Financial Toxicity and Out-of-Pocket Costs for Patients with Head and Neck Cancer.

AIM: To quantify financial toxicity and out-of-pocket costs for patients with HNC in Australia and explore their relationship with health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to patients with HNC 1-3 years after radiotherapy at a regional hospital in Australia. The survey included questions on sociodemographics, out-of-pocket expenses, HRQoL, and the Financial Index of Toxicity (FIT) tool. The relationship between high financial toxicity scores (top quartile) and HRQoL was explored. RESULTS: Of the 57 participants included in the study, 41 (72%) reported out-of-pocket expenses at a median of AUD 1796 (IQR AUD 2700) and a maximum of AUD 25,050. The median FIT score was 13.9 (IQR 19.5) and patients with high financial toxicity (n = 14) reported poorer HRQoL (76.5 vs. 114.5, p < 0.001). Patients who were not married had higher FIT scores (23.1 vs. 11.1, p = 0.01), as did those with lower education (19.3 vs. 11.1, p = 0.06). Participants with private health insurance had lower financial toxicity scores (8.3 vs. 17.6, p = 0.01). Medications (41%, median AUD 400), dietary supplements (41%, median AUD 600), travel (36%, median AUD 525), and dental (29%, AUD 388) were the most common out-of-pocket expenses. Participants living in rural locations (≥100 km from the hospital) had higher out-of-pocket expenses (AUD 2655 vs. AUD 730, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity is associated with poorer HRQoL for many patients with HNC following treatment. Further research is needed to investigate interventions aimed at reducing financial toxicity and how these can best be incorporated into routine clinical care.

African Head and Neck Society Clinical Practice guidelines for thyroid nodules and cancer in developing countries and limited resource settings.

BACKGROUND: International thyroid nodule and cancer management guidelines generally fail to take into account potential limitations in diagnostic and treatment resources. METHODS: Thyroid cancer specialists from the African Head and Neck Society and American Head & Neck Society Endocrine Section developed guidelines for diagnosis and management of thyroid nodules and cancer in low resource settings. Recommendations were based on literature review and expert opinion, with level of evidence defined. RESULTS: Using the ADAPTE process, diagnostic and treatment algorithms were adapted from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Low resource settings were simulated by systematically removing elements such as availability of laboratory testing, hormone replacement, imaging, and cytopathology from NCCN guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Successful management of thyroid nodules and cancer in low resource settings requires adaptation of treatment methodologies. These guidelines define specific scenarios where either more or less aggressive intervention for thyroid pathology may be advisable based on limited available resources.

An Analysis of Popular Online Erectile Dysfunction Supplements.

INTRODUCTION: Erectile dysfunction supplements (ED-Ss) are featured on online marketplaces like Amazon.com, with dedicated pages and claims that they naturally treat ED. However, their efficacy and safety are largely unknown, limiting the ability to counsel patients regarding their use. AIM: To evaluate the highest rated and most frequently reviewed ED-Ss on Amazon.com to facilitate patient counseling regarding marketing myths, ingredient profiles, and evidence for product efficacy and safety. METHODS: The Amazon marketplace was queried using the key term "erectile dysfunction" with default search settings and ranking items based on relevance. The top 6 ED-S products identified on September 29, 2018, were reviewed based on price, ratings, reviews, manufacturer, and ingredients. Consumer reviews were categorized using subtopics within the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaire to better understand ED-S efficacy and then reanalyzed following filtration of untrustworthy comments using ReviewMeta.com, a proprietary Amazon review analysis software. OUTCOMES: Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of ED-S products sold on Amazon.com. RESULTS: The top 6 ED-Ss had an average of 2,121 ± 1,282 reviews and a mean rating of 3.92 ± 0.42 stars. A total of 21 ingredients were identified in these ED-Ss. Ginseng, horny goat weed, L-arginine, and tongkat ali were the most popular ingredients included in the analyzed products. Our literature review identified 413 studies involving the 21 identified ingredients, of which 59 (16%) involved human subjects. Among these 69 human studies, only 12 (17%) investigated supplement ingredients individually and reported improvement in ED. Analysis of top-ranked customer reviews from the first 2 pages of reviews for each supplement revealed differences in IIEF scores before and after ReviewMeta.com filtration. After filtration, we observed a 77% decrease in reviews reporting improved erection strength, an 83% decrease in reviews reporting improved ability to maintain erection, a 90% decrease in reviews reporting increased sexual satisfaction, an 88% decrease in reviews reporting increased enjoyment with intercourse, and an 89% decrease in reviews reporting increased erection confidence. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Study strengths include a novel approach to ascertaining consumers' perceptions and satisfaction with ED-Ss and practical summary information that clinicians can provide to patients. Limitations include selection bias, the small number of supplements analyzed, and the proprietary nature of the Amazon review analysis software. CONCLUSIONS: Our investigation revealed that human studies evaluating the efficacy of ED-S ingredients are limited and have yielded no definitive findings of the effects on ED. Patients considering ED-S use should receive appropriate counseling, given the prevalence of disingenuous reviews and the ready availability of Food and Drug Administration-approved drug therapies. Balasubramanian A, Thirumavalavan N, Srivatsav A, et al. An Analysis of Popular Online Erectile Dysfunction Supplements. J Sex Med 2019;16:843-852.

Testosterone Imposters: An Analysis of Popular Online Testosterone Boosting Supplements.

INTRODUCTION: Testosterone-boosting supplements (T-Boosters) are prominently featured on Amazon.com, with numerous dedicated pages and claims that they "naturally" increase testosterone levels. AIM: To evaluate the highest rated and frequently reviewed T-Boosters on Amazon.com to facilitate patient counseling regarding marketing myths, T-Booster formulations, and evidence for efficacy and safety. METHODS: The Amazon marketplace was queried using the key words "testosterone" + "booster," with default search settings and ranking items based on relevance. The top 5 T-Boosters identified on July 22, 2018, were reviewed based on price, ratings, reviews, manufacturer details, and ingredients. Consumer reviews were categorized using core themes in the Androgen Deficiency in the Aging Male (ADAM) questionnaire as a proxy to understand T-Booster efficacy and reanalyzed after filtration of untrustworthy comments using ReviewMeta.com, a proprietary Amazon customer review analysis software. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of T-Boosters on Amazon.com was performed. RESULTS: The top 5 T-Boosters had an average ± SD of 2,761 ± 5,112 reviews and a rating of 4.56 ± 0.25 stars. 19 unique ingredients were identified across these T-Boosters, and literature review revealed 191 studies involving the 10 most common ingredients, of which 19% involved human subjects, 53% animal models, 15% in vitro studies, and 12% case reports or review articles. Among 37 human studies, 30% observed an increase in T levels, 3% a decrease, 46% no effect, and 22% were indeterminate. Analysis of top customer reviews from the first 2 pages of reviews for each supplement revealed differences in the ADAM score before and after ReviewMeta.com filtration. After filtration, there was a 91% decrease in users reporting increased libido, a 59% decrease in reports of increased energy, a 93% decrease in reports of improved strength/endurance, a 60% decrease in reports of improved erections, an elimination of reports of improved work performance, a 67% decrease in reports of improved sleep, and an 89% decrease in reports of improved sports ability. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our study can serve as a guide for providers to counsel patients about the efficacy of popular online T-Boosters as well as the prevalence of disingenuous reviews associated with these products on online marketplaces like Amazon.com. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Strengths include the novel approach to assess consumers' perceptions and satisfaction of T-Boosters, as well as summary information that clinicians can provide patients. Limitations include selection bias, a small number of supplements analyzed, and the proprietary nature of the Amazon review analysis software. CONCLUSION: T-Boosters are easily available online. Our investigation revealed that limited human studies have evaluated T-Boosters, resulting in no definitive findings of efficacy. In the absence of additional human studies, patients should be cautioned before considering T-Boosters, given the availability of highly effective therapies approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Balasubramanian A, Thirumavalavan N, Srivatsav A, et al. Testosterone Imposters: An Analysis of Popular Online Testosterone Boosting Supplements. J Sex Med 2019;16:203-212.

System-Level Factors Associated With Use of Outpatient Specialty Palliative Care Among Patients With Advanced Cancer.

PURPOSE: The proportion of patients with advanced cancer who receive outpatient specialty palliative care (OSPC) is as low as 2.0%. Improved understanding of the system-level factors influencing use of OSPC could inform adaptations to the delivery of palliative care to maximize access. We examined associations between OSPC use among patients with advanced solid tumors and oncology-OSPC clinic colocation and patient travel time to an OSPC clinic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with advanced solid tumors receiving oncologic treatment between January 1 and December 31, 2016, within a comprehensive cancer center network with well-established, oncology-specific OSPC clinics. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the associations of clinic colocation and geographic access with OSPC use. RESULTS: Of 9,485 patients with advanced solid tumors, 478 (5.0%) received OSPC services in 2016. After controlling for age, sex, marital status, cancer type, insurance, treatment intent, and illness severity, patients whose oncologist practices were colocated with OSPC clinics were more likely to use OSPC (odds ratio [OR], 19.2; 95% CI, 14.1 to 26.2). Compared with patients who lived > 90 minutes from an OSPC clinic, patients with travel times of < 30 minutes (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.2 to 4.6) and 31 to 60 minutes (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.6 to 3.6) were also more likely to use OSPC. CONCLUSION: Among patients with advanced solid tumors, colocation of oncology and OSPC clinics and shorter patient travel time were associated with greater odds of using OSPC. Future efforts to increase OSPC use in this population should consider clinic colocation and travel burden.