Impact of COVID-19-related experiences on health-related quality of life in cancer survivors in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Little evidence exists on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survivors, limiting recommendations to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in this population. We describe survivors' pandemic experiences and examine associations between COVID-19-related exposures, psychosocial experiences, and HRQoL. METHODS: Between May 2020-April 2021, survivors completed cross-sectional questionnaires capturing COVID-19-related exposures (e.g., exposure to virus, job loss); psychosocial experiences (i.e., COVID-19-related anxiety/depression, disruptions to health care and daily activities/social interactions, satisfaction with providers' response to COVID, financial hardship, perceived benefits of the pandemic, social support, and perceived stress management ability); and HRQoL. RESULTS: Data were collected from N = 11,325 survivors in the United States. Participants were mostly female (58%), White (89%) and non-Hispanic (88%), and age 63 on average. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis (23%). Eight percent of participants reported being exposed to COVID-19; 1% tested positive. About 6% of participants lost their jobs, while 24% lost household income. Nearly 30% avoided attending in-person oncology appointments because of the pandemic. Poorer HRQoL was associated with demographic (younger age; female; non-Hispanic White), clinical (Medicare; stage IV disease; hematologic/digestive/respiratory system cancer), and psychosocial factors (low perceived benefits and stress management ability; more disruption to health care and daily activities/social interactions; financial hardship). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-related stressors were associated with various psychosocial experiences in cancer survivors, and these psychosocial experiences were associated with HRQoL above and beyond demographic and clinical factors.

Cost and Utilization Outcomes in Huntsman at Home, a Novel Oncology Hospital at Home Program.

OBJECTIVES: In a real-world trial, we previously demonstrated that Huntsman at Home, a novel oncology hospital at home program, was associated with reduced health care utilization and costs. In this study, we sought to understand the impact of Huntsman at Home in specific patient subgroups defined by sex, age, area-level median income, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and current use of systemic anticancer therapy. DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study of the Huntsman Cancer Institute. Electronic Data Warehouse of patients enrolled in Huntsman at Home between August 2018 through October 2019 vs usual-care patients. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 169 patients admitted to Huntsman at Home compared with 198 usual-care patients. METHODS: Five dichotomous subgroups evaluated including sex (female vs male), age (≥65 vs <65), income (≥$78,735 vs <$78,735), Charlson Comorbidity Index (≥2 vs <2), and current systemic anticancer therapy use vs no current systemic anticancer therapy. Groups were compared with patients receiving usual care. Primary outcomes included 30-day costs, hospital length of stay, unplanned hospitalizations, and emergency room visits. RESULTS: Admission to Huntsman at Home was associated with an overall reduction across all 4 health care cost and utilization outcomes. Outcomes favoring admission to Huntsman at Home achieved statistical significance (P < .05) in at least 2 of the 4 outcomes for each subgroup studied. Of the subgroups that did not achieve statistically significant benefit from Huntsman at Home admission in some outcome categories, none of these subgroups favored usual care. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Admission to Huntsman at Home decreased utilization of unplanned health care and reduced costs across a wide spectrum of patient subgroups, suggesting overall consistent benefit from the service. Hospital at home models should be considered as a means by which the quality and efficiency of care can be maximized for patients with cancer.

Age-related differences in employment, insurance, and financial hardship among colorectal cancer patients: a report from the ColoCare Study.

PURPOSE: Employment and financial hardships are common issues for working-age colorectal cancer patients. We surveyed colorectal cancer survivors to investigate employment, insurance, and financial outcomes by age at diagnosis. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of six ColoCare Study sites regarding employment, insurance, and financial hardship outcomes. Eligible participants were 1 to 5 years from colorectal cancer diagnosis. Diagnosis age (18-49, 50-64, 65+ years) with outcomes of interest were compared using chi-square and t-tests. Multivariable logistic and Poisson regressions were fit to examine association of demographic factors with any material/psychological hardship (yes/no) and the count of hardships. RESULTS: N = 202 participants completed the survey (age: 18-49 (n = 42, 20.8%), 50-64 (n = 79, 39.1%), 65+ (n = 81, 40.1%)). Most diagnosed age < 65 worked at diagnosis (18-49: 83%; 50-64: 64%; 65+ : 14%, p < 0.001) and continued working after diagnosis (18-49: 76%; 50-64: 59%; 65+ : 13%; p < 0.001). Participants age 18-49 reported cancer-related difficulties with mental (81.3%) and physical (89%) tasks at work more than those working in the older age groups (45%-61%). In regression models, among those reporting any hardship, the rates of material and psychological hardships were higher among those age 18-64 (Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR) range 1.5-2.3 vs. age 65+) and for those with < college (IRR range 1.3-1.6 vs. college +). CONCLUSIONS: Younger colorectal cancer patients are more likely to work after a cancer diagnosis and during cancer treatment, but report higher levels of financial hardship than older patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Younger colorectal cancer patients may encounter financial hardship, thus may feel a need to work during and after treatment.

Caregiver burden by treatment and clinical characteristics of patients with glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma is an incurable disease with a poor prognosis. For caregivers of people with glioblastoma, the burden of care can be high. Patients often present with different clinical characteristics, which may impact caregiver burden in different ways. This study aimed to evaluate associations between patient clinical characteristics and caregiver burden/quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Caregiver-patient dyads were enrolled at 7 academic cancer centers in the United States. Eligible caregiver participants were self-reported as the primary caregiver of an adult living with glioblastoma and completed a caregiver burden survey. Eligible patients were age ≥ 18 years at glioblastoma diagnosis and alive when their respective caregiver entered the study, with the presence of cognitive dysfunction confirmed by the caregiver. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: The final cohort included 167 dyads. Poor patient performance status resulted in patient difficulty with mental tasks, more caregiving tasks, and increased caregiving time. Language problems were reported in patients with left-sided lesions. Patient confusion was negatively associated with all caregiver domains: emotional health, social health, general health, ability to work, confidence in finances, and overall QoL. Better caregiver QoL was observed in patients with frontal lobe lesions versus non-frontal lobe lesions. CONCLUSION: This study reinforced that patient performance status is a critical clinical factor that significantly affects caregiver burden, caregiving tasks, and caregiver time. Additionally, patient confusion affects multiple facets of caregiver burden/QoL. These results could be used to support guided intervention for caregiver support, customized to the patient experience.

Can Cost-effectiveness Analysis Inform Genotype-Guided Aspirin Use for Primary Colorectal Cancer Prevention?

BACKGROUND: Inherited genetic variants can modify the cancer-chemopreventive effect of aspirin. We evaluated the clinical and economic value of genotype-guided aspirin use for colorectal cancer chemoprevention in average-risk individuals. METHODS: A decision analytical model compared genotype-guided aspirin use versus no genetic testing, no aspirin. The model simulated 100,000 adults ≥50 years of age with average colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease risk. Low-dose aspirin daily starting at age 50 years was recommended only for those with a genetic test result indicating a greater reduction in colorectal cancer risk with aspirin use. The primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The mean cost of using genotype-guided aspirin was $187,109 with 19.922 mean QALYs compared with $186,464 with 19.912 QALYs for no genetic testing, no aspirin. Genotype-guided aspirin yielded an ICER of $66,243 per QALY gained, and was cost-effective in 58% of simulations at the $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Genotype-guided aspirin was associated with 1,461 fewer polyps developed, 510 fewer colorectal cancer cases, and 181 fewer colorectal cancer-related deaths. This strategy prevented 1,078 myocardial infarctions with 1,430 gastrointestinal bleeding events, and 323 intracranial hemorrhage cases compared with no genetic testing, no aspirin. CONCLUSIONS: Genotype-guided aspirin use for colorectal cancer chemoprevention may offer a cost-effective approach for the future management of average-risk individuals. IMPACT: A genotype-guided aspirin strategy may prevent colorectal cancer, colorectal cancer-related deaths, and myocardial infarctions, while minimizing bleeding adverse events. This model establishes a framework for genetically-guided aspirin use for targeted chemoprevention of colorectal cancer with application toward commercial testing in this population.

Influence of demographic, physiologic, and psychosocial variables on adherence to a yearlong moderate-intensity exercise trial in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the long-term adherence to a yearlong exercise intervention among postmenopausal women. We examined the patterns of adherence to a yearlong exercise intervention and the influence of demographic, physiologic, and psychosocial variables on patterns of adherence among 173 sedentary, overweight, postmenopausal women. METHODS: We collected demographic, physical activity (PA), physiologic, psychosocial, and medical history information at baseline and 12 months. The exercise prescription consisted of at least 45 min of moderate-intensity exercise 5 days/week for 12 months. We calculated several adherence variables. Associations between baseline variables and adherence levels were assessed in bivariate analyses and in multiple regression models. RESULTS: Women randomized to the exercise group (N = 87) participated in moderate-intensity sports or recreational PA on 3.7 +/- 1.4 days/week (79% of the prescribed 5 days/week) for 171 +/- 88 min/week (87% of the prescribed 225 min/week) over the yearlong trial period. Sixty-eight percent of the exercisers had a yearlong average PA level exceeding the national recommendation of 150 min/week. Being in the preparation stage vs. the contemplation stage of the transtheoretical model and a history of participating in any sports or recreational PA were significant predictors of adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide important information for the design of future PA interventions and health promotion programs.

Managed care and primary physician satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: We examined whether physician compensation, financial incentives, and care management tools were associated with primary physician job and referral satisfaction. Our study was guided by a conceptual model of physician satisfaction derived from published evidence. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed of 495 primary physicians (family practitioners, general practitioners, general internists) in the Seattle metropolitan area in 1997. RESULTS: Bivariate analyses revealed that salary compensation, productivity bonuses, and withholds for referrals were associated with job and referral dissatisfaction. However, after controlling for physician, practice, and office characteristics, only the association between salary payment and job dissatisfaction remained significant. Practice in offices with more physicians had the strongest association with physician job dissatisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Although managed care features are correlated with physician job and referral dissatisfaction, the source of dissatisfaction may originate from being an employed physician in a large medical group with more physicians, which may be more likely to impose bureaucratic controls that limit physician autonomy.