Comparisons of financial hardship in cancer care by family structure and among those with and without minor children using nationally representative data.

INTRODUCTION: While demographic risk factors of cancer-related financial hardships have been studied, having minor children or being single have rarely been assessed in the context of healthcare-related financial hardships. METHODS: Using data from the 2015 to 2018 National Health Interview Survey, we assessed financial hardship (material and psychological hardship; behavioral coping due to costs: delaying/foregoing care, reducing prescription costs, or skipping specialists or follow-up care) among adults aged 18-59 years with cancer (N = 2844) by minor child parenting status and family structure. In a secondary analysis, we compared this group with individuals without cancer. Using logistic regression models, we compared those with and without children aged <18 years, further distinguishing between those who were single versus one of two or more adults in the family. RESULTS: Compared to individuals from families with two or more adults/without children, single adults with children more often reported cancer-related financial hardships, for example material hardship (45.9% vs. 38.8%), and reducing prescription costs, (50.7% vs. 34.4%, adjusted OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.07-2.28). Single adults without minor children and those from families with two or more adults/with minor children also reported greater financial hardships on some dimensions. Associations were similar among those without cancer, but the overall magnitude of financial hardships was lower compared to those with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that having minor children, and being a single adult are risk factors for cancer-related financial hardship. Financial vulnerability associated with family structure should be taken into consideration in healthcare, and especially cancer care.

The least costly pharmacy for cancer supportive care medications over time: the logistic toxicity of playing catch up.

PURPOSE: No single pharmacy in an urban zip code is consistently the least expensive across medications. If medication prices change differently across pharmacies, patients and clinicians will face challenges accessing affordable medications when refilling medications. This is especially pertinent to people with cancer with multiple fills of supportive care medications over time. We evaluated if the lowest-priced pharmacy for a formulation remains the lowest-priced over time. METHODS: We compiled generic medications used to manage nausea/vomiting (14 formulations) and anorexia/cachexia (12 formulations). We extracted discounted prices in October 2021 and again in March 2022 for a typical fill at 8 pharmacies in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA (zip code 55,414) using GoodRx.com. We examined how prices changed across formulations and pharmacies over time. RESULTS: Data were available for all 208 possible pharmacy-formulation combinations (8 pharmacies × 26 formulations). For 172 (83%) of the 208 pharmacy-formulation combinations, the March 2022 price was within 20% of the October 2021 price. Across pharmacy-formulation combinations, the price change over time ranged from - 76 to + 292%. For 12 (46%) of the 26 formulations, at least one pharmacy with the lowest price in October 2021 no longer was the least costly in March 2022. For one formulation (dronabinol tablets), the least expensive pharmacy became the most expensive, with an absolute and relative price increase of a fill of $22 and 85%. CONCLUSION: For almost half of formulations studied, at least one pharmacy with the lowest price was no longer the least costly a few months later. The lowest price for a formulation (across pharmacies) could also change considerably. Thus, even if a patient accesses the least expensive pharmacy for a medication, they may need to re-check prices across all pharmacies with each subsequent fill to access the lowest prices. In addition to safety concerns, directing medications to and accessing medications at multiple pharmacies can add time and logistic toxicity to patients with cancer, their care partners, prescribers, and pharmacy teams.

Americans' perceptions of health disparities over the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from three nationally-representative surveys.

COVID-19 has illuminated health inequity in the United States. The burdens of disease are much higher among Black and Indigenous people and other people of color. Disparities by income are also profound, as lower-wage workers were less able to adopt mitigating behaviors compared to higher-income counterparts. These disparities became part of public health discourse in 2020, with commentators frequently highlighting the connection between racism, socioeconomic position, and COVID-19. But what proportion of the public-and among key subgroups-recognized these social group disparities, relative to disparities associated with age and chronic illness, and did public recognition change over the first year of the pandemic? To address these questions, we analyzed data from three nationally-representative cross-sectional public opinion surveys, collected using the NORC AmeriSpeak panel in April 2020 (N = 1007), August 2020 (N = 2716), and April 2021 (N = 1020). The key outcomes were respondents' agreement with statements about disparities in COVID-19 mortality by age, chronic illness, income, and race. We found little change from 2020 to 2021 in Americans' recognition of disparities. At all three time points, most respondents acknowledged age and chronic illness disparities, while no more than half at any time point recognized income- and race-based disparities. Political party affiliation was not statistically associated with agreement with age or illness-related disparities, but was strongly associated with views about income- and race-based disparities. Efforts to promote recognition of racial and socioeconomic health disparities in the United States need to be mindful of the ways in which public understanding of health inequities is linked to partisanship.

Finding the Lowest-Cost Pharmacy for Cancer Supportive Care Medications: Not So Easy.

PURPOSE: To decrease the financial burden on people with cancer, clinicians and patients increasingly use medication price comparison websites to seek pharmacies where medications may be cheaper. Shopping around at different pharmacies can add additional time and logistic burden to patients and care partners. We sought to determine whether a single pharmacy consistently offered the lowest price for symptom control medications. METHODS: We compiled medications/formulations used to manage two common cancer-associated symptoms: nausea/vomiting and anorexia/cachexia. We extracted discounted, lowest price with coupon prices for a typical fill of these medications at nine pharmacies in Minneapolis, MN, using GoodRx. We compared prices across formulations and pharmacies to assess whether a pharmacy consistently offered the lowest price. RESULTS: We included 24 formulations for nausea/vomiting (14 generic and 10 brand-name) and 19 for anorexia/cachexia (12 generic and seven brand-name). Prices for brand-name formulations were similar across pharmacies, but prices of generic formulations varied widely across pharmacies. For example, the prices of a seven-unit fill of generic 5-mg olanzapine tablets ranged from $4 to $57 US dollars. No single pharmacy consistently offered the lowest price across the formulations studied. For example, for the 12 generic formulations for anorexia/cachexia, one pharmacy had the highest price for four formulations and the lowest price for two others. CONCLUSION: In this study of discounted medication prices, we found that no single pharmacy in an urban zip code consistently offered the lowest price for medications used to manage two common cancer-associated symptoms. Well-intentioned efforts to pursue the cheapest source of each medication by visiting multiple pharmacies may add extra time and logistic toxicity to patients and care partners. This approach can increase redundant scripts and expose patients to medication-related adverse events.

Forgoing physician visits due to cost: regional clustering among cancer survivors by age, sex, and race/ethnicity.

BACKGROUND: Innovative treatments have improved cancer survival but also increased financial hardship for patients. While demographic factors associated with financial hardship among cancer survivors are known in the USA, the role of geography is less clear. METHODS: We evaluated prevalence of forgoing care due to cost within 12 months by US Census region (Northeast, North Central/Midwest [NCMW], South, West) by demographic factors (age, sex, race/ethnicity) among 217,981 cancer survivors aged 18 to 82 years from the 2015-2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey. We summarized region- and group-specific prevalence of forgoing physician visits due to cost and used multilevel logistic regression models to compare regions. RESULTS: The prevalence of forgoing physician visits due to cost was highest in the South (aged < 65 years: 19-38%; aged ≥ 65: 4-21%; adjusted odds ratios [OR], NCMW versus South, OR: 0.63 [0.56-0.71]; Northeast versus South, OR: 0.63 [0.55-0.73]; West versus South, OR: 0.73 [0.64-0.84]). Across the USA, including regions with broad Medicaid expansion, younger, female, and persons of color most often reported cost-related forgoing physician visits. CONCLUSION: Forgoing physician visits due to cost among cancer survivors is regionally clustered, raising concerns for concentrated poor long-term cancer outcomes. Underlying factors likely include variation in regional population compositions and contextual factors, such as Medicaid expansion and social policies. Disproportionate cost burden among survivors of color in all regions highlight systemic barriers, underscoring the need to improve access to the entire spectrum of care for cancer survivors, and especially for those most vulnerable.

Americans' perceptions of disparities in COVID-19 mortality: Results from a nationally-representative survey.

As with many other infectious and chronic conditions, the COVID-19 crisis in the United States (U.S.) reveals severe inequities in health. The objective of this study was to describe public perceptions of disparities in mortality from COVID-19 and examine correlates of those perceptions. We fielded a nationally-representative survey in late April 2020, asking participants how much they agreed with four statements describing group-level COVID-19 disparities: older people compared to younger, people with chronic health conditions compared to those without, poorer people compared to wealthier, and Black people compared to white people. We also measured personal characteristics, experience with COVID-19, and information sources. Overall agreement with age- and health condition-related disparities was high (>80%) while agreement with socioeconomic (SES) and racial disparities was lower (52%). Higher education and income were generally associated with greater agreement with disparities. Partisanship and information sources used were associated with perceptions of SES- and racial-disparities, with Democrats and those attune to national news-but not Fox cable news-more likely to perceive these disparities. As of April 2020, information about age- and health condition-related disparities in COVID-19 was well known by the U.S. public, while information about social disparities was less recognized and varied along socioeconomic and partisan lines.

Semiquantitative assessment of cytomorphologic features can predict mutation status of thyroid nodules with indeterminate cytologic diagnosis.

Molecular diagnostics increasingly direct the management of thyroid nodules with an indeterminate cytologic diagnosis. This study was undertaken to correlate cytomorphologic features with the molecular profiles in an effort to identify features predictive of molecular aberrations. One hundred eighty-nine thyroid nodules with an indeterminate thyroid cytology diagnosis (atypia of undetermined significance, suspicious for follicular lesion, and suspicious for malignancy) with an adequate sample submitted for targeted mutation detection by polymerase chain reaction or next-generation sequencing were assessed semiquantitatively for the following cytomorphologic parameters: cellularity, Hurthle cell changes, microfollicles, nuclear elongation, nuclear grooves, nuclear enlargement, nuclear atypia, extent of atypia, and colloid. Based on this evaluation, a cumulative cytomorphologic score (CCS) and a more simplified overall atypia score (OAS) were assigned to each case. Associations among mutational status and each of the aforementioned parameters, CCS, and OAS were determined. Of the 189 nodules with indeterminate cytology, 63 (33.3%) harbored at least 1 mutation. RAS and BRAF were the most common mutations, found in 34 (18.0%) and 13 (6.9%) cases, respectively. Both CCS and OAS were highly associated with the presence of all mutations (P < .0001) and with the presence of BRAF and RAS mutations in particular (all P < .01). Semiquantitative assessment of various cytomorphologic features in indeterminate thyroid cytology cases showed a strong association of higher OAS and CCS and incidence of BRAF and RAS mutations. Using a more objective approach to thyroid cytology can potentially decrease the overall number of indeterminate diagnoses, leading to fewer repeat procedures and unnecessary surgical procedures.

Assessment of Circulating Tumor Cells as a Predictive Biomarker of Histology in Women With Suspected Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The clinical assessment of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) as a blood-based biomarker is FDA-approved for use in breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. The objective of this prospective clinical study was to determine whether pretreatment CTCs are a useful diagnostic biomarker in women with complex pelvic masses. METHODS: Whole blood was collected from 49 women with newly diagnosed pelvic masses. The presence of CTCs was compared between women with and without ovarian cancer histopathologic diagnosis after surgery using a Chi-squared test. RESULTS: CTCs were absent in those with benign disease (0/14), present in 17% (5/29) of patients with a histologic diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma, and present in 80% (4/5) of patients with ovarian metastases from other cancers (P = 0.001). All 5 women with ovarian cancer who had CTCs present presented stage III or IV of the disease (P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: CTCs were more prevalent in patients with metastases to the ovary than in primary ovarian carcinomas.

Assessment of the Intraoperative Consultation Service Rendered by General Pathologists in a Scenario Where a Well-Defined Decision Algorithm Is Followed.

OBJECTIVES: Intraoperative consultation (IOC) remains an area of general practice even within subspecialized pathology departments. This study assesses the IOCs rendered in a general pathology setting where surgeons integrate these results in a well-defined algorithm, developed with the input of specialized pathologists. METHODS: The surgical decisions to perform lymphadenectomy in patients with endometrial adenocarcinoma operated on at our institution between January 2003 and June 2015 as a result of the IOC assessment of tumor size, histologic grade, and depth of invasion in the hysterectomy specimen were analyzed. RESULTS: Frozen section (FS) was examined in 801 cases. In comparison to permanent section analysis, FS International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) grade had an overall accuracy of 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.98). The FS depth of invasion had an overall accuracy of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.94). FIGO grade was not documented in 47.8%, the depth of myometrial invasion in 45.2%, and tumor size in 41.8% of the pathology reports. CONCLUSIONS: The high omission rate of the needed parameters by the general pathologists would question their overall understanding of the paradigm shift intended by this algorithm. Possible explanations of this phenomenon and potential solutions are discussed.