Exploring the Relationship Among Financial Hardship, Anxiety, and Depression in Patients With Cancer: A Longitudinal Study.

PURPOSE: Financial hardship (FH) is a complex issue in cancer care, affecting material conditions, well-being, and coping behaviors. This study aimed to longitudinally examine FH, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and their associations while incorporating social determinants of health and health care cost covariates in a sample of patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: This prospective, longitudinal cohort study analyzed data from 2,305 participants from the Northwestern University Improving the Management of Symptoms during and following Cancer Treatment trial. Outcomes assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postbaseline included depressive symptoms, anxiety, and FH. Analysis involved random intercept cross-lagged panel models to explore between- and within-person effects, incorporating factors such as age, sex, insurance status, neighborhood area deprivation, health care charges, out-of-pocket costs, and health literacy. RESULTS: The cohort had a mean age of 60.7 (standard deviation [SD] = 12.7) years and was mostly female (64.9%) and White (86.2%). Correlations were found between FH and depressive symptoms (r = 0.310) and anxiety (r = 0.289). A predictive relationship was observed between FH and depressive symptoms, with baseline and 6-month depressive symptom levels predicting later FH (baseline ß = .079, P = .070; 6-month ß = .072, P = .081) and 9-month FH significantly predicting 12-month depressive symptoms (ß = .083, P = .025), even after accounting for health care charges and out-of-pocket costs. Baseline and 9-month anxiety showed a predictive relationship with subsequent FH (baseline ß = .097, P = .023; 9-month ß = .071, P = .068). CONCLUSION: FH emerged as a prominent issue, with nearly half of participants experiencing some level of FH. Depressive symptoms and anxiety were related to FH. These findings underscore the need for a comprehensive approach in cancer care that concurrently addresses anxiety, depressive symptoms, and FH, recognizing their interconnected impact.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Colon Cancer: More Than Just an Optical Illusion.

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.

Quality of Life in Patients and Their Spouses and Cohabitating Partners in the Year Following a Cancer Biopsy (the Couples Cope Study): Protocol for a Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Receiving a diagnosis of cancer is a profound and often very stressful experience. Few studies have prospectively recruited patients prior to receiving a new diagnosis of cancer and included spouses or partners. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the Couples Cope Study is to understand the impact of undergoing a diagnostic biopsy and receiving a new cancer diagnosis on quality of life (QoL) in both patients and their spouses or partners, as well as on the quality of their relationship. This protocol paper describes the study design and assesses the feasibility of recruitment and retention. METHODS: Study staff reviewed the schedules of collaborating physicians using specific encounter codes to identify patients scheduled for breast or prostate biopsies. Potential participants were prescreened via the electronic health record and sent a recruitment letter at least 2 to 3 weeks prior to their biopsy procedure. Patients subsequently underwent a phone screening to determine eligibility. Patients who enrolled provided study staff with contact information for their spouses or partners. All consent forms were completed online. Surveys were completed online prior to receiving the biopsy results (baseline), and at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after the biopsy. Study staff engaged in ongoing, personalized contact with participants and sent assessment completion reminders via phone and email. RESULTS: A total of 2294 patients undergoing a breast or prostate biopsy were identified and 69% (n=1582) were eligible for phone screening following electronic health record prescreening. Of the 431 patients who underwent phone screening, 75% (n=321) were eligible to participate. Of the eligible patients, 72% (n=231) enrolled and 82% (n=190) of enrolled patients had an accompanying partner or spouse who also enrolled. A total of 77% (34/44) of patients who received a cancer diagnosis and 72% (26/36) of their spouses or partners were retained through 9 months, while 80% (53/66) of patients who received a benign diagnosis and 68% (42/62) of their partners were retained. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective recruitment of patients undergoing diagnostic biopsy and their partners is feasible and requires both strategic collaboration with providers and concerted prescreening and recruitment efforts by study staff. Importantly, this study was able to conduct all study activities online without disrupting clinical workflow and without requiring patients and their spouses or partners to come into the laboratory. Consideration should be given to the ratio of biopsies to cancer diagnoses, which can vary significantly by cancer type. Prospective studies are needed and can inform our ability to provide effective support earlier to couples facing a possible cancer diagnosis. Future studies should examine other tumor types that have received less attention in QoL studies, include behavioral and neurobiological assessments beyond self-report measures, and follow couples beyond 9 months in order to examine long-term effects on QoL. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52361.

Challenges and Solutions to Support Oncology Professionals Serving Underserved Populations With Cancer in the United States: Results From the ASCO Serving the Underserved Task Force.

PURPOSE: Little data exist regarding approaches to support oncology professionals who deliver cancer care for underserved populations. In response, ASCO developed the Serving the Underserved Task Force to learn from and support oncology professionals serving underserved populations. METHODS: The Task Force developed a 28-question survey to assess oncology professionals' experiences and strategies to support their work caring for underserved populations. The survey was deployed via an online link to 600 oncology professionals and assessed respondent and patient demographic characteristics, clinic-based processes to coordinate health-related social services, and strategies for professional society support and engagement. We used chi-square tests to evaluate whether there were associations between percent full-time equivalent (FTE) effort serving underserved populations (<50% FTE v ≥50% FTE) with responses. RESULTS: Of 462 respondents who completed the survey (77% response rate), 79 (17.1%) were Asian; 30 (6.5%) Black; 43 (9.3%) Hispanic or Latino/Latina; and 277 (60%) White. The majority (n = 366, 79.2%) had a medical doctor degree (MD). A total of 174 (37.7%) had <25% FTE, 151 (32.7%) had 25%-50% FTE, and 121 (26.2%) had ≥50% FTE effort serving underserved populations. Most best guessed patients' sociodemographic characteristics (n = 388; 84%), while 42 (9.2%) used data collected by the clinic. Social workers coordinated most health-related social services. However, in clinical settings with high proportions of underserved patients, there was greater reliance on nonclinical personnel, such as navigators (odds ratio [OR], 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07 to 4.33]) or no individual (OR, 2.55 [95% CI, 1.14 to 5.72]) for addressing mental health needs and greater reliance on physicians or advance practice practitioners (OR, 2.54 [95% CI, 1.11 to 5.81]) or no individual (OR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.09 to 3.35]) for addressing childcare or eldercare needs compared with social workers. Prioritization of solutions, which did not differ by FTE effort serving underserved populations, included a return-on-investment model to support personnel, integrated health-related social needs screening, and collaboration with the professional society on advocacy and policy. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight crucial strategies that professional societies can implement to support oncology clinicians serving underserved populations with cancer.

Advancing survivorship at a comprehensive cancer center: integrating clinical care, education and research initiatives at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The unprecedented and growing number of cancer survivors requires comprehensive quality care that includes cancer surveillance, symptom management, and health promotion to reduce morbidity and mortality and improve quality of life. However, coordinated and sustainable survivorship care has been challenged by barriers at multiple levels. We outline the survivorship programs at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center that have evolved over two decades. Our current survivorship clinics comprise STAR (Survivors Taking Action and Responsibility) for adult survivors of childhood cancers; Adult Specialty Survivorship for survivors of breast, colorectal and testicular cancers, lymphomas, and leukemias; and Gynecologic Oncology Survivorship. Care provision models align with general, disease/treatment-specific, and integrated survivorship models, respectively. Reimbursement for survivorship services has been bolstered by institutional budget allocations. We have standardized survivor education, counseling, and referrals through electronic health record (EHR)-integrated survivorship care plan (SCP) templates that incorporate partial auto-population. We developed EHR-integrated data collection tools (e.g., dashboards; SmartForm, and registry) to facilitate data analytics, personalized patient referrals, and reports to the Commission on Cancer (CoC). We report to the CoC on SCP delivery, dietitian encounters, and DEXA scans. For the last decade, our Cancer Survivorship Institute has aligned the efforts of clinicians, researchers, and educators. The institute promotes evidence-based care, high-impact research, and state-of-the-science educational programs for professionals, survivors, and the community. Future plans include expansion of clinical services and funding for applied research centered on the unique needs of post-treatment cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The survivorship programs at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center underscore the imperative for comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable survivorship care to address the needs of increasing numbers of cancer survivors, with a focus on evidence-based clinical practices, associated research, and educational initiatives.

The effect of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage on smoking status, quit attempts, and receipt of cessation support among adults with cancer: Results from nine ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trials.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is associated with adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Socioeconomic determinants influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment; little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: A modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) was administered to patients enrolled in nine ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials. We examined associations of NSD with (1) smoking status, (2) receiving tobacco cessation assessment and support, and (3) cessation behaviors. NSD was classified by tertiles of the Area Deprivation Index. Associations between NSD and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 740 patients completing the C-TUQ were 70% male, 94% White, 3% Hispanic, mean age 58.8 years. Cancer diagnoses included leukemia 263 (36%), lymphoma 141 (19%), prostate 131 (18%), breast 79 (11%), melanoma 69 (9%), myeloma 53 (7%), and head and neck 4 (0.5%). A total of 402 (54%) never smoked, 257 (35%) had formerly smoked, and 81 (11%) were currently smoking. Patients in high disadvantaged neighborhoods were approximately four times more likely to report current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.69-7.54; p = .0009), and more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.64-10.98; p = .0029), but less likely to report receiving counseling (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.58; p = .0086) versus those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Greater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with smoking but less cessation support. Increased cessation support in cancer care is needed, particularly for patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Adverse COVID-19 experiences and health-related quality of life in cancer survivors: indirect effects of COVID-19-related depression and financial burden.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors are at greater risk for poor health outcomes due to COVID-19. However, the pandemic's impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is not well known. This study hypothesized that cancer survivors' adverse COVID-19 experiences would be associated with worse HRQoL. Further, this association would be moderated by psychosocial resiliency factors (perceived social support, benefits, and ability to manage stress) and mediated by psychosocial risk factors (anxiety, depression; health, financial and social concerns). METHODS: 1,043 cancer survivors receiving care at Northwestern Medicine completed a cross-sectional survey on COVID-19 practical and psychosocial concerns from 6/2021 to 3/2022. Participants reported on 21 adverse COVID-19 experiences (e.g., COVID-19 hospitalization, death of family/friends, loss of income, medical delays). The survey assessed 9 psychosocial factors related to COVID-19: anxiety, depression; health care, financial, and social disruptions; health care satisfaction; social support, perceived benefits, and stress management skills. The FACT-G7 assessed HRQoL. Hypotheses were tested in a structural equation model. The number of reported adverse COVID-19 experiences was the primary (observed) independent variable. The dependent variable of HRQoL, and the proposed mediating and moderating factors, were entered as latent variables indicated by their respective survey items. Latent interaction terms between the independent variable and each resiliency factor tested moderation effects. Analyses were adjusted for demographic and COVID-specific variables. RESULTS: Participants were, on average, aged 58 years and diagnosed with cancer 4.9 years prior. They were majority female (73.3%), White (89.6%), non-Hispanic/Latino (94.5%), college-educated (81.7%), and vaccinated for COVID-19 (95.5%). An average of 3.8 adverse COVID-19 experiences were reported. Results of structural equation modeling demonstrated that the association between adverse COVID-19 experiences and HRQoL was explained by indirect effects through COVID-19-related depression (ß = - 0.10, percentile bootstrap 95% CI - 0.15 to - 0.07) and financial concerns (ß = - 0.04, percentile bootstrap 95% CI - 0.07 to - 0.01). Hypotheses testing moderation by resiliency factors were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse COVID-19 experiences were associated with higher depression symptoms and financial concerns about COVID-19, and in turn, worse HRQoL. Oncology clinics should be cognizant of the experience of adverse COVID-19 events when allocating depression and financial support resources.

We conducted an online survey of cancer survivors receiving treatment at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Illinois. Participants responded to a list of 21 adverse experiences related to the pandemic, such as COVID-19 hospitalization, death of family/friends, loss of income, and medical delays. They also responded to questionnaires measuring their degree of anxiety, depression, daily disruptions, health disruptions, financial disruptions, social support, perceived benefits, and ability to manage stress during the pandemic. Lastly, they responded to a questionnaire on health-related quality of life, capturing their physical symptoms, emotional symptoms, and satisfaction with life. Our survey found that people who had a greater number of adverse COVID-19 experiences had higher levels of depression and financial burden, which in turn was associated with worse health-related quality of life.

Assessing the Needs of Those Who Serve the Underserved: A Qualitative Study among US Oncology Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology established the 'Supporting Providers Serving the Underserved' (SUS) Task Force with a goal to develop recommendations to support cancer clinicians who deliver care for populations at risk for cancer disparities. As a first step, the Task Force explored barriers and facilitators to equitable cancer care delivery. METHODS: Clinicians across the United States who deliver care predominantly for low-income and racially and ethnically minoritized populations were identified based on lists generated by the Task Force and the Health Equity Committee. Through purposive sampling based on geographical location, clinicians were invited to participate in 30-60 min semi-structured interviews to explore experiences, barriers, and facilitators in their delivery of cancer care. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, imported into qualitative data management software, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thematic analysis revealed three major themes regarding barriers (lack of executive leadership recognition of resources; patient-related socio-economic needs; clinician burnout) and two major themes regarding facilitators (provider commitment, experiential training). CONCLUSIONS: Findings reveal modifiable barriers and potential solutions to facilitate equitable cancer care delivery for populations at risk for cancer disparities.

Resource and Reimbursement Barriers to Comprehensive Cancer Care Delivery: An Analysis of Association of Community Cancer Centers Survey Data.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive cancer care (CCC) delivery is recommended in guidelines and considered essential for high-quality cancer management. Barriers, such as insufficient reimbursement, prevent consistent access to and delivery of CCC. Association of Community Cancer Centers conducted a national survey to elucidate capacity and barriers to CCC delivery to inform policy and value-based payment reform. METHODS: Survey methodology included item generation with expert review, iterative piloting, and cognitive validity testing. In the final instrument, 27 supportive oncology services were assessed for availability, reasons not offered, and coverage/reimbursement. RESULTS: 204 of 704 member programs completed survey questions. Despite most services being reported as offered, a minority were funded through insurance reimbursement. The services least likely to obtain reimbursement were those that address practical and family/childcare needs (0.7%), caregiver support (1.5%), advanced care directives (1.7%), spiritual services (1.8%), and navigation (2.7%). These findings did not vary by region or practice type. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of sufficient reimbursement, staffing, and budget to provide CCC across the United States. Care models and reimbursement policies must include CCC services to optimize delivery of cancer care.

Perspectives of private payers on multicancer early-detection tests: informing research, implementation, and policy.

Emerging blood-based multicancer early-detection (MCED) tests may redefine cancer screening, reduce mortality, and address health disparities if their benefit is demonstrated. U.S. payers' coverage policies will impact MCED test adoption and access; thus, their perspectives must be understood. We examined views, coverage barriers, and evidentiary needs for MCED from 19 private payers collectively covering 150 000 000 enrollees. Most saw an MCED test's potential merit for cancers without current screening (84%), but fewer saw its merit for cancers with existing screening (37%). The largest coverage barriers were inclusion of cancers without demonstrated benefits of early diagnosis (73%), a high false-negative rate (53%), and lack of care protocols for MCED-detected but unconfirmed cancers (53%). The majority (58%) would not require mortality evidence and would accept surrogate endpoints. Most payers (64%) would accept rigorous real-world evidence in the absence of a large randomized controlled trial. The majority (74%) did not expect MCED to reduce disparities due to potential harm from overtreatment resulting from an MCED and barriers to downstream care. Payers' perspectives and evidentiary needs may inform MCED test developers, researchers producing evidence, and health systems framing MCED screening programs. Private payers should be stakeholders of a national MCED policy and equity agenda.

Yttrium-90 Radioembolization of Unresectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Long-Term Follow-up for a 136-Patient Cohort.

PURPOSE: Unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) signifies a poor prognosis with limited treatment options beyond systemic chemotherapy. This study's purpose was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and potential for downstaging to resection of yttrium-90 (Y90) radioembolization for treatment of unresectable ICC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2004 to 2020, 136 patients with unresectable ICC were treated with radioembolization at a single institution. Retrospective review was performed of a prospectively collected database. Outcomes were (1) biochemical and clinical toxicities, (2) local tumor response, (3) time to progression, and (4) overall survival (OS) after Y90. Univariate/multivariate survival analyses were performed. A subgroup analysis was performed to calculate post-resection recurrence and OS in patients downstaged to resection after Y90. RESULTS: Grade 3+ clinical and biochemical toxicities were 7.6% (n = 10) and 4.9% (n = 6), respectively. Best index lesion response was complete response in 2 (1.5%), partial response in 42 (32.1%), stable disease in 82 (62.6%), and progressive disease in 5 (3.8%) patients. Median OS was 14.2 months. Solitary tumor (P < 0.001), absence of vascular involvement (P = 0.009), and higher serum albumin (P < 0.001) were independently associated with improved OS. Eleven patients (8.1%) were downstaged to resection and 2 patients (1.5%) were bridged to transplant. R0-resection was achieved in 8/11 (72.7%). Post-resection median recurrence and OS were 26.3 months and 39.9 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Y90 has an acceptable safety profile and high local disease control rates for the treatment of unresectable ICC. Downstaging to resection with > 3 years survival supports the therapeutic role of Y90 for unresectable ICC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, single-arm single-center cohort study.

A review of movement disorders in chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity.

Chemotherapy agents used in the standard treatments for many types of cancer are neurotoxic and can lead to lasting sensory and motor symptoms that compromise day-to-day movement functions in cancer survivors. To date, the details of movement disorders associated with chemotherapy are known largely through self-reported symptoms and functional limitations. There are few quantitative studies of specific movement deficits, limiting our understanding of dysfunction, as well as effective assessments and interventions. The aim of this narrative review is to consolidate the current understanding of sensorimotor disabilities based on quantitative measures in cancer survivors who received chemotherapy. We performed literature searches on PubMed and found 32 relevant movement studies. We categorized these studies into three themes based on the movement deficits investigated: (1) balance and postural control; (2) gait function; (3) upper limb function. This literature suggests that cancer survivors have increased postural sway, more conservative gait patterns, and suboptimal hand function compared to healthy individuals. More studies are needed that use objective measures of sensorimotor function to better characterize movement disabilities and investigate the underlying causes, as required for developing targeted assessments and interventions. By updating our understanding of movement impairments in this population, we identify significant gaps in knowledge that will help guide the direction of future research.

Impact of insurance and neighborhood socioeconomic status on clinical outcomes in therapeutic clinical trials for breast cancer.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of insurance and neighborhood SES (nSES) on chemotherapy completion and overall mortality among participants in breast cancer clinical trials. The data sources for this study were two adjuvant breast cancer trials (ECOG E1199 and E5103) collectively including 9790 women. Insurance status at trial registration was categorized into private, government (Medicaid, Medicare, and other government type insurance), and self-pay. An Agency for Healthcare Research Quality (AHRQ) nSES index was calculated using residential zip codes linked to county level data on occupation, income, poverty, wealth, education, and crowding. Logistic regression and Cox Proportional Hazard models estimated odds ratios (OR) for chemotherapy treatment completion and hazard ratios (HR) for mortality, respectively, for insurance status and nSES. The models adjusted for: race, age, tumor size, nodal status, hormone receptor status, and primary surgery. The majority of patients had private insurance at trial registration: E1199: 85.6% (4154/4854) and E5103: 82.4% (3987/4836); median SES index was 53.8 (range: 41.8-66.8) and 54.1 (range: 44.5-66.1), respectively. Patients with government insurance were less likely to complete chemotherapy treatment (E1199 OR (95%CI): 0.73 (0.57-0.94); E5103 0.76 (0.64-0.91)) and had an increased risk of death (E1199 HR (95%CI): 1.44 (1.22-1.70); E5103 1.29 (1.06-1.58)) compared to the privately insured patients. There was no association between nSES and chemotherapy completion or overall mortality. Patients with government insurance at trial registration appeared to face barriers in chemotherapy completion and had a higher overall mortality compared to their privately insured counterparts.

Telemedicine in Oncology and Reimbursement Policy During COVID-19 and Beyond.

The first confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020. As of September 17, 2020, there were more than 6.6 million confirmed cases and 196,277 deaths. Limited data are available on outcomes of immunocompromised patients, but early published reports from China indicate that those with cancer have a 3.5 times higher risk of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death than those without cancer. Because of the uncertain behavior of COVID-19, it has become imperative for practices to limit exposure to vulnerable patients. Telemedicine has been one of the cornerstones of caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review provides an overview of reimbursement policy by public and private payers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, describes implications in cancer care, and offers considerations for future reimbursement policy.

Medical oncologist perspectives on palliative care reveal physician-centered barriers to early integration.

BACKGROUND: Early palliative care referral for patients with advanced cancer has demonstrable benefits but is underutilized. We sought to characterize medical oncologists' perceptions about palliative care referral in their clinical practices. METHODS: We conducted 4 focus groups with a national sample of medical oncologists to elicit perspectives about the optimal timing of and barriers to palliative care referral for patients with cancer. We used qualitative content analysis to uncover themes related to early integration of palliative care into standard oncologic practice. RESULTS: Study participants readily acknowledged the evidence supporting early palliative care referral. However, medical oncologists identified patient-centered and physician-centered barriers to widespread adoption of early palliative care. Patient-centered barriers included patients' and families' perceptions or misperceptions of the role of palliative care. Additionally, physicians themselves described acting as a barrier to palliative care referral because they were concerned that palliative care physicians may interfere with the plan of care, or offer options that were not endorsed by the medical oncologist. Medical oncologists depicted themselves having authority over the timing of palliative care referral, and as granting limited autonomy to other clinical team members in counseling patients about advanced care planning. CONCLUSIONS: Medical oncologists are hesitant to adopt the practice of early palliative care referral because they are concerned that other physicians may disrupt a patient's treatment plan. Physician-centered barriers may delay integration of palliative care, and future efforts to promote a collaborative approach to advanced care planning may improve patient-centered outcomes through access to early palliative care.

Analysis of Price Transparency via National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers' Chargemasters for Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy.

Importance: A January 2019 price transparency mandate by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allows patients to look up the prices of cancer treatment services at hospitals across the United States. Objective: To investigate the value of the CMS price transparency rule in allowing patients with prostate cancer to comparison shop by price for radiation treatment services among National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers. Design, Setting, and Participants: We identified the February 2019 publicly available price-containing chargemasters for National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers. We isolated the charge per fraction of intensity-modulated radiation therapy used in standard prostate radiation treatment. We then calculated the mean (SD) charges of a 28-fraction course of prostate irradiation at all included hospitals. No human participants were included in this study. Main Outcomes and Measures: We analyzed the degree of price variation, the association of the mean price to the price paid by Medicare, and the association of the prices with the practice expense geographic practice cost index, as determined by Medicare. Results: Of the 63 designated hospitals, 52 (84%) listed a price for simple intensity-modulated radiation therapy that is associated with standard prostate cancer radiation treatment. For a standard 28-fraction treatment, the charges ranged from $18 368 to $399 056, with a mean of $111 728.80 (10.1 times the price paid by Medicare). There was a weak positive association between price and geographic practice cost index, with an r2 value of 0.13 (P = .008). Conclusions and Relevance: The availability of CMS-mandated hospital chargemasters and the descriptors used for simple intensity-modulated radiation therapy are not uniform, and the listed charges are highly variable. The association between listed charges and actual prices paid by patients or insurers is unclear, mitigating the value of the CMS rule for patients with prostate cancer who are receiving radiation therapy. This study suggests that implementation of the CMS price transparency policy may be insufficient to enable patients to estimate or compare prices for prostate cancer radiation treatment.

Piloting a Survivorship Screening Tool in a Specialty Clinic for Survivors of Childhood Cancers.

We piloted a patient-reported screener in a clinic for survivors of childhood cancers to facilitate detection of late effects, psychosocial needs, and distress. The mean number of patient-reported survivorship concerns endorsed per patient was 3.2; most frequent were difficulties with body weight, sleep, work/school, and fertility. Few individuals reported clinically significant distress or fear of recurrence. Electronic health record data produced an average of 2.3 late effects. Administration of a brief screener was effective in identifying additional current medical and psychosocial care needs among adult survivors of childhood cancers in a survivorship clinic.

Failure to administer recommended chemotherapy: acceptable variation or cancer care quality blind spot?

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy quality measures consider hospitals compliant when chemotherapy is recommended, even if it is not received. This may mask shortcomings in cancer care delivery. Objectives of this study were to (1) identify patient factors associated with failure to receive recommended chemotherapy without a documented contraindication and (2) assess hospital variation in failure to administer recommended chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients from 2005 to 2015 with breast, colon and lung cancers who failed to receive recommended chemotherapy were identified using the National Cancer Database. Hospital-level rates of failure to administer recommended chemotherapy were calculated, and patient and hospital factors associated with failure to receive recommended chemotherapy were identified by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 183 148 patients at 1281 hospitals were analysed. Overall, 3.5% of patients with breast, 6.6% with colon and 10.7% with lung cancers failed to receive recommended chemotherapy. Patients were less likely to receive recommended chemotherapy in all cancers if uninsured or on Medicaid (p<0.05), as were non-Hispanic black patients with both breast and colon cancer (p<0.001). Significant hospital variation was observed, with hospital-level rates of failure to administer recommended chemotherapy as high as 21.8% in breast, 40.2% in colon and 40.0% in lung cancers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Though overall rates are low, failure to receive recommended chemotherapy is associated with sociodemographic factors. Hospital variation in failure to administer recommended chemotherapy is masked by current quality measure definitions and may define a significant and unmeasured difference in hospital quality.