Factors associated with increased financial toxicity after the completion of radiation treatment for gynecologic cancer.

PURPOSE: We evaluated financial toxicity (FT) in patients with gynecologic cancer treated with radiation and assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients' financial wellbeing. METHODS: Patients completed a survey 1 month after completing radiation from August 2019-March 2020 and November 2020-June 2021. The survey included the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool, EQ-5D to measure quality of life (QOL) and pandemic-related questions for the second survey period. High FT was COST score ≤ 23. RESULTS: Of 97 respondents (92% response rate), 49% completed the survey pre-pandemic and 51% after; the majority were white (76%) and had uterine cancer (64%). Sixty percent received external beam radiation with or without brachytherapy; 40% had only brachytherapy. High FT was associated with worse QOL (r = -0.37, P < 0.001), younger age and type of insurance (both p ≤ 0.03). Respondents with high FT were 6.0 (95% CI 1.0-35.9) times more likely to delay/avoid medical care, 13.6 (95% CI 2.9-64.3) times more likely to borrow money, and 6.9 (95% CI 1.7-27.2) times as likely to reduce spending on basic goods. The pandemic cohort had a smaller proportion of respondents with high FT than the pre-pandemic cohort (20% vs. 35%, p = 0.10) and a higher median COST score (32 (IQR 25-35) vs. 27 (IQR 19-34), p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Privately insured, younger respondents who received radiation for gynecologic cancer were at risk for FT. High FT was associated with worse QOL and economic cost-coping strategies. We observed less FT in the pandemic cohort, though not statistically different from the pre-pandemic cohort.

Crowdsourcing to measure financial toxicity in gynecologic oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To utilize a novel crowdsourcing method to measure financial toxicity and its effects among a national cohort of gynecologic cancer patients. METHODS: Crowdsourcing methods were used to administer an online survey to women in the United States with gynecologic cancers. We used the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool to measure financial toxicity and the EQ-5D-3L to measure quality of life (QOL). Based on prior work, we defined high financial toxicity as a COST score ≤ 23. We assessed correlation of COST scores with QOL. We used log-binomial regression to examine associations between high financial toxicity and cost-coping strategies. RESULTS: Among the final study sample of 334 respondents, 87% were white, median age at diagnosis was 55 (interquartile range 47-63), 52% had stage III or IV disease and 90% had private insurance or Medicare. Median COST score was 24 (interquartile range 15-32) and 49% of respondents reported high financial toxicity. Greater financial toxicity was correlated with worse QOL (p < 0.001). Participants reporting high financial toxicity were more likely to use cost-coping strategies, including spending less on basic goods (RR: 3.3; 95% CI: 2.1-5.1), borrowing money or applying for financial assistance (RR: 4.0; 95% CI: 2.4-6.9), and delaying or avoiding care (RR: 5.6; 95% CI: 2.6-12.1). CONCLUSIONS: Crowdsourcing is an effective tool to measure financial toxicity. Nearly half of respondents reported high financial toxicity, which was significantly associated with worse QOL, utilization of cost-coping strategies and delays or avoidance of care.

Adoption of enhanced recovery after laparotomy in gynecologic oncology.

INTRODUCTION: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways combine a comprehensive set of peri-operative practices that have been demonstrated to hasten patient post-operative recovery. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of ERAS components and assess attitudes towards ERAS among gynecologic oncologists. METHODS: We developed and administered a cross-sectional survey of attending, fellow, and resident physicians who were members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology in January 2018. The χ2 test was used to compare adherence to individual components of ERAS. RESULTS: There was a 23% survey response rate and we analyzed 289 responses: 79% were attending physicians, 57% were from academic institutions, and 64% were from institutions with an established ERAS pathway. Respondents from ERAS institutions were significantly more likely to adhere to recommendations regarding pre-operative fasting for liquids (ERAS 51%, non-ERAS 28%; p<0.001), carbohydrate loading (63% vs 16%; p<0.001), intra-operative fluid management (78% vs 32%; p<0.001), and extended duration of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis for malignancy (69% vs 55%; p=0.003). We found no difference in the use of mechanical bowel preparation, use of peritoneal drainage, or use of nasogastric tubes between ERAS and non-ERAS institutions. Nearly all respondents (92%) felt that ERAS pathways were safe. DISCUSSION: Practicing at an institution with an ERAS pathway increased adoption of many ERAS elements; however, adherence to certain guidelines remains highly variable. Use of bowel preparation, nasogastric tubes, and peritoneal drainage catheters remain common. Future work should identify barriers to the implementation of ERAS and its components.

Financial toxicity in gynecologic oncology.

OBJECTIVES: Financial toxicity is increasingly recognized as an adverse outcome of cancer treatment. Our objective was to measure financial toxicity among gynecologic oncology patients and its association with demographic and disease-related characteristics; self-reported overall health; and cost-coping strategies. METHODS: Follow-up patients at a gynecologic oncology practice completed a survey including the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and a self-reported overall health assessment, the EQ-VAS. We abstracted disease and treatment characteristics from medical records. We dichotomized COST scores into low and high financial toxicity and assessed the correlation (r) between COST scores and self-reported health. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations of demographic and disease-related characteristics with high financial toxicity, as well as the associations between high financial toxicity and cost-coping strategies. RESULTS: Among 240 respondents, median COST score was 29. Greater financial toxicity was correlated with worse self-reported health (r = 0.47; p < 0.001). In the crude analysis, Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, government-sponsored health insurance, lower income, unemployment, cervical cancer and treatment with chemotherapy were associated with high financial toxicity. In the multivariable analysis, only government-sponsored health insurance, lower income, and treatment with chemotherapy were significantly associated with high financial toxicity. High financial toxicity was significantly associated with all cost-coping strategies, including delaying or avoiding care (RR: 7.3; 95% CI: 2.8-19.1). CONCLUSIONS: Among highly-insured gynecologic oncology patients, many respondents reported high levels of financial toxicity. High financial toxicity was significantly associated with worse self-reported overall health and cost-coping strategies, including delaying or avoiding care.