Screening for Health-related Social Needs and Financial Toxicity among Patients with Cancer Treated with Radiation Therapy: Findings from a Quality Improvement Project.

INTRODUCTION: Financial toxicity is common among patients with cancer, as are co-occurring health-related social risks (HRSR). There is limited evidence to support best practices in screening for HRSR and financial toxicity in the cancer context. This analysis sought to understand variations of identified needs based on treatment course using data from a large screening program. METHODS: This 2022-2023 screening quality improvement program included four services (breast, gastrointestinal, gynecological, thoracic) at an urban comprehensive cancer center. The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) measured financial toxicity. Patients completed a HRSR checklist documenting food, housing, medication, and/or transportation insecurity and financial borrowing practices. Differences were evaluated by treatment course (radiation therapy [RT] vs. other treatment and RT+chemotherapy vs. other treatment). RESULTS: Screening surveys were sent to 70,983 unique patients; 38,249 completed a screening survey (54% response rate). Of responders, 4% (n=1686) underwent RT in the 120 days prior to their survey, and 3% (n=1033) received RT in combination with chemotherapy. Overall, RT patients had lower unadjusted COST scores, indicating worse financial toxicity. The proportion of RT patients reporting unmet transportation (15% vs. 12%, p<0.0001) and housing (13% vs. 12%, p=.02) needs was significantly higher than for non-RT patients. More RT patients borrowed money than did non-RT patients (17% vs. 15%, p=.02). In multivariable models, RT (alone or in combination) was associated with worse financial toxicity and transportation difficulties, and a great likelihood of borrowing money for treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for financial toxicity and HRSR is possible at a large cancer center. Patients receiving RT have higher transportation insecurity and worse financial toxicity compared to those receiving other treatments. Tailored intervention throughout the treatment trajectory is essential.

Assessing safe chemotherapy needs and practices in Ile-Ife, Nigeria: a multi-disciplinary quality improvement project.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the gaps in the safe handling, administration, preparation and disposal of chemotherapy agents in low and middle-income countries. DESIGN: Two surveys comprising a needs assessment survey and an American Cancer Society (ACS) ChemoSafe Facility Assessment. SETTING: 2019 African Research Group for Oncology Symposium in South-West Nigeria (needs assessment) and the 2021 virtual engagement (ChemoSafe Assessment). PARTICIPANTS: Health professionals (n=50 of 98) from multiple institutions across Nigeria (needs assessment survey) and a designated task force of health professionals (n=10) from one teaching hospital in Southwest Nigeria(ChemoSafe Facility Assessment). RESULTS: In 2019, 75% of survey respondents (n=50) reported a lack of training resources for safe handling of chemotherapy. Additionally, 61% felt dissatisfaction with assessment practices for preparing and administering chemotherapy. ChemoSafe is a programme developed by the ACS to assess the ability of a facility to handle hazardous drugs. The 2021 ACS ChemoSafe survey administered at one teaching hospital indicated several areas for improvement to promote concordance with international standards for safe handling. Thirty-three (19.5%) items received a 'Yes' response (ie, met compliance with international standards). CONCLUSION: There is a need for the implementation of training resources for handling, administering and disposing of chemotherapy at sites across Nigeria. Strategies to identify and prioritise areas of need must be implemented in the context of available resources.

The Patient Experience of Prior Authorization for Cancer Care.

Importance: Prior authorization (PA) requires clinicians and patients to navigate a complex approval pathway. Resultant delays and denials can be particularly problematic for patients with cancer, who often need urgent treatment or symptom management. Objective: To investigate the patient perspective of PA for cancer-related care, including perceptions about the process, outcomes (including delays and denials), and patient administrative burden. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, anonymous survey used a convenience sample of patients with PA experience. Participants were recruited using social media and email lists of US-based cancer advocacy organizations from July 1 to October 6, 2022. Exposure: Prior authorization for any cancer-related service. Main Outcomes and Measures: Delays to care, outcome of PA, communication, and changes in anxiety (measured on a scale of 0-100, with 0 indicating no anxiety and higher scores indicating higher levels of anxiety) and trust. Results: Of 178 respondents (158 women [88%], 151 non-Hispanic White respondents [84%], 164 respondents [92%] <65 years), 112 (63%) reported that their cancer care was approved and given as recommended, and 39 (22%) did not receive recommended care due to delays or denials. Most respondents (123 [69%]) reported a PA-related delay in care; of those with delayed care, 90 (73%) reported a delay of 2 or more weeks. Most respondents (119 [67%]) had to personally become involved in the PA process; 35 (20%) spent 11 or more hours dealing with PA issues. Overall, the PA experience was rated as bad (70 [40%]) or horrible (55 of 174 [32%]); ratings were associated with the length of delay (ρ = 0.36; P < .001) and the time spent on PA (ρ = 0.42; P < .001). Self-reported PA-related anxiety was higher than usual anxiety (mean [SD] score, 74.7 [20.2] vs 37.5 [22.6]; P < .001) and was correlated with delay length (ρ = 0.16; P = .04), time spent on PA (ρ = 0.27; P < .001), and overall PA experience (ρ = 0.34; P < .001). After PA, 159 respondents (89%) trusted their insurance company less, and 148 respondents (83%) trusted the health care system less. Patient involvement in the PA process was associated with increased odds of distrusting their insurance company (ß = 6.0; 95% CI, 1.9-19.2) and the health care system (ß = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.4-8.1) and of having a negative experience (ß = 6.6; 95% CI, 3.1-14.3). Conclusions and Relevance: This survey-based cross-sectional study of the patient experience with PA highlights an adverse outcome of PA: 22% of patients did not receive the care recommended by their treatment team because of PA. Most respondents experienced a delay in recommended oncology care, and delays were associated with increased anxiety, a negative perception of the PA process, and patient administrative burden.

Using Real-World Data to Explore the Impact of One-Time Financial Grants Among Young Adult Cancer Survivors.

Young adult (YA) cancer survivors experience worse financial outcomes than older survivors. This analysis used data from Expect Miracles Foundation to explore the impact of one-time financial grants on financial well-being and access to health care. Among 300 respondents, the average grant was $1526 (standard deviation = $587; range $300-$3000). Respondents reported improved ability to pay expenses (t = 4.45, p < 0.001), increased financial decision-making power (t = 2.79, p = 0.06), decreased medical debt impact (t = 2.1, p = 0.04), improved transportation access (t = 2.38, p = 0.02), and fewer challenges in accessing care (t = 3.0, p = 0.005) 6 months after receiving a financial grant. Financial assistance offers YAs an opportunity to meet medical and nonmedical expenses.

Administrative Burden Associated with Cost-Related Delays in Care in U.S. Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: U.S. cancer patients engage in administrative tasks to pay for their healthcare. This study investigated the relationship between payment tasks and timely access to cancer care. METHODS: We analyzed online survey data from 510 U.S. cancer patients and survivors to understand the relationship between administrative payment tasks and cost-related delays and nonadherence. Two-part modelling was used to determine if, and to what extent, there was a relationship between administrative burden and cost-related delays/nonadherence. RESULTS: Younger patients (≤44 years) reported more payment tasks and cost-related delays/nonadherence than older patients (≥ 55 years); African American patients reported more payment tasks and cost-related delays/nonadherence than white patients. After accounting for age, race/ethnicity, education, and out-of-pocket costs, patients who reported engaging in more tasks had greater log odds of delaying/forgoing care [b = 0.18; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.12-0.24]. Cost-related delays/nonadherence increased by 32% for every unit increase in administrative payment burden (b = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18-0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Administrative payment burden increased the odds of cost-related delays and nonadherence by 49%, taking the form of delayed or skipped doctor appointments, tests and bloodwork, and prescription fulfillment. Younger patients and those identifying as African American were more likely to engage in payment tasks and to delay or forgo care due to cost. Administrative burdens can disrupt access to care and traditionally underserved patient populations are disproportionately exposed to these hardships. IMPACT: Reducing the complexity of healthcare through universal, human-centered design could reduce burdens and increase access.

Do discussions of financial burdens decrease long-term financial toxicity in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors?

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the associations between patient-provider cost discussions with patient-reported out-of-pocket (OOP) spending and long-term financial toxicity (FT) among adolescent and young adult (AYA; 15-39 years old) cancer survivors. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional survey, we assessed the themes and quality of patient discussions with providers about financial needs and general survivorship preparation, quantified patients' levels of FT, and evaluated patient-reported OOP spending. We determined the association between cancer treatment cost discussion and FT using multivariable analysis. In a subset of survivors (n = 18), we conducted qualitative interviews and used thematic analysis to characterize responses. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-seven AYA survivors completed the survey at a mean of 7 years post treatment and with a median COST score of 13. 70% of AYA survivors did not recall having any cost discussion about their cancer treatment with a provider. Having any cost discussion with a provider was associated with decreased FT (ß = 3.00; p = 0.02) but not associated with reduced OOP spending (χ2 = 3.77; p = 0.44). In a second adjusted model, with OOP spending included as a covariate, OOP spending was a significant predictor of FT (ß = - 1.40; p = 0.002). Key qualitative themes included survivors' frustration about the lack of communication related to financial issues throughout treatment and in survivorship, feeling unprepared, and reluctance to seek help. CONCLUSION: AYA patients are not fully informed about the costs of cancer care and FT; the dearth of cost discussions between patients and providers may represent a missed opportunity to reduce costs.

Financial Toxicity Order Set: Implementing a Simple Intervention to Better Connect Patients With Resources.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity of cancer treatment is well described in the literature, including characterizations of its risk factors, manifestations, and consequences. There is, however, limited research on interventions, particularly those at the hospital level, to address the issue. METHODS: From March 1, 2019, to February 28, 2022, a multidisciplinary team conducted a three-cycle Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) process to develop, test, and implement an electronic medical record (EMR) order set to directly refer patients to a hospital-based financial assistance program. The cycles included an assessment of the efficacy of our current practice in connecting patients experiencing financial hardship with assistance, the development and piloting of the EMR referral order, and the broad implementation of the order set across our institution. RESULTS: In PDSA cycle 1, we found that approximately 25% of patients at our institution experienced some form of financial hardship, but most patients were not connected to available resources because of our referral mechanism. In PDSA cycle 2, the pilot referral order set was deemed feasible and received positive feedback. Over the 12-month study period (March 1, 2021-February 28, 2022) of PDSA cycle 3, 718 orders were placed for 670 unique patients across interdisciplinary providers from 55 treatment areas. These referrals resulted in at least $850,000 in US dollars (USD) in financial aid in 38 patients (mean = $22,368 USD). CONCLUSION: The findings from our three-cycle PDSA quality improvement project demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of interdisciplinary efforts to develop a hospital-level financial toxicity intervention. A simple referral mechanism can empower providers to connect patients in need with available resources.

The Impact of Cancer-Related Financial Toxicity on Reproductive Concerns and Family-Building Decision-Making in Post-Treatment Survivorship.

Purpose: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) survivors are at-risk for cancer-related financial difficulties (i.e., financial toxicity [FT]). Family building after cancer often requires reproductive medicine or adoption with high costs; AYAs experience financial barriers to family building. This study evaluated the relationships among cancer FT, reproductive concerns, and decision-making processes about family building after cancer. Methods: AYA female (AYA-F) cancer survivors completed a cross-sectional survey including measures of FT, reproductive concerns, decisional conflict about family building, and decision-making self-efficacy. Differences across FT subgroups (i.e., no/mild, moderate, and severe FT) were tested. Linear regression evaluated the relationships between FT and reproductive concerns and decision-making processes. Results: Participants (N = 111) averaged 31.0 years (standard deviation [SD] = 5.49), 90% were nulliparous, and 84% were employed full/part-time. The overall FT levels were in the "moderate" range (M = 20.44, SD = 9.83); 48% worried quite a bit or very much about financial problems because of cancer. AYA-Fs reporting severe FT (24% of sample) experienced higher levels of reproductive concerns compared with those reporting no/mild and moderate FT. Those reporting moderate FT (46% of sample) reported greater decisional conflict about family-building options, compared with the no/mild FT subgroup. Both moderate and severe FT subgroups reported lower decision-making self-efficacy compared with the no/mild FT subgroup. In separate models controlling for covariates, greater FT related to higher levels of reproductive concerns (B = -0.39, p < 0.001), greater decisional conflict about family building (B = -0.56, p = 0.02), and lower decision-making self-efficacy (B = 0.60, p = 0.01). Conclusions: Given the high costs of reproductive medicine and adoption, fertility counseling pre- and post-treatment must address survivors' financial concerns and barriers.

The long-term financial experiences of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related financial hardship can negatively impact financial well-being and may prevent adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors (ages 15-39) from gaining financial independence. This analysis explored the financial experiences following diagnosis with cancer among AYA survivors. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, anonymous survey of a national sample of AYAs recruited online. The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) and InCharge Financial Distress/Financial Well-Being Scale (IFDFW) assessed financial hardship (cancer-related and general, respectively), and respondents reported related financial consequences and financial coping behaviors (both medical and non-medical). RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-seven AYA survivors completed the survey (mean 8.3 years from diagnosis). Financial hardship was high: mean COST score was 13.7 (moderate-to-severe financial toxicity); mean IFDFW score was 4.3 (high financial stress). Financial consequences included post-cancer credit score decrease (44%), debt collection contact (39%), spending more than 10% of income on medical expenses (39%), and lacking money for basic necessities (23%). Financial coping behaviors included taking money from savings (55%), taking on credit card debt (45%), putting off major purchases (45%), and borrowing money (42%). In logistic regression models, general financial distress was associated with increased odds of experiencing financial consequences and engaging in both medical- and non-medical-related financial coping behaviors. DISCUSSION: AYA survivors face long-term financial hardship after cancer treatment, which impacts multiple domains, including their use of healthcare and their personal finances. Interventions are needed to provide AYAs with tools to navigate financial aspects of the healthcare system; connect them with resources; and create systems-level solutions to address healthcare affordability. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Survivorship care providers, particularly those who interact with AYA survivors, must be attuned to the unique risk for financial hardships facing this population and make efforts to increase access available interventions.

Patient-reported benefit from proposed interventions to reduce financial toxicity during cancer treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Financial toxicity is common and pervasive among cancer patients. Research suggests that gynecologic cancer patients experiencing financial toxicity are at increased risk for engaging in harmful cost-coping strategies, including delaying/skipping treatment because of costs, or forsaking basic needs to pay medical bills. However, little is known about patients' preferences for interventions to address financial toxicity. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys to assess financial toxicity [Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST)], cost-coping strategies, and preferences for intervention were conducted in a gynecologic cancer clinic waiting room. Associations with cost-coping were determined using multivariate modeling. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) explored associations between financial toxicity and intervention preferences. RESULTS: Among 89 respondents, median COST score was 31.9 (IQR: 21-38); 35% (N = 30) scored < 26, indicating they were experiencing financial toxicity. Financial toxicity was significantly associated with cost-coping (adjusted OR = 3.32 95% CI: 1.08, 14.34). Intervention preferences included access to transportation vouchers (38%), understanding treatment costs up-front (35%), minimizing wait times (33%), access to free food at appointments (25%), and assistance with minimizing/eliminating insurance deductibles (23%). In unadjusted analyses, respondents experiencing financial toxicity were more likely to select transportation assistance (OR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.04, 6.90), assistance with co-pays (OR = 9.17, 95% CI: 2.60, 32.26), and assistance with deductibles (OR = 12.20, 95% CI: 3.47, 43.48), than respondents not experiencing financial toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm the presence of financial toxicity in gynecologic cancer patients, describe how patients attempt to cope with financial hardship, and provide insight into patients' needs for targeted interventions to mitigate the harm of financial toxicity.

Evidence of the Feasibility and Preliminary Efficacy of Oncology Financial Navigation: A Scoping Review.

One in three cancer patients reports financial hardship. Cancer-related financial hardship is associated with diminished quality of life, treatment nonadherence, and early mortality. Over 80% of NCI-designated cancer centers provide some form of oncology financial navigation (OFN). Although interest in OFN has grown, there is little scientific evidence to guide care delivery. We conducted a scoping review to assess the evidence of OFN's feasibility and preliminary efficacy and determine its core components/functions. Papers were included that (i) evaluated a clinical intervention to reduce financial hardship in patients with cancer or caregivers by facilitating access to resources, (ii) were conducted in the United States, and (iii) were published since 2000. Of 681 titles, 66 met criteria for full-text review, and six met full inclusion/exclusion criteria. The FN literature consists of descriptive studies and pilot trials focused on feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy. The studies showed that OFN implementation and evaluation are feasible; however, efficacy was difficult to evaluate because the studies were limited by small sample sizes (attributed to low patient participation). Most studies were conducted in urban, academic medical centers-which are less likely to be used by the poor and patients of color, who have the highest risk of financial hardship. The studies did not attempt to address the issue of underlying poverty at the individual and community level and whether OFN could be effectively adapted for these care environments. Future OFN programs must be tested with underserved and racially diverse patient populations, and evaluation efforts should aim to understand patient-reported barriers to participation.

Economic distress, financial toxicity, and medical cost-coping in young adult cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from an online sample.

BACKGROUND: Young adult (YA) cancer survivors are at risk for financial toxicity during and after cancer treatment. Financial toxicity has been associated with medical-related cost-coping behaviors such as skipping or delaying treatment. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in dire economic consequences that may worsen financial hardship among young survivors. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey; data collection occurred online. A convenience sample was recruited through YA cancer advocacy groups and social media. Negative economic events associated with the COVID-19 pandemic (eg, income loss, increased debt, and decreased job security) and medical-related cost-coping were documented. A validated measure assessed cancer-related financial toxicity. RESULTS: Participants (N = 212) had a mean age of 35.3 years at survey completion and a mean age of 27.4 years at diagnosis. Financial toxicity (mean, 14.0; SD, 9.33) was high. Two-thirds of the sample experienced at least 1 negative economic event during COVID-19, and 71% engaged in at least 1 medical cost-coping behavior. Cost-coping and pandemic-related negative economic events were significantly correlated with cancer-related financial toxicity. In multivariable analyses, pandemic-related negative economic events and financial toxicity were associated with cost-coping. CONCLUSIONS: Acute negative economic events associated with the COVID-19 pandemic may exacerbate cancer-related financial toxicity and overall financial hardship among YAs and lead to cost-coping behaviors that can compromise survivorship care and health outcomes. Multilevel, systematic interventions are needed to address the financial needs of YA survivors after the global pandemic.

The experience of financial toxicity among advanced melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy.

Purpose To measure financial toxicity and explore its association with quality of life (QOL) in an emerging population of survivors: advanced melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy. Design Cross-sectional survey and medical record review. Sample 106 survivors (39% response). Median time since start of immunotherapy was 36.4 months (range: 14.2-133.9). Methods The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity measured financial toxicity, and the EORTC-QLQ30 assessed QOL and functioning across five domains. Data were collected online, by phone, or in clinic. Findings: Younger patients (<65 years) reported higher financial toxicity (p < .001) than older patients. Controlling for age, financial toxicity was correlated with QOL (p < .001), financial difficulties (p < .001), and EORTC-QLQ30 functioning subscales. Conclusions Given the demonstrated association between financial toxicity and QOL, our study highlights the importance of addressing financial toxicity, particularly among patients receiving high-cost treatments. Implications for Psychosocial Providers: Providers should educate patients and their caregivers about cost-management techniques, link them with available resources, and provide psychosocial counseling to alleviate related distress.

Quality of life in long-term survivors of advanced melanoma treated with checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CIs) have revolutionized treatment of advanced melanoma, leading to an emerging population of long-term survivors. Survivors' quality of life (QOL) and symptom burden are poorly understood. We set out to evaluate symptom burden and QOL in patients with advanced melanoma alive more than 1 year after initiating CI therapy. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys, accompanied by chart review of patients with advanced melanoma treated with CIs at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, completed therapy, and were alive >1 year after treatment initiation. Surveys were administered between February and August 2018. Surveys included: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30, EuroQOL, items from Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Fatigue Severity Scale. RESULTS: We included 90 patients. The most common CI regimens were ipilimumab plus nivolumab (53%) and pembrolizumab (41%); most patients (71%) were not treated in clinical trials. Median time from CI therapy initiation was 40 months and from last dose was 28 months. Fatigue was reported by 28%, with higher fatigue scores in women than men; 12% reported difficulty sleeping. Aching joints (17%) and muscles (12%) were fairly common. Level of functioning was generally high. Overall QOL was excellent though 40% reported 'some or moderate' problems with anxiety/depression and 31% with pain/discomfort. CONCLUSIONS: After CI therapy, long-surviving advanced melanoma patients commonly report fatigue but otherwise have moderate symptom burden and good QOL. Ensuring appropriate symptom management will optimize clinical outcomes for these patients.

Fertility Preservation: Improving Access Through Nurse-Advocated Financial Assistance.

BACKGROUND: Young adult patients and survivors may face impaired fertility or infertility as a result of their cancer treatment, and many will need costly assisted reproductive technology to build their families. Fertility nurse specialists (FNSs) can play a role in alleviating the distress associated with the co-occurrence of financial toxicity and impaired fertility/infertility. OBJECTIVES: This article describes a nurse-led oncofertility program that offers counseling to patients of any age, with any diagnosis, and at any stage of treatment. METHODS: An overview of the literature and a description of a clinical practice, including relevant case studies, are presented. FINDINGS: FNSs can seek to lessen the financial burden associated with family building before and after cancer treatment by developing a network of reproductive specialists who will provide discounted services and by sharing information on available resources that might reduce the costs.

Quality of life improves after palliative placement of percutaneous tunneled drainage catheter for refractory ascites in prospective study of patients with end-stage cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous tunneled drainage catheter (PTDC) placement is a palliative alternative to serial paracenteses in patients with end-stage cancer and refractory ascites. The impact of PTDC on quality of life (QoL) and long-term outcomes has not been prospectively described. The objective was to evaluate changes in QoL after PTDC. METHOD: Eligible adult patients with end-stage cancer undergoing PTDC placement for refractory ascites completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and McGill Quality of Life instruments before PTDC placement and at 2 to 7 days and 2 to 4 weeks after PTDC. Catheter function, complications, and laboratory values were assessed. Analysis of QoL data was evaluated with a stratified Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULT: Fifty patients enrolled. Survey completion ranged from 65% to 100% (median 88%) across timepoints. All patients had a Tenckhoff catheter, with 98% technical success. Median survival after PTDC was 38 days (95% confidence interval = 32, 57 days). European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer scores showed improvement in global QoL (p = 0.03) at 1 week postprocedure (PP). Significant symptom improvement was reported for fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, and appetite at 1 week PP and was sustained at 3 weeks PP for dyspnea (p < 0.01), insomnia (p < 0.01), and appetite loss (p = 0.03). McGill Quality of Life demonstrated overall QoL improvement at 1 (p = 0.03) and 3 weeks (p = 0.04) PP. Decline in sodium and albumin values pre- and post-PTDC slowed significantly (albumin slope -0.43 to -0.26, p = 0.055; sodium slope -2.50 to 1.31, p = 0.04). Creatinine values increased at an accelerated pace post-PTDC (0.040 to 0.21, p < 0.01). Thirty-eight catheter-related complications occurred in 24 of 45 patients (53%). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: QoL and symptoms improved after PTDC placement for refractory ascites in patients with end-stage malignancy. Decline in sodium and albumin values slowed postplacement. This study supports the use of a PTDC for palliation of refractory ascites in cancer patients.

The Impact of Financial Toxicity on Psychological Well-Being, Coping Self-Efficacy, and Cost-Coping Behaviors in Young Adults with Cancer.

Purpose: The increase in cost-sharing between patients and payers has resulted in financial toxicity in cancer patients, particularly among young adult (YA) patients and survivors (<40 years of age). This study explored financial toxicity and its impact on psychological well-being, self-efficacy for coping with cancer, and cost-coping behaviors among a sample of YA cancer patients and survivors. Methods: One hundred forty YAs completed an anonymous online survey. The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity measured financial toxicity and the Cancer Behavior Inventory-Brief measured coping self-efficacy. The Patient Health Questionnaire-4 and items from the Impact of Cancer-Young Adult and the Cancer Needs Questionnaire-Young People assessed psychological well-being. A single item assessed cost-coping behaviors (i.e., skipping or delaying treatment because of its cost). Analyses included Pearson and Spearman correlation matrices and multivariate regression modeling. Results: Worse financial toxicity was associated with lower insurance satisfaction (r = 0.52, p < 0.001), higher levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms (r = -0.42, p < 0.001), greater worry (p < 0.001), and lower self-efficacy in coping with cancer (i.e., maintaining independence and a positive attitude, r = 0.41, p < 0.001; coping and stress management, r = 0.43, p < 0.001; and managing negative effect, r = 0.20, p = 0.02). In multivariate modeling, financial toxicity related to skipping or delaying treatment and greater anxiety and depression symptomology, controlling for relevant covariates. Conclusion: The findings suggest financial toxicity negatively impacts many facets of the YA cancer experience. There is a need to address the cost of cancer care with patients to ensure they are informed about the financial implications of treatment decisions and to support financial planning as needed.

Advanced Practice Providers and Survivorship Care: They Can Deliver.

INTRODUCTION: As the number of cancer survivors grows, new models of survivorship care are being implemented, but there is limited evaluation to date. This retrospective review assesses the concordance of care provided to adult-onset cancer survivors by advanced practice providers (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) with Institute of Medicine guidelines for survivorship care. METHODS: Records from three survivorship clinics at a single institution were reviewed for frequency of recurrence surveillance, screening for second cancers, symptom management (physical, psychological), health promotion education (alcohol, tobacco, cholesterol, and bone density screenings; diet/exercise discussion), care coordination, and provision of care plan. Data were characterized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Over 2 years, 9,052 unique survivorship visits occurred; 210 breast, 208 prostate, and 204 colorectal visits were randomly selected for review. All patients with breast cancer underwent surveillance for recurrence; 99% were screened for new cancers. Discussion of health promotion activities ranged from 83% to 100%; 91% of patients were reviewed for physical symptoms, and 93% were reviewed for psychological symptoms. All patients with prostate cancer underwent recurrence surveillance; 97% were screened for new primaries. Health promotion activities ranged from 70% to 97%, and symptoms were discussed in 89% of visits. All patients with colorectal cancer underwent a surveillance colonoscopy for recurrence; 97% had a carcinoembryonic antigen test. Among women, 97% had mammograms, and 96% had a Papanicolaou test; 83% of men had a prostate-specific antigen test. Health promotion activities ranged from 69% to 100%, and symptoms were discussed in 93% to 97% of visits. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that advanced practice providers can provide survivorship care in accordance with Institute of Medicine standards, which provide a normative standard. This assessment is an important step in evaluating survivorship outcomes.