Unmet financial needs among patients crowdfunding to support gynecologic cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Patients may use crowdfunding to solicit donations, typically from multiple small donors using internet-based means, to offset the financial toxicity of cancer care. OBJECTIVE: To describe crowdfunding campaigns by gynecologic cancer patients and to compare campaign characteristics and needs expressed between patients with cervical, uterine, and ovarian cancer. STUDY DESIGN: We queried the public crowdfunding forum GoFundMe.com for "cervical cancer," "uterine cancer," and "ovarian cancer." The first 200 consecutive posts for each cancer type fundraising within the United States were analyzed. Data on campaign goals and needs expressed were manually extracted. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among the 600 fundraising pages, the median campaign goal was $10,000 [IQR $5000-$23,000]. Campaigns raised a median of 28.6% of their goal with only 8.7% of campaigns reaching their goal after a median of 54 days online. On average, ovarian cancer campaigns had higher monetary goals, more donors, and larger donation amounts than cervical cancer campaigns and raised more money than both cervical and uterine cancer campaigns. Campaigns were fundraising to support medical costs (80-85%) followed by lost wages (36-56%) or living expenses (27-41%). Cervical cancer campaigns reported need for non-medical costs more frequently than uterine or ovarian cancer campaigns. States without Medicaid expansions (31% of the national population) were over-represented among cervical cancer and uterine cancer, but not ovarian cancer campaigns. CONCLUSIONS: Crowdfunding pages reveal patients fundraising for out-of-pocket costs in the thousands of dollars and a wide range of unmet financial needs based on cancer type.

Dedicated financial hardship screening adds value to routine distress screening among gynecologic cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate existing distress screening to identify patients with financial hardship (FH) compared to dedicated FH screening and assess patient attitudes toward FH screening. METHODS: We screened gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy. Existing screening included: (1) Moderate/severe distress defined as Distress Thermometer score ≥ 4, (2) practical concerns identified from Problem Checklist, and (3) a single question assessing trouble paying for medications. FH screening included: (1) Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and (2) 10-item Financial Needs Checklist to guide referrals. FH was defined as COST score < 26. We calculated sensitivity (patients with moderate/severe distress + FH over total patients with FH) and specificity (patients with no/mild distress + no FH over total patients with no FH) to assess the extent distress screening could capture FH. Surveys and exit interviews assessed patient perspectives toward screening. RESULTS: Of 364 patients screened for distress, average age was 62 years, 25% were Black, 45% were Medicare beneficiaries, 32% had moderate/severe distress, 15% reported ≥1 practical concern, and 0 reported trouble paying for medications. Most (n = 357, 98%) patients also completed FH screening: of them, 24% screened positive for FH, 32% reported ≥1 financial need. Distress screening had 57% sensitivity and 77% specificity for FH. Based on 79 surveys and 43 exit interviews, FH screening was acceptable with feedback to improve the timing and setting of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated FH screening was feasible and acceptable, but sensitivity was low. Importantly, 40% of women with FH would not have been identified with distress screening alone.

Financial toxicity in gynecologic oncology: a multi-practice survey.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity is associated with worse cancer outcomes, including lower survival. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the prevalence of, and patient risk factors for, financial toxicity among gynecologic oncology patients in a multi-site health system. METHODS: We identified patients seen in University of Pennsylvania gynecologic oncology practices between January 2020 and February 2022 with a patient portal account. We sent a survey to all alive patients twice between March and April 2022, including the 11-item Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool. We compared differences between patients reporting high (COST score <26) and low financial toxicity (COST score ≥26) in Χ2 and regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 8239 patients, 6925 had a portal account, and 498 completed the survey for 7.2% response rate. 44% had a COST score <26, indicating financial toxicity. Patients with high financial toxicity were more likely to be younger (mean age 54 vs 60), have cervical cancer (10% vs 4%; p=0.008), be privately insured (71% vs 57%; p=0.003) or have Medicaid (7% vs 3%; p=0.03), or be unemployed (18% vs 3%; p=<0.001), and less likely to be white (79% vs 90%, p=0.003) than those with low financial toxicity. Patients with Medicare were less likely to experience financial toxicity than privately insured patients (RR=0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95). CONCLUSION: In this study of patients with gynecologic cancer or pre-cancer, 44% had financial toxicity. Financial toxicity was higher in patients who were younger, did not identify as White, and had private insurance. Targeted measures to address financial toxicity are needed to minimize disparities in patient burden of cancer treatment.

Insurance-Mediated Disparities in Gynecologic Oncology Care.

With 102,000 new cases of gynecologic cancer, 30,000 associated deaths annually, and increasing rates of endometrial cancer, gynecologic cancer is a growing problem. Although gynecologic cancer care has advanced significantly in the past decade owing to new therapeutics and specialized training in radical surgery, even insured women face major barriers to accessing and affording quality gynecologic cancer care. This commentary reviews current literature on insurance-mediated disparities in gynecologic cancer and provides education to clinicians on barriers to care. One third of women with a gynecologic cancer never see a gynecologic oncologist. Up to 40% of Medicare Advantage plans lack an in-network gynecologic oncologist, and 33% of private insurance plans do not include an in-network National Cancer Institute-accredited cancer center, limiting access to surgical advances and clinical trials. Women with Medicaid insurance and gynecologic cancer are 25% less likely to receive guideline-concordant care. Among insured women, 50% experience financial toxicity during gynecologic cancer treatment, and costs may be even higher for certain Medicare enrollees. Addressing these insurance-mediated disparities will be important to help our patients fully benefit from the scientific advances in our field and thrive after a gynecologic cancer diagnosis.

A sexual rehabilitation intervention for women with gynaecological cancer receiving radiotherapy (SPARC study): design of a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sexual problems are frequently reported after treatment with radiotherapy (RT) for gynaecological cancer (GC), in particular after combined external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy (EBRT+BT). Studies demonstrate that psychosexual support should include cognitive behavioural interventions and involvement of the patient's partner, if available. Therefore, we developed a nurse-led sexual rehabilitation intervention, including these key components. The intervention was previously pilot-tested and results demonstrated that this intervention improves women's sexual functioning and increases dilator compliance. The objective of the current study is to investigate the (cost-)effectiveness of the intervention compared to optimal care as usual (CAU). We expect that women who receive the intervention will report a statistically significant greater improvement in sexual functioning and - for women who receive EBRT+BT - higher compliance with dilator use, from baseline to 12 months post-RT than women who receive optimal care as usual (CAU). METHODS/DESIGN: The intervention is evaluated in the SPARC (Sexual rehabilitation Programme After Radiotherapy for gynaecological Cancer) study, a multicentre, randomized controlled trial (RCT). The primary endpoint is sexual functioning. Secondary outcomes include body image, fear of sexual activity, sexual-, treatment-related- and psychological distress, health-related quality of life and relationship satisfaction. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) will be conducted in which the costs of the intervention will be related to shifts in other health care costs and the impact on patient outcome. The study sample will consist of 220 women with GC treated with RT in specialized GC treatment centres (N = 10). Participants are randomized to either the intervention- or CAU control group (1:1), and within each centre stratified by type of radiotherapy (EBRT+BT vs. EBRT only) and having a partner (yes/no). All women complete questionnaires at baseline (T1) and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-RT (T2, T3, T4 and T5, respectively). DISCUSSION: There is a need to improve sexual functioning after RT for GC. This RCT will provide evidence about the (cost-)effectiveness of a nurse-led sexual rehabilitation intervention. If proven effective, the intervention will be a much needed addition to care offered to GC survivors and will result in improved quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03611517 . Registered 2 August 2018.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Genotype-Specific Surveillance and Preventive Strategies for Gynecologic Cancers Among Women With Lynch Syndrome.

Importance: With the expansion of multigene testing for cancer susceptibility, Lynch syndrome (LS) has become more readily identified among women. The condition is caused by germline pathogenic variants in DNA mismatch repair genes (ie, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) and is associated with high but variable risks of endometrial and ovarian cancers based on genotype. However, current guidelines on preventive strategies are not specific to genotypes. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of genotype-specific surveillance and preventive strategies for LS-associated gynecologic cancers, including a novel, risk-reducing surgical approach associated with decreased early surgically induced menopause. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation developed a cohort-level Markov simulation model of the natural history of LS-associated gynecologic cancer for each gene, among women from ages 25 to 75 years or until death from a health care perspective. Age was varied at hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (hyst-BSO) and at surveillance initiation, and a 2-stage surgical approach (ie, hysterectomy and salpingectomy at age 40 years and delayed oophorectomy at age 50 years [hyst-BS]) was included. Extensive 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Interventions: Hyst-BSO at ages 35 years, 40 years, or 50 years with or without annual surveillance beginning at age 30 years or 35 years or hyst-BS at age 40 years with oophorectomy delayed until age 50 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between management strategies within an efficiency frontier. Results: For women with MLH1 and MSH6 variants, the optimal strategy was the 2-stage approach, with respective ICERs of $33 269 and $20 008 compared with hyst-BSO at age 40 years. Despite being cost-effective, the 2-stage approach was associated with increased cancer incidence and mortality compared with hyst-BSO at age 40 years for individuals with MLH1 variants (incidence: 7.76% vs 3.84%; mortality: 5.74% vs 2.55%) and those with MSH6 variants (incidence: 7.24% vs 4.52%; mortality: 5.22% vs 2.97%). Hyst-BSO at age 40 years was optimal for individuals with MSH2 variants, with an ICER of $5180 compared with hyst-BSO at age 35 years, and was associated with 4.42% cancer incidence and 2.97% cancer mortality. For individuals with PMS2 variants, hyst-BSO at age 50 years was optimal and all other strategies were dominated; hyst-BSO at age 50 years was associated with an estimated cancer incidence of 0.68% and cancer mortality of 0.29%. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that gene-specific preventive strategies for gynecologic cancers in LS may be warranted and support hyst-BSO at age 40 years for individuals with MSH2 variants. For individuals with MLH1 and MSH6 variants, these findings suggest that a novel 2-stage surgical approach with delayed oophorectomy may be an alternative to hyst-BSO at age 40 years to avoid early menopause, and for individuals with PMS2 variants, the findings suggest that hyst-BSO may be delayed until age 50 years.

Evaluating meaningful levels of financial toxicity in gynecologic cancers.

OBJECTIVE: The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) is a validated instrument measuring the economic burden experienced by patients with cancer. We evaluated the frequency of financial toxicity at different COST levels and stratified risk factors and associations with cost-coping strategies by financial toxicity severity. METHODS: We analyzed previously collected survey data of gynecologic oncology patients from two tertiary care institutions. Both surveys included the COST tool and questions assessing economic and behavioral cost-coping strategies. We adapted a proposed grading scale to define three groups: no/mild, moderate, and severe financial toxicity and used χ2, Fisher's exact test, and Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare groups. We used Poisson regression to calculate crude and adjusted risk ratios for cost-coping strategies, comparing patients with moderate or severe to no/mild financial toxicity. RESULTS: Among 308 patients, 14.9% had severe, 32.1% had moderate, and 52.9% had no/mild financial toxicity. Younger age, non-white race, lower education, unemployment, lower income, use of systemic therapy, and shorter time since diagnosis were associated with worse financial toxicity (all p<0.05). Respondents with moderate or severe financial toxicity were significantly more likely to use economic cost-coping strategies such as changing spending habits (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 2.7, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.0 moderate; aRR 3.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 5.4 severe) and borrowing money (aRR 5.5, 95% CI 1.8 to 16.5 moderate; aRR 12.7, 95% CI 4.3 to 37.1 severe). Those with severe financial toxicity also had a significantly higher risk of behavioral cost-coping through medication non-compliance (aRR 4.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 18.1). CONCLUSIONS: Among a geographically diverse cohort of gynecologic oncology patients, nearly half reported financial toxicity (COST <26), which was associated with economic cost-coping strategies. In those 14.9% of patients reporting severe financial toxicity (COST <14) there was also an increased risk of medication non-compliance, which may lead to worse health outcomes in this group.

Financial toxicity, mental health, and gynecologic cancer treatment: The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic among low-income women in New York City.

BACKGROUND: New York City (NYC) emerged as an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, and marginalized populations were affected at disproportionate rates. The authors sought to determine the impact of COVID-19 on cancer treatment, anxiety, and financial distress among low-income patients with gynecologic cancer during the peak of the NYC pandemic. METHODS: Medicaid-insured women who were receiving gynecologic oncology care at 2 affiliated centers were contacted by telephone interviews between March 15 and April 15, 2020. Demographics and clinical characteristics were obtained through self-report and retrospective chart review. Financial toxicity, anxiety, and cancer worry were assessed using modified, validated surveys. RESULTS: In total, 100 patients completed the telephone interview. The median age was 60 years (range, 19-86 years), and 71% had an annual income <$40,000. A change in employment status and early stage cancer (stage I and II) were associated with an increase in financial distress (P < .001 and P = .008, respectively). Early stage cancer and telehealth participation were significantly associated with increased worry about future finances (P = .017 and P = .04, respectively). Lower annual income (<$40,000) was associated with increased cancer worry and anxiety compared with higher annual income (>$40,000; P = .036 and P = .017, respectively). When controlling for telehealth participation, income, primary language, and residence in a high COVID-19 prevalence area, a delay in medical care resulted in a 4-fold increased rate of anxiety (P = .023, 95% CI, 1.278-14.50). Race was not significantly associated with increased financial distress, cancer worry, or anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Low socioeconomic status was the most common risk factor for increased financial distress, cancer worry, and anxiety. Interventions aimed at improving access to timely oncology care should be implemented during this ongoing pandemic.

Impact of employment and insurance status on distress in gynecologic oncology patients.

OBJECTIVES: To study associations among employment, insurance status, and distress in gynecologic oncology patients; and to evaluate the impact of being unemployed or having no/Medicaid insurance on different distress problem areas. METHODS: In this single institution, cross-sectional analysis of gynecologic oncology patients, we screened for distress and problem areas using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress thermometer and problem list at outpatient appointments between 6/2017-9/2017. Primary outcome was self-reported high distress (score ≥ 5). The distress problem list included 5 categories-practical, family, emotional, physical, and other. Employment status included employed, unemployed, homemaker, and retired. Logistic regression was used to predict high distress from employment and insurance statuses, adjusting for relevant covariates. RESULTS: Of 885 women, 101 (11.4%) were unemployed, and 53 (6.0%) uninsured or had Medicaid coverage. One in five patients (n = 191, 21.6%) indicated high distress. Unemployed patients were more likely than employed to endorse high distress [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-5.7, p < 0.001]. Compared to employed patients, a greater proportion of unemployed patients endorsed distress related to practical (p < 0.05), emotional (p < 0.001), physical (p < 0.01), and other (p < 0.05) problems. Uninsured/Medicaid patients were more likely to endorse high distress (aOR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.5-5.1, p < 0.001) and report family (p < 0.001), emotional (p < 0.001), and other (p < 0.01) problems than patients who had Medicare/commercial insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Gynecologic oncology patients who are unemployed or have no/Medicaid insurance face high distress that appears to arise from issues beyond practical problems, including financial and/or insurance insecurities.

Crowdsourcing to measure financial toxicity in gynecologic oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To utilize a novel crowdsourcing method to measure financial toxicity and its effects among a national cohort of gynecologic cancer patients. METHODS: Crowdsourcing methods were used to administer an online survey to women in the United States with gynecologic cancers. We used the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool to measure financial toxicity and the EQ-5D-3L to measure quality of life (QOL). Based on prior work, we defined high financial toxicity as a COST score ≤ 23. We assessed correlation of COST scores with QOL. We used log-binomial regression to examine associations between high financial toxicity and cost-coping strategies. RESULTS: Among the final study sample of 334 respondents, 87% were white, median age at diagnosis was 55 (interquartile range 47-63), 52% had stage III or IV disease and 90% had private insurance or Medicare. Median COST score was 24 (interquartile range 15-32) and 49% of respondents reported high financial toxicity. Greater financial toxicity was correlated with worse QOL (p < 0.001). Participants reporting high financial toxicity were more likely to use cost-coping strategies, including spending less on basic goods (RR: 3.3; 95% CI: 2.1-5.1), borrowing money or applying for financial assistance (RR: 4.0; 95% CI: 2.4-6.9), and delaying or avoiding care (RR: 5.6; 95% CI: 2.6-12.1). CONCLUSIONS: Crowdsourcing is an effective tool to measure financial toxicity. Nearly half of respondents reported high financial toxicity, which was significantly associated with worse QOL, utilization of cost-coping strategies and delays or avoidance of care.

Holistic needs assessment and care plans for women with gynaecological cancer: do they improve cancer-specific health-related quality of life? A randomised controlled trial using mixed methods.

OBJECTIVES: Holistic needs assessment (HNA) and care planning are proposed to address unmet needs of people treated for cancer. We tested whether HNA and care planning by an allied health professional improved cancer-specific quality of life for women following curative treatment for stage I-III gynaecological cancer. METHODS: Consecutive women were invited to participate in a randomised controlled study (HNA and care planning vs usual care) at a UK cancer centre. Data were collected by questionnaire at baseline, 3 and 6 months. The outcomes were 6-month change in European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (version 3), global score (primary) and, in EORTC subscales, generic quality of life and self-efficacy (secondary). The study was blinded for data management and analysis. Differences in outcomes were compared between groups. Health service utilisation and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) (from Short Form-6) were gathered for a cost-effectiveness analysis. Thematic analysis was used to interpret data from an exit interview. RESULTS: 150 women consented (75 per group); 10 undertook interviews. For 124 participants (61 intervention, 63 controls) with complete data, no statistically significant differences were seen between groups in the primary endpoint. The majority of those interviewed reported important personal gains they attributed to the intervention, which reflected trends to improvement seen in EORTC functional and symptom scales. Economic analysis suggests a 62% probability of cost-effectiveness at a £30 000/QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Care plan development with an allied health professional is cost-effective, acceptable and useful for some women treated for stage I-III gynaecological cancer. We recommend its introduction early in the pathway to support person-centred care.

The financial impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in an academic gynecologic oncology practice.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the financial impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in gynecologic oncology patients. METHODS: This study identified gynecologic oncology patients who were placed on the ERAS protocol after elective laparotomy from 10/2016-6/2017. A control group was identified from the year prior to ERAS implementation. Financial experts assisted in procuring data for these patient encounters, including payer status, direct and indirect costs, contribution margin, and length of stay (LOS). SPSS Statistics v. 24 was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 376 patients met criteria for inclusion: 179 in the ERAS group and 197 in the control group. Patient demographics were similar between the two cohorts. Payer status across the groups was not statistically significant in patients with private insurance (control 43.7% vs. ERAS 41.3%), Medicare (38.1% vs. 31.8%), or self-pay patients (12.2% vs. 15.1%). There was a significantly higher number of Medicaid patients in the ERAS group (6.1% vs. 11.7%; p = 0.05). Hospital direct costs ($5596 vs. 5346) and indirect costs ($5182 vs. $4954) per encounter were similar between groups. However, overall contribution margin per encounter decreased in the ERAS group ($11,619 vs. $8528; p = 0.01). LOS was significantly lower in the ERAS group (4.1 vs. 2.9 days; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ERAS protocol in gynecologic oncology patients does not lead to increased costs for the patient or hospital system. The decreased contribution margin is likely due to a reduction in per diem payments caused by the reduction in LOS. On a per-patient-day basis, contribution margin was the same for both groups ($2877 vs $2857). The reduction in LOS also created capacity for additional cases, the financial impact of which was not evaluated.

Extensive financial hardship among gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the three domains of financial hardship (psychological response, material conditions, and coping behaviors) among gynecologic cancer patients receiving treatment. METHODS: We conducted a single-institution survey of gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of therapy for primary or recurrent disease. Psychological response was measured using Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity, with score < 26 indicating financial distress. We measured material conditions by patient-reported changes in employment or spending and coping behaviors by patient-reported medication non-adherence. We performed descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 121 participants, the mean age was 59 years, 28% were African-American, 50% reported income < $40,000, 74% had private insurance, 20% had only public insurance, and 7% were uninsured. Sixty-five (54%) participants screened positive for financial distress. Age < 65 years (aOR 2.61, 95% CI 1.04-6.52) and income < $40,000 (aOR 3.41, 95% CI 1.28-9.09) were associated with increased odds of screening positive for financial distress. Participants with financial distress were significantly more likely to report material hardship, including losing wages (46% vs. 18%, p < 0.01), not paying bills on time (40% vs. 7%, p < 0.01), and borrowing money (39% vs. 4%, p < 0.01). Financial distress was not associated with coping behaviors, such as not taking (6% vs. 2%, p = 0.37) or refilling medications (5% vs. 2%, p = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Financial distress affects over half of gynecologic cancer patients starting a new line of treatment and is associated with material hardship. Younger age and lower income can be used to identify patients at increased risk.

Optimizing the Care of Malignant Bowel Obstruction in Patients With Advanced Gynecologic Cancer.

PURPOSE: Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a common and distressing complication in women with advanced gynecologic cancer. A pilot, interprofessional MBO program was launched in 2016 at a large Canadian tertiary cancer center to integrate these patients' complex care needs across multiple disciplines and support women with MBO. METHOD: Retrospective analysis to evaluate the outcomes of women with advanced gynecologic cancer who were admitted to hospital because of MBO, before (2014 to 2016: baseline group) and after (2016 to 2018) implementation of the MBO program. RESULTS: Of the 169 women evaluated, 106 and 63 were in the baseline group and MBO program group, respectively. Most had ovarian cancer (n = 124; 73%) and had small-bowel obstruction (n = 131; 78%). There was a significantly shorter cumulative hospital length of stay (LOSsum) within the first 60 days of MBO diagnosis in the MBO program group compared with the baseline group (13 v 22 days, respectively; adjusted P = .006). The median overall survival for women treated in the MBO program was also significantly longer compared with the baseline group (243 v 99 days, respectively; adjusted P = .002). Using the interprofessional MBO care platform, a greater proportion of patients received palliative chemotherapy (83% v 56%) and less surgery (11% v 21%) in the MBO program group than in the baseline group, respectively. A subgroup of women (n = 11) received total parenteral nutrition for longer than 6 months. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a comprehensive, interprofessional MBO program significantly affects patient care and may improve outcomes. Unique to this MBO program is an integrated outpatient model of care and education that empowers patients to recognize MBO symptoms for early intervention.

Factors associated with the successful completion of randomized controlled trials in gynecological oncology.

PURPOSE: The aim of our review was to ascertain factors associated with the successful completion of a randomized controlled trial in gynecological oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized data collected from the National Institutes of Health's US National Library of Medicine database on ClinicalTrials.gov. Data was collected over a five year period (2009-2013). Utilizing the search terms under the National Institutes of Health recommended "Studies by Topics" gynecological oncology studies were identified. Randomized controlled trials were selected for based on intervention and randomization criteria. Elements were then compared with statistical analysis performed using SASS. RESULTS: As of September 1st 2018, 149 of the 318 identified randomized controlled trials were successfully completed over a median length of 44 months (IQR 30.0-55.0). Completed randomized controlled trials were more likely to be performed at single centers (p < 0.005). Interventional, drug and device trials were not significantly more likely to be completed. There was no difference in funding sources for completed or not completed randomized controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective randomized trials are essential for establishing the standard of care in clinical medicine. They are, however, time and resource intensive. Herein we have attempted to identify factors associated with successful and timely completion of gynecologic oncology randomized controlled trials including site of origin, number of participating sites, funding source, intervention type, enrollment size, and study length; however, none of these factors were observed to have an association with increased rates of trial publication.

Medicaid and Medicare payer status are associated with worse surgical outcomes in gynecologic oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To compare postoperative outcomes by primary payer status for patients with gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent elective surgery for gynecologic malignancies between 2015 and 2019. Patient outcomes were compared by payer status using logistic regression. Sociodemographic and clinical covariates were selected a priori and included age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, body mass index, smoking status, malignancy site, surgery type, race, estimated income, marital status, and medical interpreter requirement. RESULTS: A total of 1894 patients comprised the study sample. In the multivariate model, compared to patients with private insurance, Medicaid and Medicare patients were more likely to mobilize >24 h after surgery (OR 1.9, p < 0.05 and OR 3.2, p < 0.001, respectively), to require ICU admission (OR 4.0, p < 0.05 and OR 5.0, p < 0.05, respectively), and to have longer lengths of stay (OR 1.8, p < 0.05 and OR 2.2, p < 0.001, respectively). Medicaid patients were also more likely to have higher total hospital costs (OR 1.7, p < 0.05). Payer status was not associated with postoperative pain, postoperative opiate use, or 30-day readmission rates. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid and Medicare payer status are associated with worse postoperative outcomes in patients with gynecologic malignancies. The poor outcomes of Medicaid patients - a cohort defined by limited income - are noteworthy. The etiology is likely multifactorial, arising from a complex interplay of factors ranging from system issues such as access to care to the unique health status of a population bearing a high burden of disease and socioeconomic adversity.

Financial toxicity in gynecologic oncology.

OBJECTIVES: Financial toxicity is increasingly recognized as an adverse outcome of cancer treatment. Our objective was to measure financial toxicity among gynecologic oncology patients and its association with demographic and disease-related characteristics; self-reported overall health; and cost-coping strategies. METHODS: Follow-up patients at a gynecologic oncology practice completed a survey including the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and a self-reported overall health assessment, the EQ-VAS. We abstracted disease and treatment characteristics from medical records. We dichotomized COST scores into low and high financial toxicity and assessed the correlation (r) between COST scores and self-reported health. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations of demographic and disease-related characteristics with high financial toxicity, as well as the associations between high financial toxicity and cost-coping strategies. RESULTS: Among 240 respondents, median COST score was 29. Greater financial toxicity was correlated with worse self-reported health (r = 0.47; p < 0.001). In the crude analysis, Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, government-sponsored health insurance, lower income, unemployment, cervical cancer and treatment with chemotherapy were associated with high financial toxicity. In the multivariable analysis, only government-sponsored health insurance, lower income, and treatment with chemotherapy were significantly associated with high financial toxicity. High financial toxicity was significantly associated with all cost-coping strategies, including delaying or avoiding care (RR: 7.3; 95% CI: 2.8-19.1). CONCLUSIONS: Among highly-insured gynecologic oncology patients, many respondents reported high levels of financial toxicity. High financial toxicity was significantly associated with worse self-reported overall health and cost-coping strategies, including delaying or avoiding care.