Navigating financial toxicity in patients with cancer: A multidisciplinary management approach.

Approximately one-half of individuals with cancer face personal economic burdens associated with the disease and its treatment, a problem known as financial toxicity (FT). FT more frequently affects socioeconomically vulnerable individuals and leads to subsequent adverse economic and health outcomes. Whereas multilevel systemic factors at the policy, payer, and provider levels drive FT, there are also accompanying intervenable patient-level factors that exacerbate FT in the setting of clinical care delivery. The primary strategy to intervene on FT at the patient level is financial navigation. Financial navigation uses comprehensive assessment of patients' risk factors for FT, guidance toward support resources, and referrals to assist patient financial needs during cancer care. Social workers or nurse navigators most frequently lead financial navigation. Oncologists and clinical provider teams are multidisciplinary partners who can support optimal FT management in the context of their clinical roles. Oncologists and clinical provider teams can proactively assess patient concerns about the financial hardship and employment effects of disease and treatment. They can respond by streamlining clinical treatment and care delivery planning and incorporating FT concerns into comprehensive goals of care discussions and coordinated symptom and psychosocial care. By understanding how age and life stage, socioeconomic, and cultural factors modify FT trajectory, oncologists and multidisciplinary health care teams can be engaged and informative in patient-centered, tailored FT management. The case presentations in this report provide a practical context to summarize authors' recommendations for patient-level FT management, supported by a review of key supporting evidence and a discussion of challenges to mitigating FT in oncology care. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:437-453.

A proactive financial navigation intervention in patients with newly diagnosed gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Many cancer patients and caregivers experience financial hardship, leading to poor outcomes. Gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer patients are particularly at risk for financial hardship given the intensity of treatment. This pilot randomized study among gastric/GEJ cancer patients and caregivers tested a proactive financial navigation (FN) intervention to obtain a signal of efficacy to inform a larger, more rigorous randomized study. METHODS: We tested a 3-month proactive FN intervention among gastric/GEJ cancer patients and caregivers compared to usual care. Caregiver participation was optional. The primary endpoint was incidence of financial hardship, defined as follows: accrual of debt, income decline of ≥ 20%, or taking loans to pay for treatment. Data from participant surveys and documentation by partner organizations delivering the FN intervention was analyzed and outcomes were compared between study arms. RESULTS: Nineteen patients and 12 caregivers consented. Primary FN resources provided included insurance navigation, budget planning, and help with out-of-pocket medical expenses. Usual care patients were more likely to experience financial hardship (50% vs 40%) and declines in quality of life (37.5% vs 0%) compared to intervention patients. Caregivers in both arms reported increased financial stress and poorer quality of life over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Proactive financial navigation has potentially positive impacts on financial hardship and quality of life for cancer patients and more large-scale randomized interventions should be conducted to rigorously explore the impact of similar interventions. Interventions that have the potential to lessen caregiver financial stress and burden need further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TRN: NCT03986502, June 14, 2019.

KRAS Mutation Variants and Co-occurring PI3K Pathway Alterations Impact Survival for Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinomas.

BACKGROUND: KRAS variant alleles may have differential biological properties which impact prognosis and therapeutic options in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with advanced PDA who received first-line therapy and underwent blood and/or tumor genomic sequencing at the University of Washington between 2013 and 2020. We examined the incidence of KRAS mutation variants with and without co-occurring PI3K or other genomic alterations and evaluated the association of these mutations with clinicopathological characteristics and survival using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six patients had genomic sequencing data; KRAS mutations were identified in 111 PDA and included the following variants: G12D (43)/G12V (35)/G12R (23)/other (10). PI3K pathway mutations (26% vs. 8%) and homologous recombination DNA repair (HRR) defects (35% vs. 12.5%) were more common among KRAS G12R vs. non-G12R mutated cancers. Patients with KRAS G12R vs. non-G12R cancers had significantly longer overall survival (OS) (HR 0.55) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.58), adjusted for HRR pathway co-mutations among other covariates. Within the KRAS G12R group, co-occurring PI3K pathway mutations were associated with numerically shorter OS (HR 1.58), while no effect was observed on PFS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PDA harboring KRAS G12R vs. non-G12R mutations have longer survival, but this advantage was offset by co-occurring PI3K alterations. The KRAS/PI3K genomic profile could inform therapeutic vulnerabilities in patients with PDA.

Inequitable access to surveillance colonoscopy among Medicare beneficiaries with surgically resected colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: After colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery, surveillance with colonoscopy is an important step for the early detection of local recurrence. Unfortunately, surveillance colonoscopy is underused, especially among racial/ethnic minorities. This study assesses the association between patient and neighborhood factors and receipt of surveillance colonoscopy. METHODS: This retrospective, population-based cohort study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked data (2009-2014). Beneficiaries with surgically resected stage II or III CRC between the ages of 66 and 85 years were identified, and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the effect of factors on receipt of colonoscopy. RESULTS: Overall, 57.5% of the patients received initial surveillance colonoscopy. After adjustments for all factors, Blacks and Hispanics had lower odds of receiving colonoscopy than non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs; 29.6% for Blacks; P = .002; 12.9% for Hispanics; P > .05). NHWs with Medicaid coverage had 35% lower odds of surveillance colonoscopy than NHWs without Medicaid coverage. Minority patients with Medicaid were more likely to receive colonoscopy than their racial/ethnic counterparts without Medicaid coverage (P > .05). Hispanics residing in neighborhoods with incomes of ≥$90,000 had significantly lower odds of surveillance colonoscopy than Hispanics residing in neighborhoods with incomes of $0 to $30,000. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of initial surveillance colonoscopy remains low, and there are acute disparities between Black and NHW patients. The association between factors that assess a patient's ability to access colonoscopy and actual receipt of colonoscopy suggests inequitable access to surveillance colonoscopy within and across racial/ethnic groups.

Impact of performance status on treatment outcomes: A real-world study of advanced urothelial cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represent an appealing treatment for patients with advanced urothelial cancer (aUC) and a poor performance status (PS). However, the benefit of ICIs for patients with a poor PS remains unknown. It was hypothesized that a poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS (≥2 vs 0-1) would correlate with shorter overall survival (OS) in patients receiving ICIs. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, clinicopathologic, treatment, and outcome data were collected for patients with aUC who were treated with ICIs at 18 institutions (2013-2019). The overall response rate (ORR) and OS were compared for patients with an ECOG PS of 0 to 1 and patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 2 at ICI initiation. The association between a new ICI in the last 30 and 90 days of life (DOL) and death location was also tested. RESULTS: Of the 519 patients treated with ICIs, 395 and 384 were included in OS and ORR analyses, respectively, with 26% and 24% having a PS ≥ 2. OS was higher in those with a PS of 0 to 1 than those with a PS ≥ 2 who were treated in the first line (median, 15.2 vs 7.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .01) but not in subsequent lines (median, 9.8 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.78; P = .27). ORRs were similar for patients with a PS of 0 to 1 and patients with a PS ≥ 2 in both lines. Of the 288 patients who died, 10% and 32% started ICIs in the last 30 and 90 DOL, respectively. ICI initiation in the last 30 DOL was associated with increased odds of death in a hospital (odds ratio, 2.89; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Despite comparable ORRs, ICIs may not overcome the negative prognostic role of a poor PS, particularly in the first-line setting, and the initiation of ICIs in the last 30 DOL was associated with hospital death location.

A Pilot Study of a Comprehensive Financial Navigation Program in Patients With Cancer and Caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have engaged patients and caregivers in interventions to alleviate financial hardship. We collaborated with Consumer Education and Training Services (CENTS), Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF), and Family Reach (FR) to assess the feasibility of enrolling patient-caregiver dyads in a program that provides financial counseling, insurance navigation, and assistance with medical and cost of living expenses. METHODS: Patients with solid tumors aged ≥18 years and their primary caregiver received a financial education video, monthly contact with a CENTS counselor and PAF case manager for 6 months, and referral to FR for help with unpaid cost of living bills (eg, transportation or housing). Patient financial hardship and caregiver burden were measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity-Patient-Reported Outcomes (COST-PRO) and Caregiver Strain Index (CSI) measures, respectively, at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty patients (median age, 59.5 years; 40% commercially insured) and 18 caregivers (67% spouses) consented (78% dyad participation rate). Many participants faced cancer-related financial hardships prior to enrollment, such as work change or loss (45% of patients; 39% of caregivers) and debt (64% of patients); 39% of caregivers reported high levels of financial burden at enrollment. Subjects received $11,000 in assistance (mean, $772 per household); 66% of subjects with income ≤$50,000 received cost-of-living assistance. COST-PRO and CSI scores did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-caregiver dyads were willing to participate in a financial navigation program that addresses various financial issues, particularly cost of living expenses in lower income participants. Future work should address financial concerns at diagnosis and determine whether doing so improves patient and caregiver outcomes.

A theoretical model of financial burden after cancer diagnosis.

Current models of financial burden after cancer do not adequately define types of financial burden, moderators or causes. We propose a new theoretical model to address these gaps. This model delineates the components of financial burden as material and psychological as well as healthcare-specific (affording treatment) versus general (affording necessities). Psychological financial burden is further divided into worry about future costs and rumination about past and current financial burden. The model hypothesizes costs and employment changes as causes, and moderators include precancer socioeconomic status and post-diagnosis factors. The model outlines outcomes affected by financial burden, including depression and mortality. Theoretically derived measures of financial burden, interventions and policy changes to address the causes of financial burden in cancer are needed.

Docetaxel, Oxaliplatin, and 5-Fluorouracil (DOF) in Metastatic and Unresectable Gastric/Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: A Phase II Study with Long-Term Follow-Up.

LESSONS LEARNED: Adding docetaxel to the modified FOLFOX7 backbone (DOF) is a feasible three-drug combination therapy for advanced gastric cancer with high activity, providing evidence that leucovorin is not necessary in this setting.The DOF regimen represents an alternative to the FLOT (5-FU 2,600 mg/m2 as 24-hour infusion with leucovorin 200 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, and docetaxel 50 mg/m2) regimen that can be considered in select patients with advanced gastric cancer and is a potential choice in the curative setting. BACKGROUND: The combination of docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) demonstrates high response rates in advanced gastric cancer, albeit with increased toxicity. Given the efficacy of platinum-taxane-fluoropyrimidine regimens, this phase II study evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of docetaxel, oxaliplatin, and 5-FU (DOF) for the treatment of metastatic or unresectable gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Patients with metastatic or unresectable gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma with no prior therapy for metastatic disease received docetaxel 50 mg/m2 on day 1, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on day 1, and 5-FU 2,400 mg/m2 continuous intravenous infusion over 46 hours; cycles were repeated every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Forty-four patients were enrolled. Assessment of treatment response and toxicity was feasible in 41 and 43 patients, respectively. ORR was 73.2% (68.3% partial response; 4.9% complete response). Therapy was discontinued for progressive disease in 53%, toxicity in 26%, and death on treatment in 16%. Two patients underwent surgical resection. Thirty-three patients (76.7%) received at least seven cycles (7-34). Grade 3-4 toxicities occurred in 31 patients (72.1%), including neutropenia (23.3%), neurologic (20.9%), and diarrhea (14.0%). Median overall survival was 10.3 months. CONCLUSION: DOF demonstrates a high response rate, expected safety profile, and prolonged survival and remains an option for select patients with unresectable or metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma.

Pembrolizumab for patients with PD-L1-positive advanced gastric cancer (KEYNOTE-012): a multicentre, open-label, phase 1b trial.

BACKGROUND: Expression of PD-L1 has been shown to be upregulated in some patients with gastric cancer. As part of the phase 1b KEYNOTE-012 study, we aimed to assess the safety and activity of the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab in patients with PD-L1-positive recurrent or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastro-oesophageal junction. METHODS: This study was a multicentre, open-label, phase 1b trial done at 13 cancer research centres in the USA, Israel, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. We enrolled patients with PD-L1-positive recurrent or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastro-oesophageal junction. Patients received intravenous pembrolizumab at 10 mg/kg once every 2 weeks for 24 months or until progression or unacceptable toxic effects occurred. Response was assessed every 8 weeks in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. The primary objectives were safety in patients who received at least one dose of pembrolizumab and the proportion of patients achieving overall responses in patients who received at least one pembrolizumab dose and who either had a post-baseline scan or who discontinued therapy because of clinical disease progression or a treatment-related adverse event before the first post-baseline scan. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01848834, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: From Oct 23, 2013, to May 5, 2014, 39 patients were enrolled. 36 were evaluable for response by central assessment. Eight (22%, 95% CI 10-39) patients were judged to have had an overall response at central review; all responses were partial. All 39 patients were included in the safety analyses. Five (13%) patients had a total of six grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events, consisting of two cases of grade 3 fatigue, one case each of grade 3 pemphigoid, grade 3 hypothyroidism, and grade 3 peripheral sensory neuropathy, and one case of grade 4 pneumonitis. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: In this population of patients with recurrent or metastatic PD-L1-positive gastric cancer, pembrolizumab had a manageable toxicity profile and promising antitumour activity, warranting further study in phase 2 and 3 trials. FUNDING: Merck & Co.

Proton therapy posterior beam approach with pencil beam scanning for esophageal cancer : Clinical outcome, dosimetry, and feasibility.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to present the dosimetry, feasibility, and preliminary clinical results of a novel pencil beam scanning (PBS) posterior beam technique of proton treatment for esophageal cancer in the setting of trimodality therapy. METHODS: From February 2014 to June 2015, 13 patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (T3-4N0-2M0; 11 adenocarcinoma, 2 squamous cell carcinoma) were treated with trimodality therapy (neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy). Eight patients were treated with uniform scanning (US) and 5 patients were treated with a single posterior-anterior (PA) beam PBS technique with volumetric rescanning for motion mitigation. Comparison planning with PBS was performed using three plans: AP/PA beam arrangement; PA plus left posterior oblique (LPO) beams, and a single PA beam. Patient outcomes, including pathologic response and toxicity, were evaluated. RESULTS: All 13 patients completed chemoradiation to 50.4 Gy (relative biological effectiveness, RBE) and 12 patients underwent surgery. All 12 surgical patients had an R0 resection and pathologic complete response was seen in 25 %. Compared with AP/PA plans, PA plans have a lower mean heart (14.10 vs. 24.49 Gy, P < 0.01), mean stomach (22.95 vs. 31.33 Gy, P = 0.038), and mean liver dose (3.79 vs. 5.75 Gy, P = 0.004). Compared to the PA/LPO plan, the PA plan reduced the lung dose: mean lung dose (4.96 vs. 7.15 Gy, P = 0.020) and percentage volume of lung receiving 20 Gy (V20; 10 vs. 17 %, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Proton therapy with a single PA beam PBS technique for preoperative treatment of esophageal cancer appears safe and feasible.

The Parity Paradigm: Can Legislation Help Reduce the Cost Burden of Oral Anticancer Medications?

Over the last decade, there has been increased development and use of oral anticancer medications, which sometimes leads to high cost sharing for patients. Drug parity laws require insurance plans to cover oral anticancer medications with the same cost sharing as intravenous/injected chemotherapy or have a capped limit on out-of-pocket costs. There are currently 36 enacted state laws (plus the District of Columbia) addressing drug parity, but no federal laws. In this policy perspective piece, we discuss the history, opportunities, and limitations of drug parity laws in oncology. We also discuss the implications of provisions of the Affordable Care Act and other proposed policy reforms on financing oral chemotherapy.

Cost Considerations in the Evaluation and Treatment of Colorectal Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: As the cost of cancer care in the United States continues to climb at an alarming rate, it is critically important for the oncology community to begin embracing interventions that provide value to patients and society. This is particularly important in the field of colorectal cancer, where many new high-priced drugs have emerged over the past several years. While adjuvant chemotherapy (FOLFOX and capecitabine) has been shown to fall within accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness, many interventions in the metastatic setting have not. Bevacizumab in the first- and second-line settings as well as EGFR inhibitors across all lines of therapy have been associated with unfavorable cost-effectiveness ratios in several studies conducted in the United States and other countries. A key strategy in improving the cost-effectiveness of CRC treatment in the advanced setting will therefore be to identify predictive biomarkers (e.g., RAS mutation) for therapeutic response to existing drugs as well as drugs in development so that high-priced therapies can be administered to patients most likely to benefit and avoided in those who would not.

Survival and lifetime costs associated with first-line bevacizumab use in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to investigate clinical effectiveness and incremental lifetime costs associated with first-line bevacizumab in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with mCRC in 2004-2007 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database and stratified by first-line treatment (no chemotherapy [CTx], CTx alone, CTx plus bevacizumab). The impact of first-line bevacizumab on survival was investigated using a propensity score adjusted multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. Mean lifetime costs for each cohort were calculated using Medicare claims for all services rendered between diagnosis and end of follow-up, adjusting for death and censoring. RESULTS: A total of 4,414 patients (mean age: 77.3 years) were identified, of whom 15% received first-line bevacizumab. Among first-line-treated patients, bevacizumab receipt was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.85 [95% confidence interval: 0.75-0.97]; p = .013), and this benefit was limited to patients who received >1 month of bevacizumab therapy. Median and mean survival were greatest in patients treated with CTx plus bevacizumab relative to CTx alone (CTx plus bevacizumab median 19.4 months [mean 28.0 months] vs. CTx alone median 15.1 months [mean 22.9 months]; p < .001), as were mean lifetime costs (mean per patient cost $143,284 vs. $111,280). Compared with CTx alone, CTx plus bevacizumab was associated with a 5.1-month increase in mean survival and a $32,004 increase in mean lifetime treatment costs, with an incremental cost of $75,303 per life-year gained. CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab use is associated with longer survival than CTx alone in older patients treated in real-world clinical settings, at an incremental cost of $75,303 per life-year gained.

Financial hardship after cancer: revision of a conceptual model and development of patient-reported outcome measures.

Aim: This qualitative study refined a conceptual model of financial hardship and developed measures corresponding to model constructs. Methods: Eighteen women with breast cancer recruited through a comprehensive cancer center completed interviews. A qualitative framework analysis was conducted of the interviews. Results: Participants experienced varying levels of financial hardship. Protective factors included good health insurance, work accommodations and social support. Participants worried about cancer care costs and employment. Programs for alleviating financial hardship had high administrative burdens. Four preliminary financial hardship measures were developed: coping, impacts, depression and worry. Conclusion: Reducing administrative barriers to benefits could reduce financial hardship after cancer. More research is needed on the effects of out-of-network/formulary care and denials of coverage and to validate the measures.

Financial hardship is common after cancer diagnosis. This study interviewed women with breast cancer about financial hardship. Financial hardship included how participants coped with healthcare costs and reduced income. Worry and depression were also aspects of financial hardship. Administrative burdens led to financial hardship. Administrative burdens were actions patients had to take to access financial support. This study also created surveys to measure financial hardship in cancer.

This study revised a conceptual model of financial burden after cancer. Measures were developed for each financial burden dimension from the model. Reducing administrative hurdles for work accommodations and insurance could prevent burden.

Association of Major Adverse Financial Events and Later-Stage Cancer Diagnosis in the United States.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the prevalence of specific major adverse financial events (AFEs)-bankruptcies, liens, and evictions-before a cancer diagnosis and their association with later-stage cancer at diagnosis. METHODS: Patients age 20-69 years diagnosed with cancer during 2014-2015 were identified from the Seattle, Louisiana, and Georgia SEER population-based cancer registries. Registry data were linked with LexisNexis consumer data to identify patients with a history of court-documented AFEs before cancer diagnosis. The association of AFEs and later-stage cancer diagnoses (stages III/IV) was assessed using separate sex-specific multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 101,649 patients with cancer linked to LexisNexis data, 36,791 (36.2%) had a major AFE reported before diagnosis. The mean and median timing of the AFE closest to diagnosis were 93 and 77 months, respectively. AFEs were most common among non-Hispanic Black, unmarried, and low-income patients. Individuals with previous AFEs were more likely to be diagnosed with later-stage cancer than individuals with no AFE (males-odds ratio [OR], 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.14]; P < .001; females-OR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.13 to 1.24]; P < .0001) after adjusting for age, race, marital status, income, registry, and cancer type. Associations between AFEs prediagnosis and later-stage disease did not vary by AFE timing. CONCLUSION: One third of newly diagnosed patients with cancer had a major AFE before their diagnosis. Patients with AFEs were more likely to have later-stage diagnosis, even accounting for traditional measures of socioeconomic status that influence the stage at diagnosis. The prevalence of prediagnosis AFEs underscores financial vulnerability of patients with cancer before their diagnosis, before any subsequent financial burden associated with cancer treatment.

Financial Toxicity, Time Toxicity, and Quality of Life in Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) may be on therapy for years, which can lead to financial toxicity (FinTox) or time toxicity (TimeTox). The prevalence, predictors, and quality of life (QOL) impacts of FinTox and TimeTox during different phases of MM treatment have not been characterized. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a single-center cross-sectional survey of patients with MM who had undergone transplantation. FinTox+ was defined as a COST-FACIT score <23, TimeTox+ as MM-related interactions (including phone calls) ≥1x weekly or ≥1x monthly in-person among far-residing patients, QOL using PROMIS Global Health, and functional status using patient-reported Karnofsky performance status (KPS). RESULTS: Of 252 patients, 22% and 40% met FinTox+ and TimeTox+ criteria respectively. Respective FinTox+ and TimeTox+ proportions were 22%/37% for patients on maintenance, 22%/82% with active therapy, and 20%/14% with observation. FinTox+ predictors included annual income (P < .01) and out-of-pocket costs (P < .01). TimeTox+ predictors included disease status (P < .001), caregiver status (P = .01), far-residing status (P < .001), and out-of-pocket costs (P = .03). FinTox+ was associated with a clinically meaningful decrease in mental QOL, while TimeTox+ patients were more likely to have KPS ≤ 80. CONCLUSIONS: In our large study, monetary status but not disease status predicted FinTox. Over a third of patients on maintenance reported TimeTox. FinTox+ was associated with decreased mental health, while TimeTox+ was associated with worse performance status. These two toxicities may negatively impact patient wellbeing, and studies of strategies to mitigate their impact are in development.

Defining the Role of the Modern Oncology Provider in Mitigating Financial Toxicity.

Financial toxicity, the cumulative financial hardships resulting from cancer diagnosis and treatment, is a growing problem in the United States. With the proliferation of costly novel therapeutics and improved cancer survival, financial toxicity will remain a major issue in cancer care delivery. Frontline oncology providers serve as gatekeepers in the medical system and, as such, could play essential roles in recognizing and addressing financial toxicity. Providers and health systems could help mitigate financial toxicity through routine financial toxicity screening, financial navigation, and advocacy. Specific strategies include developing and implementing financial screening instruments that can be integrated in electronic medical records and establishing team-based financial navigation programs to help patients with out-of-pocket medical costs, nonmedical spending, and insurance optimization. Finally, providers should continue to advocate for policies and legislation that decrease cost and promote value-based care. In this review, we examine opportunities for provider engagement in these areas and highlight gaps for future research.

Financial Toxicity in Cancer Care: Implications for Clinical Care and Potential Practice Solutions.

Patients with cancer face an array of financial consequences as a result of their diagnosis and treatment, collectively referred to as financial toxicity (FT). In the past 10 years, the body of literature on this subject has grown tremendously, with a recent focus on interventions and mitigation strategies. In this review, we will briefly summarize the FT literature, focusing on the contributing factors and downstream consequences on patient outcomes. In addition, we will put FT into context with our emerging understanding of the role of social determinants of health and provide a framework for understanding FT across the cancer care continuum. We will then discuss the role of the oncology community in addressing FT and outline potential strategies that oncologists and health systems can implement to reduce this undue burden on patients with cancer and their families.

Underutilization or appropriate care? Assessing adjuvant chemotherapy use and survival in 3 heterogenous subpopulations with stage II/III colorectal cancer within a large integrated health system.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines have recommended adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) for patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer, although the survival benefit is unclear. ACT is also recommended for patients with stage III colon cancer to reduce the risk of recurrence and mortality. For stage II/III rectal cancer, however, the role of perioperative chemotherapy (PCT, adjuvant or neoadjuvant) remains controversial, resulting in substantial variation in its use in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To understand real-world use and predictors of ACT or PCT use and survival outcomes in 3 heterogeneous patient groups with colorectal cancer (CRC), and to inform the evidence gap between guideline-based care and clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with an initial stage II/III CRC diagnosis between 2008 and 2013 identified from Kaiser Permanente Southern California electronic health record databases. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18-74 years at diagnosis and received primary curative surgery. We fitted mixed effects logistic regression models to evaluate predictors of ACT receipt and Cox proportional hazards models on propensity score-matched (PS-matched) samples to assess the association between ACT/PCT receipt and survival. RESULTS: We included 1,690 patients with colon cancer (stage II: 820 and stage III: 870) and 587 patients with rectal cancer (stage II: 241 and stage III: 346). We found that 65% of patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer, 15% of those with stage III colon, and 15% of those with stage II/III rectal cancer did not receive ACT/PCT. Patients with stage II colon cancer with T4 stage (odds ratio [OR] = 5.79, 95% CI = 3.33 - 10.06) and a lower comorbidity score were more likely to receive ACT (high vs low Charlson score: OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.55 - 0.87). Patients with stage III rectal cancer were more likely to receive PCT than those with stage II disease (OR = 7.85, 95% CI = 2.07 - 29.74). Patients with another cancer diagnosis prior to CRC diagnosis were less likely to receive PCT (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.16 - 0.85). ACT/PCT use was associated with improved overall survival among patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer (PS-matched hazard ratio [HR] = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.25 - 0.70) and those with stage III CRC (stage III colon: PS-matched HR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.25 - 0.36; stage III rectal: PS-matched HR = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.13 - 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: We found potential underuse of appropriate chemotherapy treatment in patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer and stage III CRC. Clinicians' and providers' decisions on ACT administration may not be fully guided by the risk of recurrence and 5-year survival benefits in stage II colon cancer. DISCLOSURES: This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (under R37-CA218413). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Racial and Ethnic Bias in Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer Recurrence When Race and Ethnicity Are Omitted as Predictors.

Importance: Including race and ethnicity as a predictor in clinical risk prediction algorithms has received increased scrutiny, but there continues to be a lack of empirical studies addressing whether simply omitting race and ethnicity from the algorithms will ultimately affect decision-making for patients of minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Objective: To examine whether including race and ethnicity as a predictor in a colorectal cancer recurrence risk algorithm is associated with racial bias, defined as racial and ethnic differences in model accuracy that could potentially lead to unequal treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective prognostic study was conducted using data from a large integrated health care system in Southern California for patients with colorectal cancer who received primary treatment between 2008 and 2013 and follow-up until December 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from January 2021 to June 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Four Cox proportional hazards regression prediction models were fitted to predict time from surveillance start to cancer recurrence: (1) a race-neutral model that explicitly excluded race and ethnicity as a predictor, (2) a race-sensitive model that included race and ethnicity, (3) a model with 2-way interactions between clinical predictors and race and ethnicity, and (4) separate models by race and ethnicity. Algorithmic fairness was assessed using model calibration, discriminative ability, false-positive and false-negative rates, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Results: The study cohort included 4230 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.3 [12.5] years; 2034 [48.1%] female; 490 [11.6%] Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander; 554 [13.1%] Black or African American; 937 [22.1%] Hispanic; and 2249 [53.1%] non-Hispanic White). The race-neutral model had worse calibration, NPV, and false-negative rates among racial and ethnic minority subgroups than non-Hispanic White individuals (eg, false-negative rate for Hispanic patients: 12.0% [95% CI, 6.0%-18.6%]; for non-Hispanic White patients: 3.1% [95% CI, 0.8%-6.2%]). Adding race and ethnicity as a predictor improved algorithmic fairness in calibration slope, discriminative ability, PPV, and false-negative rates (eg, false-negative rate for Hispanic patients: 9.2% [95% CI, 3.9%-14.9%]; for non-Hispanic White patients: 7.9% [95% CI, 4.3%-11.9%]). Inclusion of race interaction terms or using race-stratified models did not improve model fairness, likely due to small sample sizes in subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study of the racial bias in a cancer recurrence risk algorithm, removing race and ethnicity as a predictor worsened algorithmic fairness in multiple measures, which could lead to inappropriate care recommendations for patients who belong to minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Clinical algorithm development should include evaluation of fairness criteria to understand the potential consequences of removing race and ethnicity for health inequities.