Financial toxicity in lung cancer: an assessment of magnitude, perception, and impact on quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Advances in lung cancer therapy have resulted in improved clinical outcomes. Unfortunately, advances can come at a financial cost to patients and their families that poses a significant risk to overall quality of life (QoL). Financial distress has been shown to be associated with increased symptom burden and decreased treatment compliance but the magnitude of financial distress is not well characterized in lung cancer populations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage II-IV newly diagnosed lung cancer and starting first-line therapy were recruited at a tertiary academic institution between July 2018 and April 2019. The comprehensive score for financial toxicity (COST) was used to assess financial toxicity and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) was used to assess QoL. Associations between financial toxicity and baseline variables were assessed using multivariable linear regression and correlations were assessed using the Pearson correlation. RESULTS: In this study, 143 consecutive patients were approached and 91.6% agreed to participate (N = 131). The median age was 65 years (35-90); 52.7% were male (n = 69), and 75.6% were white (n = 99). The inability to afford basic necessities and having <1 month of savings was associated with increased financial toxicity (P < 0.001) after adjusting for other factors such as age, race, insurance, and income. There was also a trend toward increased financial toxicity among those who were employed but on sick leave (P = 0.06). Increased financial toxicity was correlated with a decrease in QoL (correlation coefficient 0.41, P < 0.001). Patients' anticipated out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses for the upcoming 6 months ranged from $0 to $50 000 (median $2150). However, there was no correlation between anticipated OOP expenses and either financial toxicity or QoL. CONCLUSIONS: These data identify key factors for identifying at-risk patients and builds a framework for exploring the benefit of financial counseling interventions, which may improve QoL and oncologic outcomes.

Where the Sun Shines: Industry's Payments to Transplant Surgeons.

The Open Payments Program (OPP) was recently implemented to publicly disclose industry payments to physicians, with the goal of enabling patient awareness of potential conflicts of interests. Awareness of OPP, its data, and its implications for transplantation are critical. We used the first wave of OPP data to describe industry payments made to transplant surgeons. Transplant surgeons (N = 297) received a total of $759 654. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) payment to a transplant surgeon was $125 ($39-1018), and the highest payment to an individual surgeon was $83 520; 122 surgeons received <$100, and 17 received >$10 000. A higher h-index was associated with 30% higher chance of receiving >$1000 (relative risk/10 unit h-index increase = 1.18 1.301.44 , p < 0.001). The highest payment category was consulting fees, with a total of $314 448 paid in this reported category. Recipients of consulting fees had higher h-indices, median (IQR) of 20 (10-35) versus nine (3-17) (p < 0.001). Ten of 122 companies accounted for 62% of all payments. Kidney transplant and liver transplant (LT) centers that received >$1000 had higher center volumes (p < 0.001). LT centers that received payments of >$1000 had a higher percentage of private-insurance/self-pay patients (p < 0.01). Continued surveillance of industry payments may further elucidate the relationship between industry payments and physician practices.

Landscape of Deceased Donors Labeled Increased Risk for Disease Transmission Under New Guidelines.

Deceased donors are labeled increased risk for disease transmission (IRD) if they meet certain criteria. New PHS guidelines were recently implemented; the impact of these changes remains unknown. We aimed to quantify the impact of the new guidelines on the proportion of deceased donors labeled IRD, as well as demographic and clinical characteristics. We used Poisson regression with an interaction term for era (new vs. old guidelines) to quantify changes. Under the new guidelines, 19.5% donors were labeled IRD, compared to 10.4%, 12.2%, and 12.3% in the 3 most recent years under the old guidelines (IRR = 1.45, p < 0.001). Increases were consistent across OPOs: 44/59 had an increase in the percent of donors labeled IRD, and 14 OPOs labeled 25% of their donors IRD under the new guidelines (vs. 5 OPOs under the old). African-Americans were 52% more likely to be labeled IRD under the new guidelines (RR = 1.52, p = 0.01). There has been a substantial increase in donors labeled IRD under the new PHS guidelines; it is important to understand the mechanism and consequences to ensure an optimal balance of patient safety and organ utilization is achieved.