Long-Term Patient-Reported Quality of Life of Anal Cancer Survivors Treated With Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy and Concurrent Chemotherapy: Results From a Prospective Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has confirmed its superiority in improving acute treatment-related toxicities in anal cancer, without compromising tumor control. However, the effect of IMRT on long-term quality of life (QOL) is poorly documented. The study prospectively evaluated the long-term patient-reported QOL after IMRT-based chemoradiation in anal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty-eight patients treated with IMRT and concurrent 5 fluorouracil/mitomycin-C were enrolled in the study. A prespecified secondary endpoint was prospective evaluation of long-term QOL. Fifty-four patients underwent QOL evaluation at baseline, after treatment, and during follow-up until 60 months, with European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scales and the Colorectal Cancer-Specific Quality Of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-CR29) scales. The QOL scores at baseline and posttreatment periods were compared. RESULTS: For QLQ-C30, at 60 months, the mean scores of global health status, all functional scales, and all symptoms except diarrhea had improved, indicating normalization of QOL. Clinically and statistically significant improvements in the global health status (15.4; P = .003), role functioning (19.3; P = .0017), emotional functioning (18.9; P = .008), and social functioning (29.8; P ≤ .001) were observed. Diarrhea persisted as a concern over the years (P = .172). For European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-CR29, rectal pain (-38.6; P = .001), mucous or blood discharge per rectum (-22.8; P = .005), and perianal soreness (-37.3; P ≤ .001) were improved both clinically and statistically. Clinically significant fecal leakage was reported by 16% of patients (5.6; P = .421). Volumes receiving 45 and 54 Gy were independent predictors for fecal incontinence. Clinically and statistically significant urinary incontinence occurred in 21% of patients (17.5; P = .014). Deterioration of dyspareunia was clinically significant (26.7; P = .099) at 60 months. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with historical data, IMRT is associated with reduced long-term effects on QOL. The majority of patients treated with IMRT experienced clinically significant recovery of function and improvement in QOL over 5 years after completion of treatment. Specific toxicities such as chronic diarrhea, fecal incontinence, and urinary and sexual dysfunction were primarily responsible for deterioration of the long-term QOL. Future research aimed at reducing such toxicities is needed to further improve long-term QOL in anal cancer.

Evaluation of parking-related financial toxicity associated with cancer treatments in Western Canada.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Patients and their caregivers incur numerous out-of-pocket costs while receiving oncologic treatments. These expenses are often overlooked by clinicians, even in countries with publicly funded healthcare systems. Parking fees are one such category of expenses that contribute to financial toxicity in cancer care. Patients with cancer often have protracted treatment courses, especially if they are receiving external beam radiation therapy. It is not clear if cancer center parking fees influence city-specific indices such as city-specific cost of living. The aim of this study was to evaluate cancer center parking fees in Western Canada and to elucidate any correlation between daily cost of parking and the city-specific indices. METHODS: This was a cross sectional study conducted from February 1st, 2022, to March 1st, 2022. An online search was undertaken to obtain the publicly available parking information for the regional and community cancer centers in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. Telephone calls were made with parking offices or switchboards to obtain this information for the cancer centers that did not have online information on parking. Cancer center address transit scores, median city household income, and city-specific cost of living scores were obtained online for the cities where the cancer centers were located. Pearson correlation and a zero-inflated negative binomial model were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Data was collected from 115 community and regional cancer centers distributed across the 4 provinces. The median hourly parking fee across all provinces was 2.00 Canadian Dollars (CAD) (Interquartile range (IQR), 0-4.25), whereas the median daily cost of parking was 9.50 CAD (IQR, 0-13.13). The median cancer center address transit score was 41.00 (IQR, 12.00-50.50). There was a statistically significant (p=0.029) positive correlation between the daily cost of parking and city cost of living. The correlation coefficient between the two variables was 0.412. Furthermore, there was a statistically significant (p<0.001) positive correlation between daily cost of parking and cancer center address transit score. The correlation coefficient between the two variables was 0.676. In addition, there was a strong negative correlation between the cancer center address transit score and the presence of free parking with a correlation coefficient of -0.613 (p<0.001). There was a nonsignificant (p=0.88) negative correlation between cost of living and the presence of free parking with a correlation coefficient of -0.028. DISCUSSION: The results of this study demonstrate that daily cost of parking for community and regional cancer centers in Western Canada significantly influences city-specific cost of living and cancer center address transit scores to a varying degree. This demonstrates that the influence of parking fees on patients with cancer is multilayered with significant direct and indirect effects. This can contribute to loss of wage and added financial burden on patients and their caregivers in higher-cost provinces. The presence of free parking at community and regional cancer centers had a statistically significant negative correlation with the cancer center address transit score. This suggests that cities with more free parking also have less robust public transit systems. Conversely, the presence of an extensive public transit system leads to a lower likelihood of free parking being available at cancer centers. CONCLUSION: The presence of a strong public healthcare system does not necessarily address all aspects of cancer-related financial toxicity. There is strong evidence of both positive and negative correlations between city specific indices and cancer center parking fees in Western Canada. Policy makers and stakeholders should be cognizant of this interplay between the various city specific indices and parking fees for patients with cancer. Policies on provincial and federal levels should be implemented to address this increasingly problematic burden on oncologic patients.