The costs and inequities of precision medicine for patients with prostate cancer: A call to action.

Financial toxicity is a growing problem in the delivery of cancer care and contributes to inequities in outcomes across the cancer care continuum. Racial/ethnic inequities in prostate cancer, the most common cancer diagnosed in men, are well described, and threaten to widen in the era of precision oncology given the numerous structural barriers to accessing novel diagnostic studies and treatments, particularly for Black men. Gaps in insurance coverage and cost sharing are 2 such structural barriers that can perpetuate inequities in screening, diagnostic workup, guideline-concordant treatment, symptom management, survivorship, and access to clinical trials. Mitigating these barriers will be key to achieving equity in prostate cancer care, and will require a multi-pronged approach from policymakers, health systems, and individual providers. This narrative review will describe the current state of financial toxicity in prostate cancer care and its role in perpetuating racial inequities in the era of precision oncology.

Experiences of a Multiethnic Cohort of Patients Enrolled in a Financial Reimbursement Program for Cancer Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Financial reimbursement programs (FRPs) offset out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses from therapeutic clinical trial (TCT) participation. The study explores patients' experience in TCTs after enrollment in a FRP at two academic medical centers, including barriers and opportunities to improve trial participation. METHODS: From May 2019 to January 2020, adults diagnosed with cancer and eligible for TCTs and FRP were recruited from the Improving Patient Access to Cancer Clinical Trials randomized trial at the University of California San Francisco and University of Southern California. Patients with income ≤ 700% of national poverty guidelines were eligible. Semistructured interviews were conducted in patients' preferred language. Qualitative analysis was performed by site and preferred language by two independent coders. RESULTS: Of 65 trial patients, 53 participated (38%, University of California San Francisco; 62%, USC). The median age was 59 (IQR, 46-65) years, and 58% were female. Nearly half (49%) identified as Latinx/Hispanic compared with 32% non-Hispanic White, 10% Asian, 4% Black, 1% Native American, and 4% Others. A third were non-English speakers, 42% had college education or more, and 55% were retired/unemployed. Most common malignancies were gastrointestinal (42%), breast (19%), and genitourinary (13%), and 66% had metastatic disease. Patients experienced long travel time (1-4.5 hours) among 57% and financial toxicity from OOP costs (68%). High acceptability of the FRP was reported (81%). Although 30% of patients reported willingness to discuss finances of cancer treatment/trial with physicians, majority (87%) preferred discussion with social workers or TCT staff. Proposed modifications to TCTs included decentralization, recruitment strategies, voucher structure, and established rates for OOP expenses. CONCLUSION: Patients' experience with TCTs reveal financial and logistical stressors that may be lessened by the Improving Patient Access to Cancer Clinical Trial reimbursement program. FRPs may address inequities in clinical trial access among low-income and diverse populations.

Impact of a Comprehensive Financial Resource on Financial Toxicity in a National, Multiethnic Sample of Adult, Adolescent/Young Adult, and Pediatric Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity is a well-recognized problem for patients with cancer. However, a crucial gap remains in describing and implementing mitigation strategies. We conducted a national survey of a multiethnic adolescent/pediatric and adult patient population served by Family Reach, a nonprofit organization focused on removing financial barriers to cancer care, to evaluate the impact of a comprehensive financial resource on patient-reported financial toxicity. METHODS: An electronic survey was administered to characterize patients' current financial health and the impact of Family Reach's resources on financial toxicity. The survey was e-mailed to all patients or caregivers who received resources from Family Reach between January 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020. Factors associated with higher financial stress and higher potential impact of resources on financial burden were evaluated through separate multivariate regression models. Qualitative responses were analyzed using manual coding and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty socioeconomically and racially diverse respondents (overall response rate 40%; 46% non-Hispanic White; 48% with incomes below the federal poverty line) completed the survey and were included in the analysis. More than half of respondents reported high financial stress in the previous week. Hispanic ethnicity, Black race, and low annual household income were associated with higher financial toxicity. A greater amount of financial assistance was associated with a higher confidence rating that resources provided would decrease financial stress. In open-ended comments, respondents highlighted the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting job loss on financial toxicity, the importance of financial navigation, the benefits of financial assistance, and anxiety about long-term financial health. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive financial resource, particularly financial assistance, alleviated financial toxicity in a multiethnic national sample of patients with cancer. Ongoing work is critical to address sustainable funding sources and financial navigation to support patients during treatment and survivorship.

Skeletal-related events after abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A population-based study using the SEER-Medicare linked dataset.

BACKGROUND: Skeletal-related events (SREs) from bone metastases disease carry significant morbidity in men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The differential risk of SREs among patients receiving abiraterone acetate (AA) or enzalutamide (ENZ) is unknown. METHODS: To compare the risk of SREs among men with mCRPC receiving AA or ENZ, a retrospective cohort study using the SEER-Medicare Linked Database was conducted. Men with prostate cancer aged ≥65 years at first AA or ENZ prescription (index date) from 2011 to 2015 were identified. Patients were followed until the earliest occurrence of SRE, death, Medicare disenrollment, or December 31, 2016. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of SRE (pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, or surgery or radiation to bone) after the index date. Multivariable logistic regressions including key demographic and clinical covariates with death as a competing risk were conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 5,856 patients were identified (4,207 received AA and 1,649 received ENZ). Median age was 76.5 years (IQR 71.4-82.3), 4,557 (77.8%) were White, 1,112 (19.2%) had recent chemotherapy, and 2,730 (46.6%) had recent zoledronic acid or denosumab. Eight-hundred and thirty-seven (14.3%) patients had ≥1 SRE after index date. In multivariable analyses, there was no difference in SRE risk based on AA and ENZ (HR=0.99 for ENZ, 95%CI 0.84-1.16, P=0.890). Denosumab was associated with lower SRE risk (HR=0.75, 95%CI 0.64-0.88, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of men with mCRPC, there was no difference in risk of SRE between AA and ENZ. Decision-making should be informed by prior therapies, comorbidities, toxicity profiles, and patient preferences. Denosumab has evidence of benefit in preventing SREs in this real-world population.

Implementation of a Multisite Financial Reimbursement Program in Cancer Clinical Trials Integrated With Patient Navigation: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Cancer clinical trial participants face considerable indirect costs associated with participation, such as travel and lodging, which may contribute to poor enrollment. Here, we report the findings in IMproving Patient Access to Cancer clinical Trials, a pilot feasibility study investigating the efficacy of offering a financial reimbursement program (FRP) during a therapeutic clinical trial discussion with or without additional outreach in improving patient enrollment. METHODS: Study participants for this study were recruited at two National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) from April 8, 2019, to September 19, 2019. Eligible participants were adults with a cancer diagnosis being approached to consider enrollment in a clinical trial. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive no follow-up (usual care) or a follow-up telephone call to facilitate FRP utilization stratified by study site. The target enrollment was 132 patients, with 66 patients in each study arm. The primary outcome was the consent rate to the multisite interventional study on the FRP among participants enrolling in clinical trials. RESULTS: The study had a 78% consent rate and enrolled a total of 132 participants, of whom 51% were non-White compared with 28% of CCC treatment clinical trial participants in 2019. No difference in enrollment in clinical trials between the two study arms was observed as the proportion of enrollment was 70% for both study arms. The most common reason for not enrolling in a clinical trial was due to ineligibility determined through screening procedures (75%). CONCLUSION: The current study observed that implementation of FRP at CCCs is feasible and serves a diverse patient population. Future studies will measure the impact of programs on overall clinical trial accrual and among racial/ethnic minorities.

Accelerating cancer clinical trial recruitment through a financial reimbursement program integrated with patient navigation: an interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment clinical trials face major challenges with patient recruitment. Strategies to address patient indirect costs associated with clinical trial participation may accelerate accrual overall. The current study examined the effect of the IMproving Patient Access to Clinical Trials (IMPACT) intervention on patient accrual to cancer treatment clinical trials at an academic medical center. The IMPACT intervention was an onsite patient navigator combined with a financial reimbursement program to address patient out of pocket costs and began on September 2018. METHODS: This analysis measured frequency of patient enrollment in cancer treatment clinical trials and available cancer treatment clinical trials per month between January 1, 2016 and March 31, 2020. An interrupted time-series analysis (ITSA) was conducted to estimate changes in patient enrollment attributable to the IMPACT intervention. RESULTS: During the study period, a mean of 69 patients enrolled in clinical trials per month (standard deviation (SD = 13), with 27 (SD = 7) in early phase vs 41 (SD = 12) in late phase clinical trials. The number of available clinical trials per month was 51 (SD = 2) overall, with 23 (SD = 1) in early phase vs 28 (SD = 1) in late phase context. A total of 3470 patients were enrolled in cancer treatment clinical trials during the evaluated time period, the majority of whom were men (1895, 55 %) and racially white (2267, 65 %). A statistically significant increase in the number of patients accrued as compared to the pre-intervention trend was observed; with approximately 1 additional patient accrued per month, with a larger effect on increase patient accrual for late phase clinical trials. DISCUSSION: This study observed that the IMPACT intervention accelerated clinical trial recruitment, especially among late phase clinical trials. Future research will examine strategies to leverage this infrastructure to optimize recruitment among underrepresented patients. POLICY SUMMARY: To improve clinical trial recruitment and ensure that trial results are representative of a diverse population it is critical for health policies consider patient out-of-pocket costs and potential reimbursement to alleviate financial burden associated with clinical trial participation. Furthermore, policies for facilitating clinical trial recruitment and participant retention should budget for and incorporate a navigation component to assist patients who may not be familiar with the healthcare system and available financial assistance.

Evaluating determinants of receipt of molecular imaging in biochemical recurrent prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Molecular imaging with novel radiotracers is changing the treatment landscape in prostate cancer (PCa). Currently, standard of care includes either conventional and molecular imaging at time of biochemical recurrence (BCR). This study evaluated the determinants of and cost associated with utilization of molecular imaging for BCR PCa. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational cohort study among men with BCR PCa from June 2018 to May 2019. Multivariate logistic regression models were employed to analyze the primary outcome: receipt of molecular imaging (e.g. Fluciclovine PET and Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen PET) as part of diagnostic work-up for BCR PCa. Multivariate linear regression models were used to analyze the secondary outcome: overall healthcare cost within a 1-year time frame. RESULTS: The study sample included 234 patients; 79.1% White, 2.1% Black, 8.5% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 10.3% Other. The majority were 55 years or older (97.9%) and publicly insured (74.8%). Analysis indicated a one-unit reduction in PSA is associated with 1.3 times higher likelihood of receiving molecular imaging (p < 0.01). Analysis found that privately insured patients were associated with approximately $500,000 more in hospital reimbursement (p < 0.01) as compared to the publicly insured. Additionally, a one-unit increase in PSA is associated with $6254 increase in hospital reimbursement or an increase in total payments by 2.1% (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Higher PSA was associated with lower likelihood for molecular imaging and higher cost in a one-year time frame. Higher cost was also associated with private insurance, but there was no clear relationship between insurance type and imaging type.

COVID-19 disparities: An urgent call for race reporting and representation in clinical research.

BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic disparities in disease burden have gained the spotlight in the United States with the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and surge of COVID-19 cases. The problem of underrepresentation in clinical research persists today. In light of the considerable COVID-19 disparities observed, this study sought to assess the race reporting and representation among COVID-19 therapeutic studies published to date. METHODS: All published COVID-19 treatment-related clinical research studies with study participants in the United States were identified. For each study, the date published, treatment investigated, study design, race/ethnicity of participants, sample size and study site were recorded. For each study site, the race/ethnicity demographics of confirmed COVID-19 positive cases were identified utilizing online publicly available department of public health data. RESULTS: Six studies (n = 3, observational; n = 3, randomized clinical trial) have been published to date with participants in the United States. A subset (n = 4) reported race/ethnicity data in the publication. Black patients were underrepresented in all studies relative to the affected population in the cities in which the studies took place. CONCLUSIONS: Given that racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 disease burden and outcomes have emerged in the United States, it is essential that all investigators uniformly report race/ethnicity data as well as attempt, in earnest, to obtain representativeness among study participants in order to ensure that we do not develop a further widening of the treatment gap during this pandemic.

Examining initial treatment and survival among men with metastatic prostate cancer: An analysis from the CaPSURE registry.

BACKGROUND: New data is emerging to guide initial treatment of patients with metastatic prostate cancer (CaP). This study utilizes the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor registry to evaluate variations in survival based on initial treatment received by men with metastatic disease at diagnosis or after progression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor is a national registry of men diagnosed with CaP and managed at 43 community, academic, and Veteran's centers. We examined socio-demographic factors, disease biology, initial and subsequent therapy received, and survival among patients who presented with de novo or recurrent metastatic disease stratified by receipt of initial local therapy vs. combined local and hormonal therapy. The outcome was prostate cancer specific mortality (PCSM). We performed Fine and Gray competing risks regression analysis to evaluate the association between timing of metastasis and PCSM, adjusted for age, initial treatment, and subsequent therapy. RESULTS: Of the 14,753 patients diagnosed with CaP from 1990 to 2016, 669 (5%) had metastatic disease. Among the examined patients, 303 (45%) had metastatic disease at diagnosis and 366 (55%) progressed to metastatic disease. Overall, 461 (69%) were ≥65 years old, 582 (87%) had Medicare, and 227 (34%) had an annual income < $30,000. Prostate-specific antigen at diagnosis was >20 ng/ml for 342 (51%) patients and biopsy Gleason grade was ≥4 + 3 for 386 (58%) patients. Among patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis, 31 (10%) received initial local therapy and 272 (90%) received initial hormonal therapy. Among patients who progressed to metastatic disease, 239 (65%) received initial local therapy and 127 (35%) received initial systemic hormonal therapy. Among patients with metastatic disease, the multivariate competing risks model, after adjusting for sociodemographics, marital status, diagnosis year, and comorbidities, revealed a significantly lower risk of PCSM among patients with de novo vs. recurrent metastatic disease (Hazard Ratio 0.66 (95% Confidence Interval 0.51, 0.85) P = 0.002). In the stratified analysis, no difference was seen for patients treated with initial hormonal vs. combined local and hormonal therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of a nationwide cohort of men treated for CaP with all types of therapy over 25 years, we observed that among men with metastatic CaP, the risk of PCSM was lower for de novo vs. recurrent metastatic disease. Additionally, no difference was observed based on initial treatment with combined local and hormonal therapy vs. hormonal therapy alone.

Germline Genetic Testing in Advanced Prostate Cancer; Practices and Barriers: Survey Results from the Germline Genetics Working Group of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Germline genetic testing increasingly identifies advanced prostate cancer (PCa) patients who are candidates for precision therapies. The Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium (PCCTC) established the Germline Genetics Working Group to provide guidance and resources to expand effective use of germline genetic testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 14-item questionnaire was e-mailed to academic oncologists at 43 PCCTC sites to collect information on germline genetic testing patterns, including patients considered, choice of assays, barriers slowing adoption, and actions to overcome barriers. RESULTS: Twenty-six genitourinary oncologists from 19 institutions responded. Less than 40% (10 of 26) reported referring patients to a genetics department, whereas the remainder take personal responsibility for genetic testing and counseling; 16 (62%) consider testing all metastatic PCa patients, whereas 3 (12%) consider testing all patients with high-risk local disease; and 7 (27%) use multigene comprehensive pan-cancer panels, and 14 (54%) use smaller or targeted cancer gene panels. Barriers to widespread use are: (1) delayed or limited access to genetic counseling; (2) no insurance coverage; (3) lack of effective workflows; (4) insufficient educational materials; and (5) time and space constraints in busy clinics. The primary limitation was the <50% (19 of 43) response from PCCTC sites and no coverage of nonacademic cancer treatment facilities. CONCLUSION: Joint efforts by urologists, oncologists, genetics counselors, insurers, and cancer centers can accelerate implementation of integrated germline genetic services for personalized treatment and clinical trial eligibility for PCa patients.

Differential use of medical versus surgical androgen deprivation therapy for patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Surgical and medical androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) strategies are comparable in their ability to suppress serum testosterone levels as treatment in patients with metastatic prostate cancer but differ with regard to cost and impact on quality of life. Medical ADT is associated with better long-term quality of life due to the flexibility of possible therapy interruption but comes with a higher cumulative cost. In the current study, the authors examined whether surgical ADT (ie, bilateral orchiectomy) was used differentially by race/ethnicity and other social factors. METHODS: The authors identified patients with metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis through the California Cancer Registry. The association between race/ethnicity and receipt of surgical ADT was modeled using multivariable Firth logistic regression adjusting for age, Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen level, clinical tumor and lymph node classification, neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES), insurance, marital status, comorbidities, initial treatment (radiotherapy, chemotherapy), location of care, rural/urban area of residence, and year of diagnosis. RESULTS: The authors examined a total of 10,675 patients with metastatic prostate cancer, 11.4% of whom were non-Hispanic black, 8.4% of whom were Asian/Pacific Islander, 18.5% of whom were Hispanic/Latino, and 60.5% of whom were non-Hispanic white. In the multivariable model, patients found to be more likely to receive surgical ADT were Hispanic/Latino (odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.01-1.72), were from a low neighborhood SES (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.34-2.89) or rural area (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.15-1.92), and had Medicaid/public insurance (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.58-3.10). Patients with military/Veterans Affairs insurance were significantly less likely to receive surgical ADT compared with patients with private insurance (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Race/ethnicity, neighborhood SES, and insurance status appear to be significantly associated with receipt of surgical ADT. Future research will need to characterize other differences in initial treatments among men with advanced prostate cancer based on race/ethnicity and aim to better understand what factors drive the association between surgical ADT among men of Hispanic origin or those from areas with low neighborhood SES.

At What Cost to Clinical Trial Enrollment? A Retrospective Study of Patient Travel Burden in Cancer Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Recent literature suggests that living in a rural setting may be associated with adverse cancer outcomes. This study examines the burden of travel from home to cancer center for clinical trial (CT) enrollees. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from the University of California San Francisco Clinical Trial Management System database who enrolled in a cancer CT for a breast, genitourinary, or gastrointestinal malignancy between 1993 and 2014 were included. Cancer type, household zip code, race/ethnicity, phase of study, study sponsor, and year of signed consent were exported. Distance traveled from home to center was calculated using a GoogleMaps application programming interface. The relationships of distance with phase of CT, household income, and race/ethnicity were examined. RESULTS: A total of 1,600 patients were enrolled in breast (55.8%), genitourinary (29.4%), or gastrointestinal (14.9%) cancer CTs. The overall median unidirectional distance traveled from home to study site was 25.8 miles (interquartile range [IQR] 11.5-75.3). Of the trial sponsors examined, principal investigator (56.4%), industry (22.2%), cooperative group (11.6%), and National Institutes of Health (NIH; 9.8%), the longest distance traveled was for NIH-sponsored trials, with a median of 39.4 miles (p < .001). Phase I (8.4%) studies had the longest distance traveled, with a median of 41.2 miles (IQR 14.5-101.0 miles; p = .001). White patients (83%) traveled longer compared with black patients (4.4%), with median distances of 29.9 and 13.9 miles, respectively (p < .001). Patients from lower-income areas (n = 799) traveled longer distances compared with patients from higher-income areas (n = 773; 58.3 vs. 17.8 miles, respectively; p < .001). A multivariable linear model where log10 (distance) was the outcome and adjusting for the exported variables and income revealed that cancer type, year of consent, race/ethnicity, and income were significantly associated with distance traveled. CONCLUSION: This study found that the burden of travel is highest among patients enrolled in NIH-sponsored trials, phase I studies, or living in low-income areas. These data suggest that travel burden for cancer CT participants may be significant. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study is one of the first to measure travel distance for patients in cancer clinical trials using a real-world GoogleMaps calculator. Out-of-pocket expenses such as travel are not typically covered by health care payers; therefore, patients may face considerable cost to attend each study visit. Using a single-center clinical trials enrollment database, this study found that the burden of travel is highest for patients enrolled in National Institutes of Health-sponsored trials and phase I studies, as well as for patients living in low-income areas. Results suggest that a significant proportion of patients enrolled in clinical trials face a substantial travel burden.