A qualitative evaluation of factors influencing Tumor Treating fields (TTFields) therapy decision making among brain tumor patients and physicians.

BACKGROUND: Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) Therapy is an FDA-approved therapy in the first line and recurrent setting for glioblastoma. Despite Phase 3 evidence showing improved survival with TTFields, it is not uniformly utilized. We aimed to examine patient and clinician views of TTFields and factors shaping utilization of TTFields through a unique research partnership with medical neuro oncology and medical social sciences. METHODS: Adult glioblastoma patients who were offered TTFields at a tertiary care academic hospital were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview about their decision to use or not use TTFields. Clinicians who prescribe TTFields were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview about TTFields. RESULTS: Interviews were completed with 40 patients with a mean age of 53 years; 92.5% were white and 60% were male. Participants who decided against TTFields stated that head shaving, appearing sick, and inconvenience of wearing/carrying the device most influenced their decision. The most influential factors for use of TTFields were the efficacy of the device and their clinician's opinion. Clinicians (N = 9) stated that TTFields was a good option for glioblastoma patients, but some noted that their patients should consider the burdens and benefits of TTFields as it may not be the desired choice for all patients. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to examine patient decision making for TTFields. Findings suggest that clinician support and efficacy data are among the key decision-making factors. Properly understanding the path to patients' decision making is crucial in optimizing the use of TTFields and other therapeutic decisions for glioblastoma patients.

Piloting a Financial Counseling Intervention for Patients With Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: National organizations encourage communication about costs of cancer care; however, few data are available on health system models for identifying and assisting patients with financial distress (FD). We report the feasibility and acceptability of a financial counseling (FC) intervention for patients who receive chemotherapy at a comprehensive cancer center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to FC or standard care. The FC arm received education, financial assistance screening, and an estimation tool with total billed charges and out-of-pocket (OOP) cost of one cycle of chemotherapy from a financial counselor through phone call and in-person visit. Participants completed measures of FD, health-related quality of life, and acceptability. RESULTS: Ninety-five participants enrolled (mean age, 61 years; 72% white; 50% commercially insured), with a 32% attrition rate between assessments. Rates of completion for the phone call, in-person, and entire intervention were 98%, 47%, and 30%, respectively. The OOP estimation tool was considered understandable and acceptable to the majority of participants. No significant changes in FD were found between arms. Emotional functioning was negatively associated with having high FD (95% CI, -0.13379 to -0.013; P = .0189). Being married was associated with a decrease in log-odds of having high FD (ß = -1.916; 95% CI, -3.358 to -0.475; P = .0092). CONCLUSION: Implementation of an FC program that provides transparent cost data is feasible and acceptable. Incorporation of FC into clinical workflow, including phone counseling, is important to improve feasibility. Additional work is needed to develop tailored educational materials that are patient specific.