Associations of State Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Eligibility Policies With Mammography.

PURPOSE: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) addresses food insecurity for low-income households, which is associated with access to care. Many US states expanded SNAP access through policies eliminating the asset test (ie, restrictions based on SNAP applicant assets) and/or broadening income eligibility. The objective of this study was to determine whether state SNAP policies were associated with the use of mammography among women eligible for breast cancer screening. METHODS: Data for income-eligible women 40 to 79 years of age were obtained from the 2006 to 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Difference-in-differences analyses were conducted to compare changes in the percentage of mammography in the past year from pre- to post-SNAP policy adoption (asset test elimination or income eligibility increase) between states that and did not adopt policies expanding SNAP eligibility. RESULTS: In total, 171,684 and 294,647 income-eligible female respondents were included for the asset test elimination policy and income eligibility increase policy analyses, respectively. Mammography within 1 year was reported by 58.4%. Twenty-eight and 22 states adopted SNAP asset test elimination and income increase policies, respectively. Adoption of asset test elimination policies was associated with a 2.11 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07-4.15; P = .043) percentage point increase in mammography received within 1 year, particularly for nonmetropolitan residents (4.14 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.07-7.21 percentage points; P = .008), those with household incomes <$25,000 (2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.68-4.97 percentage points; P = .01), and those residing in states in the South (3.08 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.17-5.99 percentage points; P = .038) or that did not expand Medicaid under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (3.35 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.36-6.34; P = .028). There was no significant association between mammography and state-level policies broadening of SNAP income eligibility. CONCLUSIONS: State policies eliminating asset test requirements for SNAP eligibility were associated with increased mammography among low-income women eligible for breast cancer screening, particularly for those in the lowest income bracket or residing in nonmetropolitan areas or Medicaid nonexpansion states.

Race and Ethnicity Representation in Phase 2/3 Oncology Clinical Trial Publications: A Systematic Review.

Importance: The five 1997 Office of Management and Budget races in the US include American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White, with Hispanic ethnicity. Despite the Affordable Care Act mandating Office of Management and Budget-based collecting and reporting standards, race and ethnicity publishing in medical journals is inconsistent, despite being necessary to achieve health equity. Objective: To quantify race and ethnicity reporting rates and calculate representation quotients (RQs) in published oncology clinical trials. Evidence Review: In this systematic review, PubMed and Embase were queried for phase 2/3 clinical trials of the 6 most common noncutaneous solid cancers, published between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, in 4 high-impact journals. Trial characteristics were recorded. The RQs for each race and ethnicity were calculated by dividing the percent of representation in each clinical trial publication by the percent of year-matched, site-specific incident cancers in the US, compared with Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni correction (BC). Reporting was compared between journal publications and ClinicalTrials.gov. Findings: Among 1202 publications evaluated, 364 met inclusion criteria: 16 JAMA, 241 Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19 Lancet, and 88 New England Journal of Medicine. Publications included 268 209 patients (171 132 women [64%]), with a median of 356 (IQR, 131-800) patients per publication. Reported race and ethnicity included American Indian or Alaska Native in 52 (14%) publications, Asian in 196 (54%), Black or African American in 215 (59%), Hispanic in 67 (18%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander in 28 (8%), and White in 254 (70%). Median RQ varied across race (P < .001 BC), with 1.04 (IQR, 0.09-4.77) for Asian, 0.98 (IQR, 0.86-1.06) for White, 0.42 (IQR, 0.12-0.75) for Black or African American, and 0.00 (IQR, 0.00-0.00) for both American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander patients. Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings on subset analysis for US-only clinical trials. There was significantly less race and ethnicity reporting in the clinical trial publications compared with ClinicalTrials.gov documentation for American Indian or Alaska Native (14% vs 45%; P < .001 per McNemar χ2 test with continuity correction [MC]) and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (8% vs 43%; P < .001 MC). Conclusions and Relevance: While most phase 2/3 oncology clinical trials published in high-impact journals report race and ethnicity, most did not report American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander racial categories. Our findings support a call to action for consistent journal policies and transparent race and ethnicity reporting, in alignment with Affordable Care Act-concordant race and ethnicity federal reporting requirements.

Patient Safety and Satisfaction With Fully Remote Management of Radiation Oncology Care.

Importance: Patients of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, New York, are now offered a choice of either in-person or remote telehealth visits for radiation oncology care. However, safety and satisfaction among patients receiving treatment with fully remote physician management is unclear. Objective: To analyze patient safety and satisfaction, financial implications, and environmental consequences associated with fully remote management among a cohort of patients treated with radiotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-institution retrospective cohort study was performed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, with patients treated with radiation who opted for fully remote management between October 1, 2020, and October 31, 2022. Data on patient safety events were prospectively collected with an in-house quality improvement reporting system. Patient satisfaction surveys were distributed electronically before, during, and after treatment. Patient transportation costs and environmental consequences were estimated based on differences in travel distance. Data analysis was performed from March 14 through September 19, 2023. Exposure: Radiotherapy with fully remote physician management. Main Outcomes and Measures: Satisfaction rates among patients opting for fully remote management were analyzed via surveys administered electronically after visits with clinicians. Patient safety events, defined as staff-reported actual events and near misses that had the potential to affect patient care, were reviewed. Rates and types of safety events were analyzed and compared with patients treated by onsite clinicians. Distances between patient home zip codes and treatment site locations were compared with estimated cost savings and decreased emissions. Results: This study included 2817 patients who received radiation oncology care with fully remote physician management. The median age of patients was 65 (range, 9-99) years, and more than half were men (1467 [52.1%]). Of the 764 safety events reported, 763 (99.9%) did not reach patients or caused no harm to patients. Nearly all survey respondents (451 [97.6%]) rated patient satisfaction as good to very good across all domains. For treatment with fully remote physician management, out-of-pocket cost savings totaled $612 912.71 ($466.45 per patient) and decreased carbon dioxide emissions by 174 metric tons. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, radiation oncology care provided by fully remote clinicians was safe and feasible, with no serious patient events. High patient satisfaction, substantial cost savings, and decreased environmental consequences were observed. These findings support the continuation of a fully remote management option for select patients in the post-COVID-19 era.

Insurance Denials and Patient Treatment in a Large Academic Radiation Oncology Center.

Importance: Insurance barriers to cancer care can cause significant patient and clinician burden. Objective: To investigate the association of insurance denial with changes in technique, dose, and time to delivery of radiation oncology treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this single-institution cohort analysis, data were collected from patients with payer-denied authorization for radiation therapy (RT) from November 1, 2021, to December 8, 2022. Data were analyzed from December 15, 2022, to December 31, 2023. Exposure: Insurance denial for RT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Association of these denials with changes in RT technique, dose, and time to treatment delivery was assessed using χ2 tests. Results: A total of 206 cases (118 women [57.3%]; median age, 58 [range, 26-91] years) were identified. Most insurers (199 [96.6%]) were commercial payers, while 7 (3.4%) were Medicare or Medicare Advantage. One hundred sixty-one patients (78.2%) were younger than 65 years. Of 206 cases, 127 (61.7%) were ultimately authorized without any change to the requested RT technique or prescription dose; 56 (27.2%) were authorized after modification to RT technique and/or prescription dose required by the payer. Of 21 cases with required prescription dose change, the median decrease in dose was 24.0 (range, 2.3-51.0) Gy. Of 202 cases (98.1%) with RT delivered, 72 (34.9%) were delayed for a mean (SD) of 7.8 (9.1) days and median of 5 (range, 1-49) days. Four cases (1.9%) ultimately did not receive any authorization, with 3 (1.5%) not undergoing RT, and 1 (0.5%) seeking treatment at another institution. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with payer-denied cases, most insurance denials in radiation oncology were ultimately approved on appeal; however, RT technique and/or effectiveness may be compromised by payer-mandated changes. Further investigation and action to recognize the time and financial burdens on clinicians and clinical effects on patients caused by insurance denials of RT is needed.

Disease site specialization in the academic radiation oncology workforce: Evidence of gender differences.

PURPOSE: As some stakeholders within medicine seek to diversify and attain greater workforce equity, it is critical to understand gender-based divisions within specialization. Radiation oncology (RO) has one of the smallest proportions of woman representation of all specialties, and no prior studies have investigated gender differences in all the disease site specializations within RO. Thus, we analyzed the relationship between gender and disease site(s) treated in academic RO (ARO). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Faculty gender and disease site(s) treated by faculty from ARO departments were collected via publicly available department websites in January 2020. Chi-square analyses were conducted to assess differences between proportions of women faculty treating each disease site. RESULTS: Of 1,337 ARO faculty, 408 (30.5%) were identified as women. Breast, gynecology, and pediatrics had the largest proportions of women faculty (all>40%, P<0.001). A majority (53%, P<0.001) of women ARO faculty treated breast. Genitourinary (GU), thoracic, and head and neck had the smallest proportions of women faculty (all<25%, P<0.001). Women ARO faculty were twice as likely to treat breast and gynecological malignancies compared to men (risk ratio [RR] with 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.01 [1.75-2.50], P<0.001 and RR [CI]: 2.06 [1.72-2.79], P<0.001, respectively). Men ARO faculty were three times more likely to treat GU cancer as compared to women faculty (RR [CI]: 0.40 [0.34-0.48], P<0.001). There was no difference in the mean number of disease sites treated between women and men ARO faculty (2.63 vs. 2.53, P=0.29). CONCLUSION: Gender differences in disease site specialization were observed in ARO. Future research into the drivers of disease site selection should be explored.

Survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer: MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared to those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end-of-life. These MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: An expert panel comprising MASCC and ASCO members was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting: (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including 8 people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low-to-middle resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥ 94.8% agreement for seven standards (1. Person-Centred Care; 2. Coordinated and Integrated Care; 3. Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; 4. Evaluated and Communicated Care; 5. Accessible and Equitable Care; 6. Sustainable and Resourced Care; 7. Research and Data-Driven Care) and ≥ 84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards will support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders in cancer care (healthcare professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers. Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.

Cancer diagnosis and treatment in working-age adults: Implications for employment, health insurance coverage, and financial hardship in the United States.

The rising costs of cancer care and subsequent medical financial hardship for cancer survivors and families are well documented in the United States. Less attention has been paid to employment disruptions and loss of household income after a cancer diagnosis and during treatment, potentially resulting in lasting financial hardship, particularly for working-age adults not yet age-eligible for Medicare coverage and their families. In this article, the authors use a composite patient case to illustrate the adverse consequences of cancer diagnosis and treatment for employment, health insurance coverage, household income, and other aspects of financial hardship. They summarize existing research and provide nationally representative estimates of multiple aspects of financial hardship and health insurance coverage, benefit design, and employee benefits, such as paid sick leave, among working-age adults with a history of cancer and compare them with estimates among working-age adults without a history of cancer from the most recently available years of the National Health Interview Survey (2019-2021). Then, the authors identify opportunities for addressing employment and health insurance coverage challenges at multiple levels, including federal, state, and local policies; employers; cancer care delivery organizations; and nonprofit organizations. These efforts, when informed by research to identify best practices, can potentially help mitigate the financial hardship associated with cancer.

Survivorship Care for People Affected by Advanced or Metastatic Cancer: MASCC-ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared with those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end of life. These Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: A MASCC-ASCO expert panel was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including eight people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low- to middle-resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥94.8% agreement for seven standards, (1) Person-Centered Care; (2) Coordinated and Integrated Care; (3) Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; (4) Evaluated and Communicated Care; (5) Accessible and Equitable Care; (6) Sustainable and Resourced Care; and (7) Research and Data-Driven Care, and ≥84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders (health care professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers). Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.Additional information is available at www.mascc.org, www.asco.org/standards and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Palliative Care as a Component of High-Value and Cost-Saving Care During Hospitalization for Metastatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that palliative care (PC) can improve quality of life and survival for outpatients with advanced cancer, but there are limited population-based data on the value of inpatient PC. We assessed PC as a component of high-value care among a nationally representative sample of inpatients with metastatic cancer and identified hospitalization characteristics significantly associated with high costs. METHODS: Hospitalizations of patients 18 years and older with a primary diagnosis of metastatic cancer from the National Inpatient Sample from 2010 to 2019 were analyzed. We used multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to assess medical services, patient demographics, and hospital characteristics associated with higher charges billed to insurance and hospital costs. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to determine cost savings associated with provision of PC. RESULTS: Among 397,691 hospitalizations from 2010 to 2019, the median charge per admission increased by 24.9%, from $44,904 in US dollars (USD) to $56,098 USD, whereas the median hospital cost remained stable at $14,300 USD. Receipt of inpatient PC was associated with significantly lower charges (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.64]; P < .001) and costs (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.61]; P < .001). Factors associated with high charges were receipt of invasive medical ventilation (P < .001) or systemic therapy (P < .001), Hispanic patients (P < .001), young age (18-49 years, P < .001), and for-profit hospitals (P < .001). PC provision was associated with a $1,310 USD (-13.6%, P < .001) reduction in costs per hospitalization compared with no PC, independent of the receipt of invasive care and age. CONCLUSION: Inpatient PC is associated with reduced hospital costs for patients with metastatic cancer, irrespective of age and receipt of aggressive interventions. Integration of inpatient PC may de-escalate costs incurred through low-value inpatient interventions.

Financial Toxicity in Radiation Oncology: Impact for Our Patients and for Practicing Radiation Oncologists.

With rising costs of diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship, financial burdens on patients with cancer and negative effects from high costs, called financial toxicity (FT), are growing. Research suggests that FT may be experienced by more than half of working-age cancer survivors and a similar proportion may incur debt or avoid recommended prescription medications due to treatment costs. As FT can lead to worse physical, psychological, financial, and survival outcomes, there is a discrete need to identify research gaps around this issue that constrain the development and implementation of effective screening and innovative care delivery interventions. Prior research, including within a radiation oncology-specific context, has sought to identify the scope of FT among patients with cancer, develop assessment tools to evaluate patient risk, quantify financial sacrifices, and qualify care compromises that occur when cancer care is unaffordable. FT is a multifactorial problem and potential solutions should be pursued at all levels of the health care system (patient-provider, institutional, and systemic) with specific regard for patients' individual/local contexts. Solutions may include selecting alternative treatment schedules, discussing financial concerns with patients, providing financial navigation services, low-cost transportation options, and system-wide health policy shifts. This review summarizes existing FT research, describes tools developed to measure FT, and suggests areas for intervention and study to help improve FT and outcomes for radiation oncology patients.

Access to Financial Assistance Programs and Their Impact on Overall Spending on Oral Anticancer Medications at an Integrated Specialty Pharmacy.

PURPOSE: Financial assistance (FA) programs are increasingly used to help patients afford oral anticancer medications (OAMs), but access to such programs and their impact on out-of-pocket (OOP) spending has not been well explored. This study aimed to (1) characterize the impact of receipt of FA on both OOP spending and likelihood of catastrophic spending on OAMs and (2) evaluate racial/ethnic disparities in access to FA programs. METHODS: Patients with a cancer diagnosis prescribed an OAM anytime between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021 were included in this retrospective, single-center study at an integrated specialty pharmacy affiliated with a tertiary academic cancer center. Fixed-effect regression models were used to characterize the impact of receipt of FA on overall spending and likelihood of catastrophic spending on OAMs, as well as explore the association of race/ethnicity with receipt of FA. RESULTS: Across 1,186 patients prescribed an OAM, 37% received FA. Receipt of FA was associated with lower annual spending on OAMs (ß = -$1,236 US dollars [USD; 95% CI, -$1,841 to -$658], P < .001) but not reduced risk of catastrophic spending (odds ratio [OR], 0.442 [95% CI, 0.755 to 3.199], P = .23). Non-White patients (OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.85], P = .004) and patients who spoke English as a second language (OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.90], P = .02) were less likely to receive FA compared with White and English-speaking patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: FA programs can mitigate high OOP spending but not for patients who spend at catastrophic levels. There are racial/ethnic and language disparities in access to such programs. Future studies should evaluate access to FA programs across diverse delivery settings.

Pharmacy Assistance Programs for Oral Anticancer Drugs: A Narrative Review.

Oral anticancer medications (OAMs) are high priced with a significant cost-sharing burden to patients, which can lead to catastrophic financial, psychosocial, and clinical repercussions. Cost-conscious prescribing and inclusion of low-cost alternatives can help mitigate this burden, but cost transparency at the point of prescribing remains a major barrier to doing so. Pharmacy assistance programs, including co-payment cards and patient assistance programs administered by manufacturers and foundation-based grants, remain an essential resource for patients facing prohibitive co-payments for OAMs. However, access to these programs is fraught with complexities, including lack of trained financial navigators, limited transparency on eligibility criteria, onerous documentation burdens, and limits in available funding. Despite these drawbacks and the potential for such programs to incentivize manufacturers to keep list prices high, assistance programs have been demonstrated to improve financial well-being for patients with cancer. The increasing development of integrated specialty pharmacies with dedicated, trained pharmacy staff can help improve and standardize access to such programs, but these services are disproportionately available to patients seen at tertiary care centers. Multistakeholder interventions are needed to mitigate the burden of cost sharing for OAMs, including increased clinician knowledge of financial resources and novel assistance mechanisms, investment of institutions in trained financial navigation services and centralized platforms to identify assistance programs, and policies to cap out-of-pocket spending and improve transparency of rates charged by pharmacy benefit managers to a health plan.

Trends in Utilization and Medicare Spending on Short-Course Radiation Therapy for Breast and Prostate Cancer: An Episode-Based Analysis From 2015 to 2019.

PURPOSE: Evidence supports the value of shorter, similarly efficacious, and potentially more cost-effective hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) regimens in many clinical scenarios for breast cancer (BC) and prostate cancer (PC). However, practice patterns vary considerably. We used the most recent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data to assess trends in RT cost and practice patterns among episodes of BC and PC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all external beam RT episodes for BC and PC from 2015 to 2019 to assess predictors of short-course RT (SCRT) use and calculated spending differences. Multivariable logistic regression defined adjusted odds ratios of receipt of SCRT over longer-course RT (LCRT) by treatment modality, age, year of diagnosis, type of practice, and the interaction between year and treatment setting. Medicare spending was evaluated using multivariable linear regression controlling for duration of RT regimen (SCRT vs LCRT) in addition to the above covariables. RESULTS: Of 143,729 BC episodes and 114,214 PC episodes, 63,623 (44.27%) and 25,955 (22.72%) were SCRT regimens, respectively. Median total spending for SCRT regimens among BC episodes was $9418 (interquartile range [IQR], $7966-$10,983) versus $13,602 (IQR, $11,814-$15,499) for LCRT. Among PC episodes, median total spending was $6924 (IQR, $4,509-$12,905) for stereotactic body RT, $18,768 (IQR, $15,421-$20,740) for moderate hypofractionation, and $27,319 (IQR, $25,446-$29,421) for LCRT. On logistic regression, receipt of SCRT was associated with older age among both BC and PC episodes as well as treatment at hospital-affiliated over freestanding sites (P < .001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: In this evaluation of BC and PC RT episodes from 2015 to 2019, we found that shorter-course RT resulted in lower costs than longer-course RT. SCRT was also more common in hospital-affiliated sites. Future research focusing on potential payment incentives encouraging SCRT when clinically appropriate in the 2 most common cancers treated with RT will be valuable as the field continues to prospectively evaluate cost-effective hypofractionation in other disease sites.

Unwinding of Medicaid Continuous Enrollment Exposes Millions to Disrupted Care-"Be Kind, Rewind".

This Viewpoint discusses the causes and consequences of Medicaid unwinding and disenrollment and proposes solutions to minimize disenrollment and improve coverage uptake and health care access.

Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation for HER2-Positive Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer historically exhibited the most adverse local outcomes and, consequently, has had limited representation among trials of partial breast irradiation (PBI). We hypothesized that with contemporary HER2-targeted agents, patients may now exhibit excellent disease control outcomes after adjuvant PBI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using a prospectively maintained institutional database, we identified patients with HER2+ breast cancer treated with breast conserving surgery (BCS) and PBI from 2000 to 2022. Salient clinicopathologic and treatment parameters were collected. All patients received external beam PBI to 40 Gy in 10 daily fractions. Cumulative incidence functions were calculated to estimate the incidence of local recurrence (LR) with the competing risk of death. RESULTS: We identified 1248 patients who underwent PBI at our institution, of whom the study cohort comprised 52 (4%) with HER2+ breast cancer (median age, 64 years; range, 44-87). Nearly all had T1 tumors (98%; median size, 12 mm [range, 1-21 mm]). Most had estrogen receptor positive disease (88%), and all patients had negative surgical margins. Nearly all underwent sentinel node biopsy (94%), with the remainder undergoing no surgical axillary evaluation. Forty-two (81%) received chemotherapy; 40 (77%), hormone therapy; and 42 (81%), HER2-directed therapy, most commonly trastuzumab. At 143.8 person-years of follow-up (range, 7-226 months for each patient), we observed 2 LR events at 14 and 26 months, respectively, yielding a 2-year LR rate of 3.8%. No regional or distant recurrences were observed, nor were any breast-specific mortality events. Two deaths were observed, both without evidence of disease. CONCLUSIONS: Among a cohort of patients with HER2+ early-stage breast cancer managed with BCS and PBI, we observed a 2-year LR rate of 3.8%, with no regional or distant recurrences and excellent overall survival. These findings require confirmation with longer follow-up among larger cohorts but appear consistent with the excellent results of contemporary randomized trials of PBI unselected for HER2 status.

Trends in Location of Death for Individuals With Ovarian Cancer in the United States.

Using the publicly available Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's WONDER (Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research) database from 2003 to 2019, we evaluated associations between decedent characteristics and location of death for patients with ovarian malignancy. We found that Black, Native American, Asian American, and Hispanic patients were more likely to die in hospitals than White patients, despite an overall reduction in hospital deaths and an overall increase in hospice facility deaths. Additionally, patients with lesser educational attainment were more likely to die in nursing facilities and less likely to die in hospice facilities. Although there may be some contribution from cultural preferences, these findings may represent disparities in access to palliative care affecting people with cancer from racial and ethnic minoritized groups.

Financial hardship for patients with cancer and caregivers at end of life in the USA: narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Patients and their families face financial hardship during cancer treatment, which may intensify at end of life (EOL) due to increased symptoms and care needs. We undertook a narrative literature review to describe the current understanding of the causes, impacts and factors associated with financial hardship at EOL. We identify gaps in research, policy and clinical practice and propose steps to mitigate financial hardship for patients and caregivers at EOL. METHODS: We conducted a Medline search to identify US studies since 2000 that examined EOL financial hardship for patients with cancer and their caregivers. RESULTS: Twenty-seven adult and four paediatric studies met review criteria. Adults with cancer and their caregivers face significant financial hardship at EOL and in bereavement, especially due to employment changes and informal caregiving time costs. Financial hardship may be higher for younger caregivers and for patients who are uninsured, low income, rural, with high symptom burdens or with certain cancer types. The few paediatric studies showed high financial hardship and employment impact lasting well beyond a child's death. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited literature examining financial hardship at EOL in the USA, especially in paediatrics. Priorities for future research include longitudinal studies in diverse populations of patients with cancer and informal caregivers using standardised financial hardship measures. Policies to address financial hardship at EOL, especially with hospice care, should include insurance coverage for family caregiving and medical leave policies. There is need for increased financial hardship screening at EOL and in bereavement and a need for financial navigation interventions.

Cervical cancer treatment update: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology clinical practice statement.

Cervical cancer is the most commonly diagnosed gynecologic cancer worldwide. Although the incidence has declined with increased screening and higher uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in high-income countries, this disease remains the second highest cause of cancer mortality among women in low- and middle-income countries. In this clinical practice statement, we describe therapies for cervical cancer by treatment setting, as well as quality of life, financial toxicity, and disparities associated with this disease. In addition to chemotherapy and radiation, therapeutic strategies for cervical cancer include immune checkpoint blockade, antiangiogenics, and antibody-drug conjugates. Optimal treatment for recurrent cervical cancer remains an area of unmet need, necessitating further exploration of rational and innovative treatment approaches, including cell and immune-based therapies. Importantly, development of effective therapies for cervical cancer must incorporate strategies to ensure universal equitable access to HPV vaccination, screening, and treatment. Important consequences of the disease and treatment that impact quality of life must also be addressed. Patients with cervical cancer are at increased risk for financial toxicity, which can lead to downstream detrimental effects on physical, financial, and career outcomes. Underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities in gynecologic oncology clinical trials highlights the urgent need for collaborative and focused initiatives to bridge the significant divide and alleviate inequalities in the prevention and treatment of cervical cancer.

The Patient Experience of Prior Authorization for Cancer Care.

Importance: Prior authorization (PA) requires clinicians and patients to navigate a complex approval pathway. Resultant delays and denials can be particularly problematic for patients with cancer, who often need urgent treatment or symptom management. Objective: To investigate the patient perspective of PA for cancer-related care, including perceptions about the process, outcomes (including delays and denials), and patient administrative burden. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, anonymous survey used a convenience sample of patients with PA experience. Participants were recruited using social media and email lists of US-based cancer advocacy organizations from July 1 to October 6, 2022. Exposure: Prior authorization for any cancer-related service. Main Outcomes and Measures: Delays to care, outcome of PA, communication, and changes in anxiety (measured on a scale of 0-100, with 0 indicating no anxiety and higher scores indicating higher levels of anxiety) and trust. Results: Of 178 respondents (158 women [88%], 151 non-Hispanic White respondents [84%], 164 respondents [92%] <65 years), 112 (63%) reported that their cancer care was approved and given as recommended, and 39 (22%) did not receive recommended care due to delays or denials. Most respondents (123 [69%]) reported a PA-related delay in care; of those with delayed care, 90 (73%) reported a delay of 2 or more weeks. Most respondents (119 [67%]) had to personally become involved in the PA process; 35 (20%) spent 11 or more hours dealing with PA issues. Overall, the PA experience was rated as bad (70 [40%]) or horrible (55 of 174 [32%]); ratings were associated with the length of delay (ρ = 0.36; P < .001) and the time spent on PA (ρ = 0.42; P < .001). Self-reported PA-related anxiety was higher than usual anxiety (mean [SD] score, 74.7 [20.2] vs 37.5 [22.6]; P < .001) and was correlated with delay length (ρ = 0.16; P = .04), time spent on PA (ρ = 0.27; P < .001), and overall PA experience (ρ = 0.34; P < .001). After PA, 159 respondents (89%) trusted their insurance company less, and 148 respondents (83%) trusted the health care system less. Patient involvement in the PA process was associated with increased odds of distrusting their insurance company (ß = 6.0; 95% CI, 1.9-19.2) and the health care system (ß = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.4-8.1) and of having a negative experience (ß = 6.6; 95% CI, 3.1-14.3). Conclusions and Relevance: This survey-based cross-sectional study of the patient experience with PA highlights an adverse outcome of PA: 22% of patients did not receive the care recommended by their treatment team because of PA. Most respondents experienced a delay in recommended oncology care, and delays were associated with increased anxiety, a negative perception of the PA process, and patient administrative burden.

Using Real-World Data to Explore the Impact of One-Time Financial Grants Among Young Adult Cancer Survivors.

Young adult (YA) cancer survivors experience worse financial outcomes than older survivors. This analysis used data from Expect Miracles Foundation to explore the impact of one-time financial grants on financial well-being and access to health care. Among 300 respondents, the average grant was $1526 (standard deviation = $587; range $300-$3000). Respondents reported improved ability to pay expenses (t = 4.45, p < 0.001), increased financial decision-making power (t = 2.79, p = 0.06), decreased medical debt impact (t = 2.1, p = 0.04), improved transportation access (t = 2.38, p = 0.02), and fewer challenges in accessing care (t = 3.0, p = 0.005) 6 months after receiving a financial grant. Financial assistance offers YAs an opportunity to meet medical and nonmedical expenses.