Socioeconomic Deprivation and Health Care Use in Patients Enrolled in SWOG Cancer Clinical Trials.

Importance: Reducing acute care use is an important strategy for improving value. Patients with cancer are at risk for unplanned emergency department (ED) visits and hospital stays (HS). Clinical trial patients have homogeneous treatment; despite this, structural barriers to care may independently impact acute care use. Objective: To examine whether ED visits and HS within 12 months of trial enrollment are more common among Medicare enrollees who live in areas of socioeconomic deprivation or have Medicaid insurance. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients with cancer who were 65 years or older and treated in SWOG Cancer Research Network trials from 1999 to 2018 using data linked to Medicare claims. Data were collected from 1999 to 2019 and analyzed from 2022 to 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were ED visits, HS, and costs in the first year following enrollment. Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation was measured using patients' zip code linked to the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), measured on a 0 to 100 scale for increasing deprivation and categorized into tertiles (T1 to T3). Type of insurance was classified as Medicare with or without commercial insurance vs dual Medicare and Medicaid. Demographic, clinical, and prognostic factors were captured from trial records. Multivariable regression was used, and the association of ADI and insurance with each outcome was considered separately. Results: In total, 3027 trial participants were analyzed. The median (range) age was 71 (65-98) years, 1280 (32.3%) were female, 221 (7.3%) were Black patients, 2717 (89.8%) were White patients, 90 (3.0%) had Medicare and Medicaid insurance, and 660 (22.3%) were in the areas of highest deprivation (ADI-T3). In all, 1094 patients (36.1%) had an ED visit and 983 patients (32.4%) had an HS. In multivariable generalized estimating equation, patients living in areas categorized as ADI-T3 were more likely to have an ED visit (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10-1.62; P = .004). A similar but nonsignificant pattern was observed for HS (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.96-1.93; P = .08). Patients from areas with the highest deprivation had a 62% increase in risk of either an ED visit or HS (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.25-2.09; P < .001). Patients with Medicare and Medicaid were 96% more likely to have an ED visit (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.56-2.46; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort of older patients enrolled in clinical trials, neighborhood deprivation and economic disadvantage were associated with an increase in ED visits and HS. Efforts are needed to ensure adequate resources to prevent unplanned use of acute care in socioeconomically vulnerable populations.

Gene Therapy Versus Common Care for Eligible Individuals With Sickle Cell Disease in the United States : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) and its complications contribute to high rates of morbidity and early mortality and high cost in the United States and African heritage community. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of gene therapy for SCD and its value-based prices (VBPs). DESIGN: Comparative modeling analysis across 2 independently developed simulation models (University of Washington Model for Economic Analysis of Sickle Cell Cure [UW-MEASURE] and Fred Hutchinson Institute Sickle Cell Disease Outcomes Research and Economics Model [FH-HISCORE]) using the same databases. DATA SOURCES: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims data, 2008 to 2016; published literature. TARGET POPULATION: Persons eligible for gene therapy. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: U.S. health care sector and societal. INTERVENTION: Gene therapy versus common care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), equity-informed VBPs, and price acceptability curves. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: At an assumed $2 million price for gene therapy, UW-MEASURE and FH-HISCORE estimated ICERs of $193 000 per QALY and $427 000 per QALY, respectively, under the health care sector perspective. Corresponding estimates from the societal perspective were $126 000 per QALY and $281 000 per QALY. The difference in results between models stemmed primarily from considering a slightly different target population and incorporating the quality-of-life (QOL) effects of splenic sequestration, priapism, and acute chest syndrome in the UW model. From a societal perspective, acceptable (>90% confidence) VBPs ranged from $1 million to $2.5 million depending on the use of alternative effective metrics or equity-informed threshold values. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Results were sensitive to the costs of myeloablative conditioning before gene therapy, effect on caregiver QOL, and effect of gene therapy on long-term survival. LIMITATION: The short-term effects of gene therapy on vaso-occlusive events were extrapolated from 1 study. CONCLUSION: Gene therapy for SCD below a $2 million price tag is likely to be cost-effective when applying a societal perspective at an equity-informed threshold for cost-effectiveness analysis. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Cost-Effectiveness of Reduced-Intensity Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Older Patients With High-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome: Analysis of BMT CTN 1102.

PURPOSE: BMT CTN 1102 was a phase III trial comparing reduced-intensity allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (RIC alloHCT) to standard of care for persons with intermediate- or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). We report results of a cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside the clinical trial. METHODS: Three hundred eighty-four patients received HCT (n = 260) or standard of care (n = 124) according to availability of a human leukocyte antigen-matched donor. Cost-effectiveness was calculated from US commercial and Medicare perspectives over a 20-year time horizon. Health care utilization and costs were estimated using propensity score-matched cohorts of HCT recipients in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse (age 50-64 years) and Medicare (age 65 years and older). EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D) surveys of trial participants were used to derive health state utilities. RESULTS: Extrapolated 20-year overall survival for those age 50-64 years was 29% for HCT (n = 105) versus 13% for usual care (n = 44) and 31% for HCT (n = 155) versus 12% for non-HCT (n = 80) for those age 65 years and older. HCT was more effective (+2.36 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] for age 50-64 years and +2.92 QALYs for age 65 years and older) and more costly (+$452,242 in US dollars (USD) for age 50-64 years and +$233,214 USD for age 65 years and older) than usual care, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $191,487 (USD)/QALY and $79,834 (USD)/QALY, respectively. For persons age 50-64 years, there was a 29% chance that HCT was cost-effective using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150K (USD)/QALY and 51% at a $200K (USD)/QALY. For persons age 65 years and older, the probability was 100% at a WTP >$150K (USD)/QALY. CONCLUSION: Among patients age 65 years and older with high-risk MDS, RIC HCT is a high-value strategy. For those age 50-64 years, HCT is a lower-value strategy but has similar cost-effectiveness to other therapies commonly used in oncology.

Interventions addressing health-related social needs among patients with cancer.

Health-related social needs are prevalent among cancer patients; associated with substantial negative health consequences; and drive pervasive inequities in cancer incidence, severity, treatment choices and decisions, and outcomes. To address the lack of clinical trial evidence to guide health-related social needs interventions among cancer patients, the National Cancer Institute Cancer Care Delivery Research Steering Committee convened experts to participate in a clinical trials planning meeting with the goal of designing studies to screen for and address health-related social needs among cancer patients. In this commentary, we discuss the rationale for, and challenges of, designing and testing health-related social needs interventions in alignment with the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 5As framework. Evidence for food, housing, utilities, interpersonal safety, and transportation health-related social needs interventions is analyzed. Evidence regarding health-related social needs and delivery of health-related social needs interventions differs in maturity and applicability to cancer context, with transportation problems having the most maturity and interpersonal safety the least. We offer practical recommendations for health-related social needs interventions among cancer patients and the caregivers, families, and friends who support their health-related social needs. Cross-cutting (ie, health-related social needs agnostic) recommendations include leveraging navigation (eg, people, technology) to identify, refer, and deliver health-related social needs interventions; addressing health-related social needs through multilevel interventions; and recognizing that health-related social needs are states, not traits, that fluctuate over time. Health-related social needs-specific interventions are recommended, and pros and cons of addressing more than one health-related social needs concurrently are characterized. Considerations for collaborating with community partners are highlighted. The need for careful planning, strong partners, and funding is stressed. Finally, we outline a future research agenda to address evidence gaps.

Real-world outcomes with immuno-oncology therapies in advanced melanoma: final results of the OPTIMIzE registry study.

Aim: The OPTIMIzE registry study evaluated real-world outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma receiving immuno-oncology therapies. Materials and methods: Data were collected for patients treated with anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) monotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab; n = 147) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 81) from 2015-2017 and followed for ≥3 years. Results: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus anti-PD-1 monotherapy was associated with a nonsignificantly lower risk of death (adjusted HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.54-1.28; p = 0.41), higher disease control rate (72 vs 56%; p = 0.04), and stable quality of life, but more grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (54 vs 26%; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: These results support the use of immuno-oncology therapy in advanced melanoma.

Melanoma is a serious form of skin cancer that develops from melanocytes, which are pigment cells that give the skin, hair, and other tissues their color. At advanced stages of spread, melanoma can be life-threatening. However, immunotherapy, a type of therapy that helps the body's immune system to destroy cancer cells, allows some patients with advanced melanoma to live longer. The OPTIMIzE study looked at how well patients with advanced melanoma did when treated with different immunotherapies. These patients were treated in a real-world setting, such as a doctor's office, and were not participating in a clinical trial. Compared with clinical trials, real-world studies like the OPTIMIzE study may include a more varied group of patients because of the less selective study enrollment requirements. In the OPTIMIzE study, patients were treated with either a single immunotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab alone) or a combination of two immunotherapies (nivolumab plus ipilimumab). Both single and combination immunotherapies were effective and tolerable. Patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab had greater tumor shrinkage than patients receiving nivolumab or pembrolizumab alone, but with more side effects from their treatment. Despite the occurrence of side effects with both single and combination immunotherapies, patients reported that their quality of life remained stable while being treated. The OPTIMIzE study shows that immunotherapy is effective and tolerable for patients with advanced melanoma in the real-world setting. This information may help doctors with selecting treatments for their patients with advanced melanoma. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02780089 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Intervention Nonadherence in the TrACER (S1415CD) Study: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial of a Standardized Order Entry for CSF Prescribing.

PURPOSE: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial to test whether a guideline-based standing order entry (SOE) improves use of primary prophylactic CSF (PP-CSF) prescribing for patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We investigated variability in adherence to the intervention. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized trial among 32 oncology clinics from the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. Clinics were randomized 3:1 to a guideline-based PP-CSF SOE or usual care. Among SOE sites, automated orders for PP-CSF were included for regimens at high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) and an alert not to use PP-CSF for low FN risk. A secondary 1:1 randomization was done among intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate risk-regimens. Providers were allowed to override the SOE. RESULTS: Overall, PP-CSF use among patients receiving high FN risk treatment was high and not different between arms; however, rates of PP-CSF use varied widely by site, ranging from 48.6% to 100%. Among those receiving low FN risk regimens, PP-CSF use was low and not different between arms; however, PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 19.4% across sites. In the intermediate-risk substudy, PP-CSF was five-fold higher among sites randomized to SOE; however, there was considerable variability in adherence to intervention assignment: PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 75% among sites randomized to SOE. Despite an alert to not prescribe, PP-CSF prescribing ranged from 0% to 33%. CONCLUSION: In this randomized pragmatic trial aimed at improving PP-CSF prescribing, there was substantial variability in site adherence to the intervention assignment. Although the ability to opt out of the intervention is a feature of pragmatic trials, planning to estimate nonadherence is critical to ensure adequate power.

Impact of treatment experience on patient knowledge of colony-stimulating factors among patients receiving cancer chemotherapy: evidence from S1415CD-a large pragmatic trial.

PURPOSE: Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed alongside chemotherapy regimens that carry a significant risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). As part of S1415CD, a prospective, pragmatic trial evaluating the impact of automated orders to improve PP-CSF prescribing, we evaluated patients' baseline knowledge of PP-CSF and whether that knowledge improved following the first cycle of chemotherapy. METHODS: Adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer initiating chemotherapy were enrolled in S1415CD between January 2016 and April 2020. Eight questions assessing knowledge of CSF indications, risks, benefits, and out-of-pocket costs were included in a baseline survey and in a follow-up survey at the end of the first cycle of chemotherapy. Responses were stratified by the trial arm and whether chemotherapy was low, intermediate, or high FN risk. RESULTS: Of the 3605 eligible patients, 3580 (99.3%) completed the baseline survey, and 3420 (95.5%) completed the follow-up survey. At baseline, 803 (22.4%) patients responded "Don't know" to all 8 questions, and all patients averaged 2.75 correct questions. At follow-up, knowledge increased by 0.34 in the high-FN-risk group (p < 0.001) but declined for the other FN-risk groups. In multivariate analysis, receiving a high-FN-risk regimen and younger age were significantly associated with knowledge improvement. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy patients had poor knowledge of PP-CSF that improved only modestly among recipients of high-FN-risk chemotherapy. Further efforts to inform patients about the risks, benefits, and costs of PP-CSF may be warranted, particularly for those in whom prophylaxis is indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02728596, April 6, 2016.

Universal Viral Screening of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Cancer in the United States: A Cost-efficiency Evaluation.

Recommendations for universal screening of patients with cancer for hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are inconsistent. A recent multisite screening study (S1204) from the SWOG Cancer Research Network found that a substantial number of patients with newly diagnosed cancer had previously unknown viral infections. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-efficiency of universal screening of patients with newly diagnosed cancer. We estimated the cost-efficiency of universal screening of new cancer cases for HBV, HCV, or HIV, expressed as cost per virus detected, from the health care payer perspective. The prevalence of each virus among this cohort was derived from S1204. Direct medical expenditures included costs associated with laboratory screening tests. Costs per case detected were estimated for each screening strategy. Secondary analysis examined the cost-efficiency of screening patients whose viral status at cancer diagnosis was unknown. Among the possible options for universal screening, screening for HBV alone ($581), HCV alone ($782), HBV and HCV ($631) and HBV, HCV, and HIV ($841) were most efficient in terms of cost per case detected. When screening was restricted to patients with unknown viral status, screening for HBV alone ($684), HBV and HCV ($872), HBV and HIV ($1,157), and all three viruses ($1,291) were most efficient in terms of cost per newly detected case. Efficient viral testing strategies represent a relatively modest addition to the overall cost of managing a patient with cancer. Screening for HBV, HCV, and HIV infections may be reasonable from both a budget and clinical standpoint. SIGNIFICANCE: Screening patients with cancer for HBV, HCV, and HIV is inconsistent in clinical practice despite national recommendations and known risks of complications from viral infection. Our study shows that while costs of viral screening strategies vary by choice of tests, they present a modest addition to the cost of managing a patient with cancer.

Assessment of financial screening and navigation capabilities at National Cancer Institute community oncology clinics.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related financial hardship is a side effect of cancer diagnosis and treatment, and affects both patients and caregivers. Although many oncology clinics have increased financial navigation services, few have resources to proactively provide financial counseling and assistance to families affected by cancer before financial hardship occurs. As part of an ongoing randomized study testing a proactive financial navigation intervention, S1912CD, among sites of the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), we conducted a baseline survey to learn more about existing financial resources available to patients and caregivers. METHODS: The NCORP sites participating in the S1912CD study completed a required 10-question survey about their available financial resources and an optional 5-question survey that focused on financial screening and navigation workflow and challenges prior to starting recruitment. The proportion of NCORP sites offering financial navigation services was calculated and responses to the optional survey were reviewed to determine current screening and navigation practices and identify any challenges. RESULTS: Most sites (96%) reported offering financial navigation for cancer patients. Sites primarily identified patients needing financial assistance through social work evaluations (78%) or distress screening tools (76%). Sites revealed challenges in addressing financial needs at the outset and through diagnosis, including lack of proactive screening and referral to financial navigation services as well as staffing challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Although most participating NCORP sites offer some form of financial assistance, the survey data enabled identification of gaps and challenges in providing services. Utilizing community partners to deliver comprehensive financial navigation guidance to cancer patients and caregivers may help meet needs while reducing site burden.

Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) of First-Line Therapies (1L) for Locally Advanced/Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma (la/mUC).

To compare efficacy outcomes for all approved and investigational first-line (1L) treatment regimens for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) with standard of care (SOC), a network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted. A systematic literature review (SLR) identified phase 2 and 3 randomized trials investigating 1L treatment regimens in la/mUC published January 2001-September 2021. Three networks were formed based on cisplatin (cis) eligibility: cis-eligible/mixed (cis-eligible patients and mixed populations of cis-eligible/ineligible patients), cis-ineligible (strict; exclusively cis-ineligible patients), and cis-ineligible (wide; including studies with investigator's choice of carbo). Analyses examined comparative efficacy by hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratio (OR) for overall response rate (ORR), with 1L regimens vs. SOC. SOC was gemcitabine + cis (GemCis) or carboplatin (GemCarbo), cis-eligible/mixed network, and GemCarbo cis-ineligible networks. Of 1906 SLR identified citations, 55 trials were selected for data extraction. The NMA comprised 11, 6, and 8 studies in the cis-eligible/mixed, cis-ineligible (strict), cis-ineligible (wide) networks, respectively. In a meta-analysis of SOC control arms, median (95% CI) overall survival (OS) in months varied by network: 13.19 (12.43, 13.95) cis-eligible/mixed, 11.96 (10.43, 13.48) cis-ineligible (wide), and 9.74 (6.71, 12.76) cis-ineligible (strict). Most differences in OS, PFS, and ORR with treatment regimens across treatment networks were not statistically significant compared with SOC. Outcomes with current 1L regimens remain poor, and few significant improvements over SOC have been made, despite inclusion of recent clinical trial data, highlighting an unmet need in the la/mUC patient population.

Association Between Patient-Level, Clinic-Level, and Geographical-Level Factors and 1-Year Surveillance Colonoscopy Adherence.

INTRODUCTION: Surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after surgical resection for patients with stages I-III colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal, and data on factors associated with lack of adherence are limited. Using surveillance colonoscopy data from Washington state, we aimed to determine the patient, clinic, and geographical factors associated with adherence. METHODS: Using administrative insurance claims linked to Washington cancer registry data, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients diagnosed with stage I-III CRC between 2011 and 2018 with continuous insurance for at least 18 months after diagnosis. We determined the adherence rate to 1-year surveillance colonoscopy and conducted logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with completion. RESULTS: Of 4,481 patients with stage I-III CRC identified, 55.8% completed a 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. The median time to colonoscopy completion was 370 days. On multivariate analysis, older age, higher-stage CRC, Medicare insurance or multiple insurance carriers, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and living without a partner were significantly associated with decreased adherence to 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. Among 29 eligible clinics, 51% (n = 15) reported lower-than-expected surveillance colonoscopy rates based on patient mix. DISCUSSION: Surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after surgical resection is suboptimal in Washington state. Patient and clinic factors, but not geographic factors (Area Deprivation Index), were significantly associated with surveillance colonoscopy completion. These data will inform the development of patient-level and clinic-level interventions to address an important quality-of-care issue across Washington.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Unrelated Umbilical Cord Blood Transplantation versus HLA-Haploidentical Related Bone Marrow Transplantation: Evidence from BMT CTN 1101.

BMT CTN 1101 was a Phase III randomized controlled trial comparing reduced-intensity conditioning followed by double unrelated umbilical cord blood transplantation (UCBT) versus HLA-haploidentical related donor bone marrow transplantation (haplo-BMT) for patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies. Here we report the results of a parallel cost-effectiveness analysis of these 2 hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) techniques. In this study, 368 patients were randomized to unrelated UCBT (n = 186) or haplo-BMT (n = 182). We estimated healthcare utilization and costs using propensity score-matched haplo-BMT recipients from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse for trial participants age <65 years and Medicare claims for participants age ≥65 years. Weibull models were used to estimate 20-year survival. EQ-5D surveys by trial participants were used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). At a 5-year follow-up, survival was 42% for haplo-BMT recipients versus 36% for UCBT recipients (P = .06). Over a 20-year time horizon, haplo-BMT is expected to be more effective (+.63 QALY) and more costly (+$118,953) for persons age <65 years. For those age ≥65 years, haplo-BMT is expected to be more effective and less costly. In one-way uncertainty analyses, for persons age <65, the cost per QALY result was most sensitive to life-years and health state utilities, whereas for those age ≥65, life- years were more influential than costs and health state utilities. Compared to UCBT, haplo-BMT was moderately more cost-effective for patients age <65 years and less costly and more effective for persons age ≥65 years. Haplo-BMT is a fair value choice for commercially insured patients with high-risk leukemia and lymphoma who require HCT. For Medicare enrollees, haplo-BMT is a preferred choice when considering costs and outcomes.

Long-term survival with sickle cell disease: a nationwide cohort study of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.

To our knowledge, we report the first population-based period life table, the expected lifetime survival for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries with sickle cell disease (SCD), and the disparities in survival by insurance types in the United States. We constructed a retrospective cohort of individuals with diagnosed SCD receiving common care (any real-world patterns of care except transplant) based on nationwide Medicare and Medicaid claim data (2008-2016), covering beneficiaries in all 50 states. We analyzed lifetime survival probabilities using Kaplan-Meier curves and projected life expectancies at various ages for all, stratified by sex and insurance types. Our analysis included 94 616 individuals with SCD that have not undergone any transplant. Life expectancy at birth was 52.6 years (95% confidence interval: 51.9-53.4). Compared with the adults covered by Medicaid only, those covered by Medicare for disabilities or end-stage renal disease and those dually insured by Medicare and Medicaid had significantly worse life expectancy. Similarly, for beneficiaries aged ≥65 years, these 2 insurance types were associated with significantly shorter life expectancy than those enrolled in Medicare old age and survivor's insurance. Our study underscores the persistent life expectancy shortfall for patients with SCD, the burden of premature mortality during adulthood, and survival disparities by insurance status.

Risk prediction of hepatitis B or C or HIV among newly diagnosed cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Screening for viral infection in cancer patients is inconsistent. A mechanism to readily identify cancer patients at increased risk of existing or prior viral infection could enhance screening efforts while reducing costs. METHODS: We identified factors associated with increased risk of past or chronic hepatitis virus B, hepatitis virus C, or HIV infection before initiation of systemic cancer therapy. Data were from a multicenter prospective cohort study of 3051 patients with newly diagnosed cancer (SWOG-S1204) enrolled between 2013 and 2017. Patients completed a survey with questions pertaining to personal history and behavioral, socioeconomic, and demographic risk factors for viral hepatitis or HIV. We derived a risk model to predict the presence of viral infection in a random set of 60% of participants using best subset selection. The derived model was validated in the remaining 40% of participants. Logistic regression was used. RESULTS: A model with 7 risk factors was identified, and a risk score with 4 levels was constructed. In the validation cohort, each increase in risk level was associated with a nearly threefold increased risk of viral positivity (odds ratio = 2.85, 95% confidence interval = 2.26 to 3.60, P < .001). Consistent findings were observed for individual viruses. Participants in the highest risk group (with >3 risk factors), comprised of 13.4% of participants, were 18 times more likely to be viral positive compared with participants with no risk factors (odds ratio = 18.18, 95% confidence interval = 8.00 to 41.3, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A risk-stratified screening approach using a limited set of questions could serve as an effective strategy to streamline screening for individuals at increased risk of viral infection.

A Framework for a Health Economic Evaluation Model for Patients with Sickle Cell Disease to Estimate the Value of New Treatments in the United States of America.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited blood disorder associated with lifelong morbidity and increased risk of mortality that affects approximately 100,000 individuals in the United States (US), primarily of African-American descent. Due to these complications, individuals with SCD typically incur high healthcare costs. With a number of costly but potentially curative SCD therapies on the horizon, understanding the progression of SCD and economic burden to insurers and patients is vital. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to develop a framework to understand the progression and costs of SCD that could be used to estimate how new treatments can impact the progression and costs of the disease. METHODS: We detail how we will create a simulation model that represents the natural history of a population and allows for the characterization of the impact of novel therapies on the disease, associated costs, and outcomes in comparison to current management. CONCLUSION: In this report, we describe a conceptual approach to modeling SCD to determine the relative clinical and economic impact of new gene therapies compared to conventional therapies with a goal of providing a flexible approach that could inform the clinical management of SCD for patients, payers, and policy makers.

Translating an Economic Analysis into a Tool for Public Health Resource Allocation in Cancer Survivorship.

Background. The complexity of decision science models may prevent their use to assist in decision making. User-centered design (UCD) principles provide an opportunity to engage end users in model development and refinement, potentially reducing complexity and increasing model utilization in a practical setting. We report our experiences with UCD to develop a modeling tool for cancer control planners evaluating cancer survivorship interventions. Design. Using UCD principles (described in the article), we developed a dynamic cohort model of cancer survivorship for individuals with female breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer over 10 y. Parameters were obtained from the National Program of Cancer Registries and peer-reviewed literature, with model outcomes captured in quality-adjusted life-years and net monetary benefit. Prototyping and iteration were conducted with structured focus groups involving state cancer control planners and staff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Public Health Association. Results. Initial feedback highlighted model complexity and unclear purpose as barriers to end user uptake. Revisions addressed complexity by simplifying model input requirements, providing clear examples of input types, and reducing complex language. Wording was added to the results page to explain the interpretation of results. After these updates, feedback demonstrated that end users more clearly understood how to use and apply the model for cancer survivorship resource allocation tasks. Conclusions. A UCD approach identified challenges faced by end users in integrating a decision aid into their workflow. This approach created collaboration between modelers and end users, tailoring revisions to meet the needs of the users. Future models developed for individuals without a decision science background could leverage UCD to ensure the model meets the needs of the intended audience. Highlights: Model complexity and unclear purpose are 2 barriers that prevent lay users from integrating decision science tools into their workflow.Modelers could integrate the user-centered design framework when developing a model for lay users to reduce complexity and ensure the model meets the needs of the users.