Challenges and solutions to cancer-related financial toxicity according to Australian health professionals: qualitative results from a national survey.

PURPOSE: To qualitatively explore Australian healthcare professionals' perspectives on how to improve the care and management of cancer-related financial toxicity, including relevant practices, services, and unmet needs. METHODS: We invited healthcare professionals (HCP) who currently provide care to people with cancer within their role to complete an online survey, which was distributed via the networks of Australian clinical oncology professional associations/organisations. The survey was developed by the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia's Financial Toxicity Working Group and contained 12 open-ended items which we analysed using descriptive content analysis and NVivo software. RESULTS: HCPs (n = 277) believed that identifying and addressing financial concerns within routine cancer care was important and most believed this to be the responsibility of all HCP involved in the patient's care. However, financial toxicity was viewed as a "blind spot" within a medical model of healthcare, with a lack of services, resources, and training identified as barriers to care. Social workers reported assessment and advocacy were part of their role, but many reported lacking formal training and understanding of financial complexities/laws. HCPs reported positive attitudes towards transparent discussions of costs and actioning cost-reduction strategies within their control, but feelings of helplessness when they perceived no solution was available. CONCLUSION: Identifying financial needs and providing transparent information about cancer-related costs was viewed as a cross-disciplinary responsibility, however, a lack of training and services limited the provision of support. Increased cancer-specific financial counselling and advocacy, via dedicated roles or developing HCPs' skills, is urgently needed within the healthcare system.

Interactions between Australian cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand how and why Australian cancer physicians interact with the pharmaceutical industry. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews, performed by a medical oncologist. Thematic analysis using a combination of deductive and inductive codes. SETTING: Given the evidence on industry influences on clinical practice and the importance to the market of oncology drugs, we sought to better understand cancer physicians' experiences. Practising consultant medical oncologists and clinical haematologists from four Australian states were interviewed over Zoom. PARTICIPANTS: 16 cancer physicians were interviewed between November 2021 and March 2022, from 37 invited (response rate 43%). Most were medical oncologists (n=12 of 16, 75%) and male (n=9 of 16, 56%). OUTCOME MEASURES: The analysis of all interviews was based on grounded theory. Transcripts were coded and then codes formed into themes with supporting quotes. The themes were then placed into categories, used to describe the broad areas into which the themes could be grouped. RESULTS: Six themes were identified that fell within two broad categories: cancer physicians' views and experiences of interactions and management of these interactions. Views and experiences included: the transactional nature of relationships, risks of research dependence, ethical challenges and varied attitudes based on interaction type. Management themes included: lack of useful guidance and reduced interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These led to an overarching seventh theme, on the desire for a 'middle road'. Cancer physicians identified the transactional nature of industry relationships and felt uncomfortable with several types of interactions, including those with sales representatives. Most wanted less contact with industry, and the forced separation that occurred with the COVID-19 pandemic was generally welcome. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer physicians may have difficulty balancing the perceived need to interact with industry in modern cancer care while maintaining distance to minimise conflicts of interest. Further research is needed to assess management strategies in this area.

Opinions and strategies of Australian health professionals on tackling cancer-related financial toxicity: A nationwide survey.

AIM: To understand the opinions and current practices of health professionals on the topic of addressing cancer-related financial toxicity among patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was distributed through Australian clinical oncology professional organizations/networks. The multidisciplinary Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Financial Toxicity Working Group developed 25 questions relating to the frequency and comfort levels of patient-clinician discussions, opinions about their role, strategies used, and barriers to providing solutions for patients. Descriptive statistics were used and subgroup analyses were undertaken by occupational groups. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-seven health professionals completed the survey. The majority were female (n = 213, 77%), worked in public facilities (200, 72%), and treated patients with varied cancer types across all of Australia. Most participants agreed that it was appropriate in their clinical role to discuss financial concerns and 231 (88%) believed that these discussions were an important part of high-quality care. However, 73 (28%) stated that they did not have the appropriate information on support services or resources to facilitate such conversations, differing by occupation group; 7 (11%) social workers, 34 (44%) medical specialists, 18 (25%) nurses, and 14 (27%) of other occupations. Hindrances to discussing financial concerns were insufficient resources or support systems to refer to, followed by lack of time in a typical consultation. CONCLUSION: Health professionals in cancer care commonly address the financial concerns of their patients but attitudes differed across occupations about their role, and frustrations were raised about available solutions. Resources supporting financial-related discussions for all health professionals are urgently needed to advance action in this field.

Discussion of costs and financial burden in clinical practice: A survey of medical oncologists in Australia.

BACKGROUND: A diagnosis of cancer is associated with significant physical, psychological and financial burden. Including costs of cancer is an important component of shared decision making. Doctors bear a responsibility towards educating patients about the financial aspects of care. Multiple organisations have advocated for price transparency and implementing Informed Financial Consent in the clinic. However, few studies have evaluated the perspectives of oncologists on the current state of this discussion. AIMS: The aim of this study is to determine the views and perspectives of medical oncologists regarding communication of costs and financial burden in patients with cancer. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional online survey via REDCap. The survey was distributed to medical oncologists and advanced trainees currently registered with Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA). Data was collected using the online survey comprising socio-demographic characteristics, discussion of costs and financial burden, and facilitators and barriers to these discussions. RESULTS: 547 members of MOGA were invited to participate in the study, and 106 of 547 MOGA members (19%) completed the survey. Most oncologists (66%) felt that it was their responsibility to discuss costs of care, however a majority of oncologists (59.3%) reported discussing costs with less than half of their patients. Only 25% of oncologists discussed financial concerns with more than half of their patients, and most oncologists were unfamiliar with cancer-related financial burden. Most Oncologists with greater clinical experience and those working in private practice were more likely to discuss costs with a majority of their patients. CONCLUSIONS: Certain characteristics of medical oncologists and their practices were associated with reported prevalence of discussing costs of care and financial burden with their patients. In the context of rising costs of cancer care, interventions targeting modifiable factors such as raising oncologist awareness of costs of care and financial burden, screening for financial toxicity and availability of costs information in an easily accessible manner, may help increase the frequency of patient-doctor discussions about costs of care, contributing to informed decision-making and higher-quality cancer care.

Large-Scale Population-Based Surveys Linked to Administrative Health Databases as a Source of Data on Health Utilities in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: Large-scale health surveys that contain quality-of-life instruments are a rich source of health utility data for health economic evaluations, especially when linked to routinely collected, administrative health databases. We derived health utility values for a wide range of health conditions using a large Australian cohort study linked to population-wide health databases. METHODS: Short-Form 6-Dimension utility values were calculated for 56 094 adults, aged 47+ years, in the New South Wales 45 and Up Study who completed the Social, Economic, and Environmental Factors survey (2010-2011). Mean utilities were summarized for major health conditions identified through self-report, hospital records, primary cancer notifications, and claims for government-subsidized prescription medicines and medical services. To identify unique associations between health conditions and utilities, beta regression was performed. Utility values were analyzed by time to death using linked death records. RESULTS: Mean Short-Form 6-Dimension utility was 0.810 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.809-0.811), was age dependent, and was higher in men than women. Utilities for serious health conditions ranged from 0.685 (95% CI 0.652-0.718) for lung cancer to 0.800 (95% CI 0.787-0.812) for melanoma whereas disease-free respondents had a mean of 0.859 (95% CI 0.858-0.861). Most health conditions were independently associated with poorer quality of life. Utility values also declined by proximity to death where participants sampled 6 months before death had a mean score of 0.637 (95% CI 0.613-0.662). CONCLUSIONS: Our data offer a snapshot of the health status of an older Australian population and show that record linkage can enable comprehensive ascertainment of utility values for use in health economic modeling.

Applying utility values in cost-effectiveness analyses of lung cancer screening: A review of methods.

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in high-risk populations has been shown in randomised controlled trials to lead to early diagnosis and reduced lung cancer mortality. However, investment into screening will largely depend on the outcomes of cost-effectiveness analyses that demonstrate acceptable costs for every quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The methods used to apply utility values to measure QALYs can significantly impact the outcomes of cost-effectiveness analyses and if applied inaccurately can lead to unreliable estimates. We reviewed the use of utility values in 26 cost-effectiveness analyses of lung screening with LDCT conducted between 2005 and 2021, and found considerable variation in methods. Specifically, authors made different assumptions made relating to (i) baseline quality-of-life among screening participants, (ii) potential harms from screening, (iii) utilities and disutilities applied to lung cancer health states, and (iv) quality-of-life for lung cancer survivors. We discuss how each of these assumptions can influence incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Key recommendations for future evaluations are (i) that modelling studies should justify the choice of baseline utilities, especially if patients are assumed to recover fully after curative treatment; (ii) the impact of false positive scans on quality-of-life should be modelled, at least in sensitivity analyses; (iii) modellers should justify assumptions relating to post-operative recovery, preferably based on knowledge of local practices; (iv) utilities applied to a lung cancer diagnosis should be appropriately sourced and calculated; and (v) adjustment for age-related declines in quality-of-life should be considered, especially for models that examine lifetime horizons.

Australian Cancer Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Survey of Attitudes and Interactions.

PURPOSE: Interactions between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry may create conflicts of interest that can adversely affect patient care. We aimed to survey cancer physicians regarding their attitudes toward and interactions with industry. METHODS: We surveyed Australian cancer physicians between December 2020 and February 2021, questioning how often they interacted with industry and their attitudes toward this. We also assessed factors associated with accepting payments from industry and the amount received, and opinions on policies and industry influence. We used logistic and linear regression to examine links between attitudes and behaviors. RESULTS: There were 116 responses (94 complete). Almost half (n = 53 of 115, 46.1%) felt that there was a positive relationship between cancer physicians and industry. Most (n = 79 of 104, 76.0%) interacted with industry at least once a month, and 67.7% (n = 63 of 93) had received nonresearch payments from industry previously, with a median value of 2,000 Australian dollars over 1 year. Most respondents believed that interactions could influence prescribing while simultaneously denying influence on their own prescribing (n = 66 of 94, 70.2%). Those who judged general sales representative interactions (odds ratio [OR] 9.37 [95% CI, 1.05 to 83.41], P = .045) or clinician sponsorship (OR 3.22 [95% CI, 1.01 to 10.30], P = .049) to be more acceptable also met with sales representatives more frequently. Physicians were more likely to accept industry payments when they deemed sponsorship of clinicians for conferences (OR 10.55 [95% CI, 2.33 to 47.89], P = .002) or honoraria for advisory board membership more acceptable (OR 3.91 [95% CI, 1.04 to 14.74], P = .04) or when they had higher belief in industry influence over own prescribing (OR 25.51 [95% CI, 2.70 to 241.45], P = .005). CONCLUSION: Australian cancer physicians interact with industry frequently, and those who feel positive about these interactions are likely to do so more often. More research is needed to understand the motivations behind these interactions.

Physician-patient communication of costs and financial burden of cancer and its treatment: a systematic review of clinical guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Optimising the care of individuals with cancer without imposing significant financial burden related to their anticancer treatment is becoming increasingly difficult. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has recommended clinicians discuss costs of cancer care with patients to enhance shared decision-making. We sought information to guide oncologists' discussions with patients about these costs. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE and clinical practice guideline databases from January 2009 to 1 June 2019 for recommendations about discussing the costs of care and financial burden. Guideline quality was assessed with the AGREE-II instrument. RESULTS: Twenty-seven guidelines met our eligibility criteria, including 16 from ASCO (59%). 21 of 27 (78%) guidelines included recommendations about discussion or consideration of treatment costs when prescribing, with information about actual costs in four (15%). Recognition of the risk of financial burden or financial toxicity was described in 81% (22/27) of guidelines. However, only nine guidelines (33%) included information about managing the financial burden. CONCLUSIONS: Current clinical practice guidelines have little information to guide physician-patient discussions about costs of anticancer treatment and management of financial burden. This limits patients' ability to control costs of treatment, and for the healthcare team to reduce the incidence and severity of financial burden. Current guidelines recommend clinician awareness of price variability and high costs of treatment. Clinicians are recommended to explore cost concerns and address financial worries, especially in high risk groups. Future guidelines should include advice on facilitating cost transparency discussions, with provision of cost information and resources.

Immunotherapy in advanced Merkel cell carcinoma: Sydney west cancer network experience.

INTRODUCTION: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a highly aggressive skin cancer with no survival benefit demonstrated using palliative cytotoxic chemotherapy in the setting of metastatic MCC. Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (anti-PD-L1/PD1) have been approved in this setting after durable clinical response was demonstrated in several clinical trials. In this series, we present a multicentre real-world experience in using anti-PD-L1/PD1 in advanced MCC. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients with metastatic MCC who were treated with at least one dose of anti-PD-L1/PD1 presenting to Sydney West Cancer Network (Westmead, Nepean and Blacktown hospitals) was performed between 2016 and 2020. Treatment response was assessed based on morphologic and/or metabolic changes of the disease on FDG-PET/CT scans. Primary end point investigated was objective response rate. Secondary outcomes included therapy toxicity, disease control and overall survival. RESULTS: Thirteen patients received anti-PD-L1/PD1 with a median age of 82 (range 62-89). Two patients had undergone prior palliative chemotherapy. The median follow-up time was 17 months (range 2-34). The overall, complete and partial response rates were 77% (10), 54% (7) and 23% (3), respectively. Treatment-related grade 1 or 2 toxicity was experienced by 69% with only 2 cases of greater severity. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 18 months (95% CI 10-26 months) and 33 months (95% CI range 7.6-58.4 months), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with clinical trial results, anti-PD-L1/PD1 therapy in this small series demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients with metastatic MCC.

Durvalumab with first-line chemotherapy in previously untreated malignant pleural mesothelioma (DREAM): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial with a safety run-in.

BACKGROUND: There is a strong unmet need to improve systemic therapy in mesothelioma. Chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed improves survival in malignant pleural mesothelioma, and immune checkpoint inhibitors are an emerging treatment in this disease. We aimed to evaluate the activity of durvalumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, given during and after first-line chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed in patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: DREAM was a multicentre, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 trial done in nine hospitals in Australia. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed malignant pleural mesothelioma considered unsuitable for cancer-directed surgery, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and measurable disease as per the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0 (mRECIST) for mesothelioma that was previously untreated with systemic therapy. All histological subtypes were eligible. The first six participants were treated for two cycles in a safety run-in. All participants received cisplatin 75 mg/m2, pemetrexed 500 mg/m2, and durvalumab 1125 mg intravenously on day 1 of a 3-weekly schedule for a maximum of six cycles. Change from cisplatin to carboplatin with an area under the curve of 5 was permitted. Durvalumab was continued for a maximum of 12 months. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 6 months, measured according to mRECIST for malignant pleural mesothelioma and analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all participants who receive at least one dose of any study drug. This study is registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001170415. FINDINGS: Between Dec 28, 2016, and Sept 27, 2017, 55 participants were enrolled. 54 patients were eligible and were followed up for a median of 28·2 months (IQR 26·5-30·2). 31 (57%; 95% CI 44-70) of 54 patients were alive and progression-free at 6 months. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (seven [13%] patients), nausea (six [11%]), and anaemia (four [7%]). A total of 60 serious adverse events occurred in 29 participants, five of which were considered possibly related to durvalumab. Five patients died during the study treatment; none of these five deaths were attributed to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: The combination of durvalumab, cisplatin, and pemetrexed has promising activity and an acceptable safety profile that warrants further investigation in a randomised phase 3 trial. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Is it all about price? Why requests for government subsidy of anticancer drugs were rejected in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Australians access anticancer drugs predominantly through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). AIM: To determine why the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) rejects submissions to list anticancer drugs on the PBS. METHODS: We reviewed publicly available information about submissions made to the PBAC for PBS listing of anticancer drugs from 2005 to 2014. Submission characteristics, including clinical and economic evidence, PBAC recommendations, and the reasons offered for rejection were recorded. Two reviewers independently categorised the reason for rejection offered by the PBAC. Logistic regression was used to determine submission characteristics associated with rejection. RESULTS: We identified 213 submissions for 110 unique indications of 60 anticancer drugs. The overall rejection rate was 56% (119/213). Of the 110 indications assessed, 69% (76/110) were rejected at least once. The annual rejection rate ranged from 50 to 73% with little evidence of a trend over time (P = 0.2). Submission characteristics strongly associated with rejection in multivariable analysis included: PBAC judged the clinical evidence to be problematic or uncertain (P < 0.001); PBAC judged the economic evidence to be problematic or uncertain (P < 0.001); and, inactive comparator used (P < 0.001). The most frequent reasons for rejection offered by the PBAC was 'inadequate cost-effectiveness or drug price too high' (75/109, 69%). CONCLUSIONS: Inadequate cost-effectiveness and PBAC uncertainty about the clinical and economic evidence were the most frequent reasons for rejection. Clarity of information about PBAC deliberations and their reasons for rejection are important for patients and doctors grappling with decisions about the use of expensive unfunded anticancer drugs.