National survey of patient perspectives on cost discussions among recipients of copay assistance.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with cancer and other medical conditions often experience financial concerns from high costs-of-care and may utilize copay assistance programs (CAP). We sought to describe CAP recipients' experiences/preferences for cost discussions with clinicians. METHODS: We conducted a national, cross-sectional electronic-survey from 10/2022 to 11/2022 of CAP recipients with cancer or autoimmune conditions to assess patient perspectives on cost discussions. We used multivariable logistic regression models to explore associations of patient perspectives on cost discussions with patient characteristics and patient-reported outcomes (eg, financial toxicity, depression/anxiety, and health literacy). RESULTS: Among 1,566 participants, 71% had cancer and 29% had autoimmune conditions. Although 62% of respondents desired cost discussions, only 32% reported discussions took place. Additionally, 52% of respondents wanted their doctor to consider out-of-pocket costs when deciding the best treatment, and 61% of respondents felt doctors should ensure patients can afford treatment prescribed. Participants with depression symptoms were more likely to want doctors to consider out-of-pocket costs (OR = 1.54, P = .005) and to believe doctors should ensure patients can afford treatment (OR = 1.60, P = .005). Those with severe financial toxicity were more likely to desire cost discussions (OR = 1.65, P < .001) and want doctors to consider out-of-pocket costs (OR = 1.52, P = .001). Participants with marginal/inadequate health literacy were more likely to desire cost discussions (OR = 1.37, P = .01) and believe doctors should ensure patients can afford treatment (OR = 1.30, P = .036). CONCLUSIONS: In this large sample of CAP recipients with cancer and autoimmune conditions, most reported a desire for cost discussions, but under one-third reported such discussions took place.

Effects of Immunotherapy on Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Patients with Gastroesophageal Cancers: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer care, with increasing data demonstrating improved survival outcomes using ICIs among patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer (GEC). ICIs are also associated with a lower incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) compared to chemotherapy, suggesting that ICIs may have favorable effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This meta-analysis sought to evaluate the effects of ICIs on the HRQoL of patients with advanced GEC. METHODS: We conducted an online bibliographic search on Medline via PubMed using MeSH-based terms to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of ICIs on HRQoL in patients with advanced GEC (we searched for all studies between 2018 and 2021). We included RCTs that incorporated ICIs as part of the intervention arm either as monotherapy (first or second line) or as a combination therapy (first-line) with another ICI or chemotherapy. We combined the HRQoL measures into a meta-analysis using standard random effects models, from which estimates of the average mean difference (MD) were obtained with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the heterogeneity of the study outcomes using the Q and I2 statistics. RESULTS: We identified 11 phase 3 RCTs that met the inclusion criteria, with a mean enrollment of 820 patients. Eight RCTs used an ICI plus chemotherapy combination in the intervention arm, three had ICIs as monotherapy, and one had doublet ICI therapy in the intervention arm. All RCTs used chemotherapy for the control arm. Collectively, the trials reported 37 HRQoL measures using five different HRQoL tools. The pooled analysis favored the intervention over the control arm in terms of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Esophageal (FACT-E) scores [MD 2.7 (95% CI 0.1 to 5.3), p < 0.041]. In a subgroup analysis of eight RCTs comparing combination therapy with ICIs plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, the effect estimates favored the ICI arm regarding the FACT-E [MD 2.7 (95% CI 0.1 to 5.3), p < 0.041] and the EORTC QLQ-OES18 pain scale [MD -2.2 (95% CI -4.3 to -0.2), p < 0.030]. Likewise, the effect estimates favored the ICI monotherapy arm over the chemotherapy arm regarding the QLQ-STO22 hair loss subscale [MD -23.2 (95% CI -29.7 to -16.7), p < 0.001], QLQ-STO22 dysphagia subscale [MD 6.7 (95% CI 1.7 to 11.7), p = 0.009], EQ-5D pain scale [MD 6.9 (95% CI 2.9 to 10.9), p < 0.001], and QLQ-OES18 saliva subscale [MD 5.8 (95% CI 0.1 to 11.6), p = 0.046]. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, we found that the inclusion of ICIs as a first-line treatment for advanced GEC yielded better HRQoL outcomes than chemotherapy alone. Further research on the impact of ICIs on HRQoL is needed, with increasing evidence that ICIs improve the survival outcomes in patients with advanced GEC.

Palliative Care for Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based guidance to oncology clinicians, patients, nonprofessional caregivers, and palliative care clinicians to update the 2016 ASCO guideline on the integration of palliative care into standard oncology for all patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical, radiation, hematology-oncology, oncology nursing, palliative care, social work, ethics, advocacy, and psycho-oncology experts. The Panel conducted a literature search, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 2015-2023. Outcomes of interest included quality of life (QOL), patient satisfaction, physical and psychological symptoms, survival, and caregiver burden. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The literature search identified 52 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations address the integration of palliative care in oncology. Oncology clinicians should refer patients with advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies to specialized interdisciplinary palliative care teams that provide outpatient and inpatient care beginning early in the course of the disease, alongside active treatment of their cancer. For patients with cancer with unaddressed physical, psychosocial, or spiritual distress, cancer care programs should provide dedicated specialist palliative care services complementing existing or emerging supportive care interventions. Oncology clinicians from across the interdisciplinary cancer care team may refer the caregivers (eg, family, chosen family, and friends) of patients with cancer to palliative care teams for additional support. The Expert Panel suggests early palliative care involvement, especially for patients with uncontrolled symptoms and QOL concerns. Clinicians caring for patients with solid tumors on phase I cancer trials may also refer them to specialist palliative care.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.