Developing a Virtual Equity Hub: Adapting the Tumor Board Model for Equity in Cancer Care.

We define cancer equity as all people having as the same opportunity for cancer prevention, treatment, and survivorship care. However, marginalized populations continue to experience avoidable and unjust disparities in cancer care, access to clinical trials, and cancer survival. Racial and ethnic minorities, and individuals with low socioeconomic status, Medicaid insurance, limited health literacy, disabilities, and mental health disorders are more likely to experience delays to cancer diagnosis and less likely to receive guideline-concordant cancer care. These disparities are impacted by the social determinants of health including structural discrimination, racism, poverty, and inequities in access to healthcare and clinical trials. There is an urgent need to develop and adapt evidence-based interventions in collaboration with community partners that have potential to address the social determinants of health and build capacity for cancer care for underserved populations. We established the Virtual Equity Hub by developing a collaborative network connecting a comprehensive cancer center, academic safety net hospital, and community health centers and affiliates. The Virtual Equity Hub utilizes a virtual tumor board, an evidence-based approach that increases access to multi-specialty cancer care and oncology subspecialty expertise. We adapted the tumor board model by engaging person-centered teams of multi-disciplinary specialists across health systems, addressing the social determinants of health, and applying community-based research principles with a focus on populations with poor cancer survival. The virtual tumor board included monthly videoconferences, case discussion, sharing of expertise, and a focus on addressing barriers to care and trial participation. Specifically, we piloted virtual tumor boards for breast oncology, neuro-oncology, and individuals with cancer and serious mental illness. The Virtual Equity Hub demonstrated promise at building capacity for clinicians to care for patients with complex needs and addressing barriers to care. Research is needed to measure the impact, reach, and sustainability of virtual equity models for patients with cancer.

Addressing the Financial Burden of Cancer Clinical Trial Participation: Longitudinal Effects of an Equity Intervention.

BACKGROUND: The financial burden experienced by patients with cancer represents a barrier to clinical trial participation, and interventions targeting patients' financial concerns are needed. We sought to assess the impact of an equity intervention on clinical trial patients' financial burden. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed an equity intervention to reimburse nonclinical expenses related to trials (e.g., travel and lodging). From July 2015 to July 2017, we surveyed intervention and comparison patients matched by age, sex, cancer type, specific trial, and trial phase. We longitudinally assessed financial burden (e.g., trial-related travel and lodging cost concerns, financial wellbeing [FWB] with the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity [COST] measure) at baseline, day 45, and day 90. We used longitudinal models to assess intervention effects over time. RESULTS: Among 260 participants, intervention patients were more likely than comparison patients to have incomes under $60,000 (52% vs. 24%, p < .001) and to report travel-related (41.0% vs. 6.8%, p < 0.001) and lodging-related (32.5% vs. 2.0%, p < .001) cost concerns at baseline. Intervention patients were more likely to report travel to appointments as their most significant financial concern (24.0% vs. 7.0%, p = .001), and they had worse FWB than comparison patients (COST score: 15.32 vs. 23.88, p < .001). Over time, intervention patients experienced greater improvements in their travel-related (-10.0% vs. +1.2%, p = .010) and lodging-related (-3.9% vs. +4.0%, p = .003) cost concerns. Improvements in patients reporting travel to appointments as their most significant financial concern and COST scores were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Cancer clinical trial participants may experience substantial financial issues, and this equity intervention demonstrates encouraging results for addressing these patients' longitudinal financial burden. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Clinical trials are critical for developing novel therapies for patients with cancer, yet financial barriers may discourage some patients from participating in cancer clinical trials. This study found that patients who received financial assistance from an equity intervention experienced significant improvements over time in their concerns about the cost of travel and lodging associated with clinical trials compared with comparison patients who did not receive financial assistance from the equity intervention. Among cancer clinical trial participants, an equity intervention shows potential for addressing patients' concerns regarding clinical trial-related travel and lodging expenses.

Financial Toxicity, Symptom Burden, Illness Perceptions, and Communication Confidence in Cancer Clinical Trial Participants.

PURPOSE: Cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants are at risk for experiencing adverse associations from financial toxicity, but these remain understudied. METHODS: From July 2015 to July 2017, we prospectively enrolled CCT participants referred for financial assistance and a group of patients matched by age, sex, cancer type, trial, and trial phase. We assessed financial burden of cancer care, cost concerns about CCTs, physical (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale [ESAS]) and psychologic (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4]) symptoms, illness perceptions (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), and communication confidence (Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions). Adjusting for age, sex, race, performance status, marital status, income, insurance, and disease status, we examined associations of financial burden and cost concerns with patients' symptoms, illness perceptions, and communication confidence. RESULTS: Of 198 patients, 112 (56.6%) reported financial burden and 82 (41.4%) reported cost concerns. Higher ESAS-total (odds ratio [OR] = 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.06; P = .001), PHQ-4 depression (OR = 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.08; P < .001), PHQ-4 anxiety (OR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.55; P = .025), and more negative illness perceptions (OR = 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.07; P = .029) were associated with financial burden, but not communication confidence (OR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.02 to 1.05; P = .587). Higher ESAS-total (OR = 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.05; P = .004), PHQ-4 depression (OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.71; P = .03), PHQ-4 anxiety (OR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.53; P = .018), more negative illness perceptions (OR = 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.10; P = .001), and decreased communication confidence (OR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.00; P = .029) were associated with cost concerns. CONCLUSION: In this study of CCT participants, greater symptom burden, more negative illness perceptions, and lower communication confidence were associated with financial toxicity, underscoring the importance of addressing these issues when seeking to alleviate adverse associations of financial toxicity.