vs 40%) and declines in quality of life (37.5% vs 0%) compared to intervention patients. Caregivers in both arms reported increased financial stress and poorer quality of life over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Proactive financial navigation has potentially positive impacts on financial hardship and quality of life for cancer patients and more large-scale randomized interventions should be conducted to rigorously explore the impact of similar interventions. Interventions that have the potential to lessen caregiver financial stress and burden need further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TRN: NCT03986502, June 14, 2019.

Intervention Nonadherence in the TrACER (S1415CD) Study: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial of a Standardized Order Entry for CSF Prescribing.

PURPOSE: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial to test whether a guideline-based standing order entry (SOE) improves use of primary prophylactic CSF (PP-CSF) prescribing for patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We investigated variability in adherence to the intervention. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial among 32 oncology clinics from the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. Clinics were randomized 3:1 to a guideline-based PP-CSF SOE or usual care. Among SOE sites, automated orders for PP-CSF were included for regimens at high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) and an alert not to use PP-CSF for low FN risk. A secondary 1:1 randomization was done among intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate risk-regimens. Providers were allowed to override the SOE. RESULTS: Overall, PP-CSF use among patients receiving high FN risk treatment was high and not different between arms; however, rates of PP-CSF use varied widely by site, ranging from 48.6% to 100%. Among those receiving low FN risk regimens, PP-CSF use was low and not different between arms; however, PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 19.4% across sites. In the intermediate-risk substudy, PP-CSF was five-fold higher among sites randomized to SOE; however, there was considerable variability in adherence to intervention assignment: PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 75% among sites randomized to SOE. Despite an alert to not prescribe, PP-CSF prescribing ranged from 0% to 33%. CONCLUSION: In this randomized pragmatic trial aimed at improving PP-CSF prescribing, there was substantial variability in site adherence to the intervention assignment. Although the ability to opt out of the intervention is a feature of pragmatic trials, planning to estimate nonadherence is critical to ensure adequate power.

Assessment of financial screening and navigation capabilities at National Cancer Institute community oncology clinics.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related financial hardship is a side effect of cancer diagnosis and treatment, and affects both patients and caregivers. Although many oncology clinics have increased financial navigation services, few have resources to proactively provide financial counseling and assistance to families affected by cancer before financial hardship occurs. As part of an ongoing randomized study testing a proactive financial navigation intervention, S1912CD, among sites of the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), we conducted a baseline survey to learn more about existing financial resources available to patients and caregivers. METHODS: The NCORP sites participating in the S1912CD study completed a required 10-question survey about their available financial resources and an optional 5-question survey that focused on financial screening and navigation workflow and challenges prior to starting recruitment. The proportion of NCORP sites offering financial navigation services was calculated and responses to the optional survey were reviewed to determine current screening and navigation practices and identify any challenges. RESULTS: Most sites (96%) reported offering financial navigation for cancer patients. Sites primarily identified patients needing financial assistance through social work evaluations (78%) or distress screening tools (76%). Sites revealed challenges in addressing financial needs at the outset and through diagnosis, including lack of proactive screening and referral to financial navigation services as well as staffing challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Although most participating NCORP sites offer some form of financial assistance, the survey data enabled identification of gaps and challenges in providing services. Utilizing community partners to deliver comprehensive financial navigation guidance to cancer patients and caregivers may help meet needs while reducing site burden.

A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Standing Order Entry Intervention for Colony-Stimulating Factor Use Among Patients at Intermediate Risk for Febrile Neutropenia.

PURPOSE: Primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed to reduce febrile neutropenia (FN) but their benefit for intermediate FN risk regimens is uncertain. Within a pragmatic, randomized trial of a standing order entry (SOE) PP-CSF intervention, we conducted a substudy to evaluate the effectiveness of SOE for patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens. METHODS: TrACER was a cluster randomized trial where practices were randomized to usual care or a guideline-based SOE intervention. In the primary study, sites were randomized 3:1 to SOE of automated PP-CSF orders for high FN risk regimens and alerts against PP-CSF use for low-risk regimens versus usual care. A secondary 1:1 randomization assigned 24 intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for intermediate-risk regimens. Clinicians were allowed to over-ride the SOE. Patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled. Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used to test differences between randomized sites. RESULTS: Between January 2016 and April 2020, 846 eligible patients receiving intermediate-risk regimens were registered to either SOE to prescribe (12 sites: n = 542) or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF (12 sites: n = 304). Rates of PP-CSF use were higher among sites randomized to SOE (37.1% v 9.9%, odds ratio, 5.91; 95% CI, 1.77 to 19.70; P = .0038). Rates of FN were low and identical between arms (3.7% v 3.7%). CONCLUSION: Although implementation of a SOE intervention for PP-CSF significantly increased PP-CSF use among patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens, FN rates were low and did not differ between arms. Although this guideline-informed SOE influenced prescribing, the results suggest that neither SOE nor PP-CSF provides sufficient benefit to justify their use for all patients receiving first-line intermediate-risk regimens.

Effects of a Guideline-Informed Clinical Decision Support System Intervention to Improve Colony-Stimulating Factor Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Colony-stimulating factors are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. Research suggests that 55% to 95% of colony-stimulating factor prescribing is inconsistent with national guidelines. Objective: To examine whether a guideline-based standing order for primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors improves use and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial, the Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER), involved 32 community oncology clinics in the US. Participants were adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy and enrolled between January 2016 and April 2020. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2021. Interventions: Sites were randomized 3:1 to implementation of a guideline-based primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor standing order system or usual care. Automated orders were added for high-risk regimens, and an alert not to prescribe was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was to find an increase in colony-stimulating factor use among high-risk patients from 40% to 75%, a reduction in use among low-risk patients from 17% to 7%, and a 50% reduction in febrile neutropenia rates in the intervention group. Mixed model logistic regression adjusted for correlation of outcomes within a clinic. Results: A total of 2946 patients (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [50.0-67.0] years; 2233 women [77.0%]; 2292 White [79.1%]) were enrolled; 2287 were randomized to the intervention, and 659 were randomized to usual care. Colony-stimulating factor use for patients receiving high-risk regimens was high and not significantly different between groups (847 of 950 patients [89.2%] in the intervention group vs 296 of 309 patients [95.8%] in the usual care group). Among high-risk patients, febrile neutropenia rates for the intervention (58 of 947 patients [6.1%]) and usual care (13 of 308 patients [4.2%]) groups were not significantly different. The febrile neutropenia rate for patients receiving high-risk regimens not receiving colony-stimulating factors was 14.9% (17 of 114 patients). Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, colony-stimulating factor use was low and did not differ between groups (29 of 457 patients [6.3%] in the intervention group vs 7 of 128 patients [5.5%] in the usual care group). Febrile neutropenia rates did not differ between usual care (1 of 127 patients [0.8%]) and the intervention (7 of 452 patients [1.5%]) groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized clinical trial, implementation of a guideline-informed standing order did not affect colony-stimulating factor use or febrile neutropenia rates in high-risk and low-risk patients. Overall, use was generally appropriate for the level of risk. Standing order interventions do not appear to be necessary or effective in the setting of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor prescribing. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02728596.

Successes and challenges of implementing a cancer care delivery intervention in community oncology practices: lessons learned from SWOG S1415CD.

BACKGROUND: Cancer Care Delivery (CCD) research studies often require practice-level interventions that pose challenges in the clinical trial setting. The SWOG Cancer Research Network (SWOG) conducted S1415CD, one of the first pragmatic cluster-randomized CCD trials to be implemented through the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Program (NCORP), to compare outcomes of primary prophylactic colony stimulating factor (PP-CSF) use for an intervention of automated PP-CSF standing orders to usual care. The introduction of new methods for study implementation created challenges and opportunities for learning that can inform the design and approach of future CCD interventions. METHODS: The order entry system intervention was administered at the site level; sites were affiliated NCORP practices that shared the same chemotherapy order system. 32 sites without existing guideline-based PP-CSF standing orders were randomized to the intervention (n = 24) or to usual care (n = 8). Sites assigned to the intervention participated in tailored training, phone calls and onboarding activities administered by research team staff and were provided with additional funding and external IT support to help them make protocol required changes to their order entry systems. RESULTS: The average length of time for intervention sites to complete reconfiguration of their order sets following randomization was 7.2 months. 14 of 24 of intervention sites met their individual patient recruitment target of 99 patients enrolled per site. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper we share seven recommendations based on lessons learned from implementation of the S1415CD intervention at NCORP community oncology practices representing diverse geographies and patient populations across the U. S. It is our hope these recommendations can be used to guide future implementation of CCD interventions in both research and community settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02728596 , registered April 5, 2016.

Patient Knowledge and Expectations About Return of Genomic Results in a Biomarker-Driven Master Protocol Trial (SWOG S1400GEN).

PURPOSE: Biomarker-driven master protocols represent a new paradigm in oncology clinical trials, but their complex designs and wide-ranging genomic results returned can be difficult to communicate to participants. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate patient knowledge and expectations related to return of genomic results in the Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP). METHODS: Eligible participants with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer were recruited from patients enrolled in Lung-MAP. Participants completed a 38-item telephone survey ≤ 30 days from Lung-MAP consent. The survey assessed understanding about the benefits and risks of Lung-MAP participation and knowledge of the potential uses of somatic testing results returned. Descriptive statistics and odds ratios for associations between demographic factors and correct responses to survey items were assessed. RESULTS: From August 1, 2017, to June 30, 2019, we recruited 207 participants with a median age of 67, 57.3% male, and 94.2% White. Most participants "strongly/somewhat agreed" with statements that they "received enough information to understand" Lung-MAP benefits (82.6%) and risks (69.5%). In items asking about potential uses of Lung-MAP genomic results, 87.0% correctly indicated that the results help to select cancer treatment, but < 20% correctly indicated that the results are not used to confirm cancer diagnosis, would not reveal risk of developing diseases besides cancer, and would not indicate if family members had increased cancer risk. There were no associations between sociodemographic factors and proportions providing correct responses. CONCLUSION: In a large National Clinical Trials Network biomarker-driven master protocol, most participants demonstrated incorrect knowledge and expectations about the uses of genomic results provided in the study despite most indicating that they had enough information to understand benefits and risks.

A Pilot Study of a Comprehensive Financial Navigation Program in Patients With Cancer and Caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have engaged patients and caregivers in interventions to alleviate financial hardship. We collaborated with Consumer Education and Training Services (CENTS), Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF), and Family Reach (FR) to assess the feasibility of enrolling patient-caregiver dyads in a program that provides financial counseling, insurance navigation, and assistance with medical and cost of living expenses. METHODS: Patients with solid tumors aged ≥18 years and their primary caregiver received a financial education video, monthly contact with a CENTS counselor and PAF case manager for 6 months, and referral to FR for help with unpaid cost of living bills (eg, transportation or housing). Patient financial hardship and caregiver burden were measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity-Patient-Reported Outcomes (COST-PRO) and Caregiver Strain Index (CSI) measures, respectively, at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty patients (median age, 59.5 years; 40% commercially insured) and 18 caregivers (67% spouses) consented (78% dyad participation rate). Many participants faced cancer-related financial hardships prior to enrollment, such as work change or loss (45% of patients; 39% of caregivers) and debt (64% of patients); 39% of caregivers reported high levels of financial burden at enrollment. Subjects received $11,000 in assistance (mean, $772 per household); 66% of subjects with income ≤$50,000 received cost-of-living assistance. COST-PRO and CSI scores did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-caregiver dyads were willing to participate in a financial navigation program that addresses various financial issues, particularly cost of living expenses in lower income participants. Future work should address financial concerns at diagnosis and determine whether doing so improves patient and caregiver outcomes.

Effective stakeholder engagement: design and implementation of a clinical trial (SWOG S1415CD) to improve cancer care.

BACKGROUND: The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has engaged an External Stakeholder Advisory Group (ESAG) in the planning and implementation of the TrACER Study (S1415CD), a five-year pragmatic clinical trial assessing the effectiveness of a guideline-based colony stimulating factor standing order intervention. The trial is being conducted by SWOG through the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program in 45 clinics. The ESAG includes ten patient partners, two payers, two pharmacists, two guideline experts, four providers and one medical ethicist. This manuscript describes the ESAG's role and impact on the trial. METHODS: During early trial development, the research team assembled the ESAG to inform plans for each phase of the trial. ESAG members provide feedback and engage in problem solving to improve trial implementation. Each year, members participate in one in-person meeting, web conferences and targeted email discussion. Additionally, they complete a survey that assesses their satisfaction with communication and collaboration. The research team collected and reviewed stakeholder input from 2014 to 2018 for impact on the trial. RESULTS: The ESAG has informed trial design, implementation and dissemination planning. The group advised the trial's endpoints, regimen list and development of cohort and usual care arms. Based on ESAG input, the research team enhanced patient surveys and added pharmacy-related questions to the component application to assess order entry systems. ESAG patient partners collaborated with the research team to develop a patient brochure and study summary for clinic staff. In addition to identifying recruitment strategies and patient-oriented platforms for publicly sharing results, ESAG members participated as co-authors on this manuscript and a conference poster presentation highlighting stakeholder influence on the trial. The annual satisfaction survey results suggest that ESAG members were satisfied with the methods, frequency and target areas of their engagement in the trial during project years 1-3. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse stakeholder engagement has been essential in optimizing the design, implementation and planned dissemination of the TrACER Study. The lessons described in the manuscript may assist others to effectively partner with stakeholders on clinical research.

Impact of trained oncology financial navigators on patient out-of-pocket spending.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with cancer often face financial hardships, including loss of productivity, high out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, depletion of savings, and bankruptcy. By providing financial guidance and assistance through specially trained navigators, hospitals and cancer care clinics may be able mitigate the financial burdens to patients and also minimize financial losses for the treating institutions. STUDY DESIGN: Financial navigators at 4 hospitals were trained through The NaVectis Group, an organization that provides training to healthcare staff to increase patient access to care and assist with OOP expenses. Data regarding financial assistance and hospital revenue were collected after instituting these programs. METHODS: Amount and type of assistance (free medication, new insurance enrollment, premium/co-pay assistance) were determined annually for all qualifying patients at the participating hospitals. RESULTS: Of 11,186 new patients with cancer seen across the 4 participating hospitals between 2012 and 2016, 3572 (32%) qualified for financial assistance. They obtained $39 million in total financial assistance, averaging $3.5 million per year in the 11 years under observation. Patients saved an average of $33,265 annually on medication, $12,256 through enrollment in insurance plans, $35,294 with premium assistance, and $3076 with co-pay assistance. The 4 hospitals were able to avoid write-offs and save on charity care by an average of $2.1 million per year. CONCLUSIONS: Providing financial navigation training to staff at hospitals and cancer centers can significantly benefit patients through decreased OOP expenditures and also mitigate financial losses for healthcare institutions.

Pilot Feasibility Study of an Oncology Financial Navigation Program.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have reported on interventions to alleviate financial toxicity in patients with cancer. We developed a financial navigation program in collaboration with our partners, Consumer Education and Training Services (CENTS) and Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF), to improve patient knowledge about treatment costs, provide financial counseling, and to help manage out-of-pocket expenses. We conducted a pilot study to assess the feasibility and impact of this program. METHODS: Patients with cancer received a financial education course followed by monthly contact with a CENTS financial counselor and a PAF case manager for 6 months. We measured program adherence, self-reported financial burden and anxiety, program satisfaction, and type of assistance provided. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients (median age, 60.5 years) were consented (85% white and 50% commercially insured). Debt, income declines, and loans were reported by 55%, 55%, and 30% of patients, respectively. CENTS counselors assisted most often with budgeting, retirement planning, and medical bill questions. PAF case managers assisted with applications for appropriate insurance coverage, cost of living issues (eg, housing, transportation), and disability applications. High financial burden and anxiety about costs (4 or 5 on a Likert scale) were reported at baseline by 37% and 47% of patients, respectively. Anxiety about costs decreased over time in 33% of patients, whereas self-reported financial burden did not substantially change. CONCLUSION: Implementing an oncology financial navigation program is feasible, provides concrete assistance in navigating the cost of care, and mitigates anxiety about costs in a subset of patients. Future work will focus on measuring the program's impact on financial and clinical outcomes.

Development of a financial literacy course for patients with newly diagnosed cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Although patients with cancer often face serious financial hardships, few studies have reported on strategies to mitigate this burden. Improving literacy about the financial aspects of cancer care may decrease the negative financial impact of cancer diagnosis and treatment. We obtained input from patient stakeholders on the perceived value and optimal design of a financial literacy program in the advanced cancer setting. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort survey. METHODS: A series of semi-structured interviews were conducted, during which patients with either colorectal or breast cancer were asked to describe the impact of cancer on their finances and employment, to state their preferences about discussing costs with their providers, and to give input on development of a financial literacy course. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (76% Caucasian) completed interviews, the majority of whom had Medicare or commercial insurance (71%). Lost income from early retirement or disability was the most financially burdensome experience for 67% of patients. The majority of patients (76%) reported that a financial literacy course would be helpful in navigating the cost of cancer care. Most preferred the course be administered at diagnosis in a live group format. CONCLUSIONS: Feedback from patients with cancer supported the development of a group financial literacy course that addresses barriers to discussing cost concerns, employment changes during cancer, and available resources for financial assistance.

The effect of referral for genetic counseling on genetic testing and surgical prevention in women at high risk for ovarian cancer: Results from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend genetic counseling and testing for women who have a pedigree suggestive of an inherited susceptibility for ovarian cancer. The authors evaluated the effect of referral to genetic counseling on genetic testing and prophylactic oophorectomy in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Data from an electronic mammography reporting system identified 12,919 women with a pedigree that included breast cancer, of whom 625 were identified who had a high risk for inherited susceptibility to ovarian cancer using a risk-assessment questionnaire. Of these, 458 women provided informed consent and were randomized 1:1 to intervention consisting of a genetic counseling referral (n = 228) or standard clinical care (n = 230). RESULTS: Participants were predominantly aged 45 to 65 years, and 30% and 20% reported a personal history of breast cancer or a family history of ovarian cancer, respectively. Eighty-five percent of women in the intervention group participated in a genetic counseling session. Genetic testing was reported by 74 (33%) and 20 (9%) women in the intervention and control arms (P < .005), respectively. Five women in the intervention arm and 2 in the control arm were identified as germline mutation carriers. Ten women in the intervention arm and 3 in the control arm underwent prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Routine referral of women at high risk for ovarian cancer to genetic counseling promotes genetic testing and prophylactic surgery. The findings from the current randomized controlled trial demonstrate the value of implementing strategies that target women at high risk for ovarian cancer to ensure they are offered access to recommended care. CA Cancer J Clin 2016. © 2016 American Cancer Society, Inc. Cancer 2016;122:3509-3518. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Cancer Risk Awareness and Concern among Women with a Family History of Breast or Ovarian Cancer.

Women with a documented deleterious mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 are at substantially elevated risk for ovarian cancer. To understand what percentage of women with high-risk family histories know their risk is elevated we surveyed 1,885 women with a high- or moderate-risk family history and no personal history of breast or ovarian cancer, and asked about their perceived risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Among high-risk women, fewer than 20% reported use of genetic counseling, and knowledge of elevated risk of ovarian cancer was low. Prior genetic counseling was associated with greater perceived risk for ovarian cancer. Results suggest that most high-risk women (>75%) do not know their risk for ovarian cancer. Identification of potentially high-risk women for referral to genetic counseling may improve informed ovarian cancer risk management.

Use of CA125 and HE4 serum markers to predict ovarian cancer in elevated-risk women.

BACKGROUND: Serum markers are used before pelvic imaging to improve specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of ovarian cancer multimodal screening strategies. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled pilot trial to estimate surgical PPV of a "2 of 3 tests positive" screening rule, and to compare use of HE4 as a first-line (Arm 1) versus a second-line (Arm 2) screen, in women at high and elevated risk for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) at five study sites. Semiannual screening was offered to 208 women ages 25 to 80 years with deleterious BRCA germline mutations and to 834 women ages 35 to 80 years with pedigrees suggesting inherited susceptibility. Annual screening was offered to 130 women ages 45 to 80 years (Risk Group 3) with epidemiologic and serum marker risk factors. Rising marker levels were identified using the parametric empirical Bayes algorithm. RESULTS: Both strategies yielded surgical PPV above 25%. Protocol-indicated surgery was performed in 6 women, identifying two ovarian malignancies and yielding a surgical PPV in both arms combined of 33% (95% confidence interval: 4%-78%), 25% in Arm 1 and 50% in Arm 2. Surgical consultation was recommended for 37 women (26 in Arm 1 and 11 in Arm 2). On the basis of 12 women with at least 2 of 3 tests positive (CA125, HE4, or imaging), an intent-to-treat analysis yielded PPV of 14% in Arm 1 and 20% in Arm 2. CONCLUSIONS: Positive screens were more frequent when HE4 was included in the primary screen. IMPACT: HE4 may be useful as a confirmatory screen when rising CA125 is used alone as a primary screen.