S1417CD: A Prospective Multicenter Cooperative Group-Led Study of Financial Hardship in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity is a growing problem in oncology, but no prior studies have prospectively measured the financial impact of cancer treatment in a diverse national cohort of newly diagnosed cancer patients. S1417CD was the first cooperative group-led multicenter prospective cohort study to evaluate financial hardship in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. METHODS: Patients aged 18 years or older within 120 days of mCRC diagnosis completed quarterly questionnaires for 12 months. We estimated the cumulative incidence of major financial hardship (MFH), defined as 1 or more of increased debt, new loans from family and/or friends, selling or refinancing home, or 20% or more income decline. We evaluated the association between patient characteristics and MFH using multivariate cox regression and the association between MFH and quality of life using linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 380 patients (median age = 59.9 years) were enrolled; 77.7% were White, 98.0% insured, and 56.5% had annual income of $50 000 or less. Cumulative incidence of MFH at 12 months was 71.3% (95% confidence interval = 65.7% to 76.1%). Age, race, marital status, and income (split at $50 000 per year) were not statistically significantly associated with MFH. However, income less than $100 000 and total assets less than $100 000 were both associated with greater MFH. MFH at 3 months was associated with decreased social functioning and quality of life at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 3 out of 4 mCRC patients experienced MFH despite access to health insurance. These findings underscore the need for clinic and policy solutions that protect cancer patients from financial harm.

A prospective study to validate the functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRI)-induced dermatologic toxicities FACT-EGFRI 18 questionnaire: SWOG S1013.

BACKGROUND: Papulopustular rash is a common class effect of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRI) that can affect patients' health-related quality of life and cause disruptions to treatment. SWOG S1013 (NCT01416688) is a multi-center study designed to validate the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy EGFRI 18 (FACT-EGFRI 18) using 7-items from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0 to assess EGFRI-induced skin-related toxicities and their impact on functional status. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of colorectal or lung cancer to receive EGFRI therapies for at least 6 weeks were enrolled. Patient self-assessments using the FACT-EGFRI 18 were completed prior to undergoing CTCAE assessment by trained clinicians at baseline, weekly × 6, and then monthly × 3. The psychometric properties of the FACT-EGFRI 14 (skin toxicity items only) and 18 (plus 2 nail and 2 hair items) were established based on criterion validity, known groups validity, internal consistency reliability, and responsiveness to change. RESULTS: Of the 146 registered patients, 124 were evaluable. High Cronbach's alpha (> 0.70) for both FACT-EGFRI 14 and FACT-EGFRI 18 scores across assessment times were observed. Although agreement (i.e. criterion validity) between individual and summary scales of the FACT-EGFRI 18 for assessing skin toxicity was good, agreement with the clinician-reported CTCAE was only fair. The minimal important difference was determined to be 3 points. The results also demonstrated responsiveness to symptom change. DISCUSSION: Based on the results of this multi-center validation study, the FACT-EGFRI 18 patient-reported outcome instrument provided data from the patient's perspective yielding unique information as well as complementing clinician-rated CTCAE grades, especially for the symptoms of pain, pruritus, and paronychia. CONCLUSIONS: Good to excellent psychometric properties for the FACT-EGFRI 18 were demonstrated, supporting further use of this patient-reported outcomes measure. Additional validation with a more diverse group of patients should be conducted.