Patient-Reported Financial Burden of Treatment for Colon or Rectal Cancer.

Importance: The longitudinal experience of patients is critical to the development of interventions to identify and reduce financial hardship. Objective: To evaluate financial hardship over 12 months in patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) undergoing curative-intent therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, longitudinal cohort study was conducted between May 2018 and July 2020, with time points over 12 months. Participants included patients at National Cance Institute Community Oncology Research Program sites. Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, newly diagnosed stage I to III CRC, not started chemotherapy and/or radiation, treated with curative intent, and able to speak English. Data were analyzed from December 2022 through April 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was financial hardship, measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST), which assesses the psychological domain of financial hardship (range, 0-44; higher score indicates better financial well-being). Participants completed 30-minute surveys (online or paper) at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: A total of 450 participants (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [12.0] years; 240 [53.3%] male) completed the baseline survey; 33 participants (7.3%) were Black and 379 participants (84.2%) were White, and 14 participants (3.1%) identified as Hispanic or Latino and 424 participants (94.2%) identified as neither Hispanic nor Latino. There were 192 participants (42.7%) with an annual household income of $60 000 or greater. There was an improvement in financial hardship from diagnosis to 12 months of 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.3) points per month (P < .001). Patients with better quality of life and greater self-efficacy had less financial toxicity. Each 1-unit increase in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (rapid version) score was associated with an increase of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9) points in COST score (P < .001); each 1-unit increase in self-efficacy associated with an increase of 0.6 (95% CI, 0.2 to 1.0) points in COST score (P = .006). Patients who lived in areas with lower neighborhood socioeconomic status had greater financial toxicity. Neighborhood deprivation index was associated with a decrease of 0.3 (95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1) points in COST score (P = .009). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that interventions for financial toxicity in cancer care should focus on counseling to improve self-efficacy and mitigate financial worry and screening for these interventions should include patients at higher risk of financial burden.

Processes for identifying caregivers and screening for caregiver and patient distress in community oncology: results from WF-1803CD.

BACKGROUND: Despite their vital roles, informal caregivers of adult cancer patients are commonly overlooked in cancer care. This study describes processes for identifying cancer caregivers and processes for distress screening and management among caregivers and patients in the understudied community oncology setting. METHODS: Supportive care leaders from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program practices completed online survey questions regarding caregiver identification, caregiver and patient distress screening, and distress management strategies. We described practice group characteristics and prevalence of study outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression explored associations between practice group characteristics and caregiver identification in the electronic health record (EHR). RESULTS: Most (64.9%, 72 of 111) supportive care leaders reported routine identification and documentation of informal caregivers; 63.8% record this information in the EHR. Only 16% routinely screen caregivers for distress, though 92.5% screen patients. Distress management strategies for caregivers and patients are widely available, yet only 12.6% are routinely identified and screened and had at least 1 referral strategy for caregivers with distress; 90.6% are routinely screened and had at least 1 referral strategy for patients. Practices with a free-standing outpatient clinic (odds ratio [OR] = 0.29, P = .0106) and academic affiliation (OR = 0.01, P = .04) were less likely to identify and document caregivers in the EHR. However, higher oncologist volume was associated with an increased likelihood of recording caregiver information in the EHR (OR = 1.04, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite high levels of patient distress screening and management, few practices provide comprehensive caregiver engagement practices. Existing patient engagement protocols may provide a promising platform to build capacity to better address caregiver needs.

Radon testing and mitigation: an intervention in a primary care setting.

Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer and it is recommended that all homes be tested for radon. Written surveys completed by 692 patients at two primary care clinics in the Minneapolis, MN, area revealed that only 24.7 % had ever tested their home. Testing rate was higher with greater income and education level and in homes without someone who smokes. Of participants whose homes had not been tested, 250 were enrolled in an intervention that included printed information on radon, a coupon for a discounted testing kit, and encouragement by their primary care provider to test. Follow-up indicated minimal effect of this intervention, with only 14.4 % of these participants testing during the ensuing year. Future studies should assess a stronger intervention, perhaps over multiple visits, and providing test kits on site. Targeting patients who smoke may be an effective use of resources.