Faculty Bibliography

Financial toxicity describes the adverse impact patients experience from the monetary and time costs of cancer care. The financial burden patients experience comes from substantially increased out-of-pocket spending that often occurs concurrent with reduced income due to sick leave from work. Financial toxicity is common affecting approximately half of patients with a gynecological cancer depending on the validated instrument used for measurement. Financial toxicity is experienced by patients in three domains: economic hardship affecting patients' material conditions (i.e., medical debt), psychological response (i.e., distress), and health-related coping behaviors that patients adopt (i.e., foregoing care due to costs). Higher financial toxicity among cancer patients has been associated with decreased quality of life, impaired adherence to recommended care, and worse overall survival. In this review, we describe the current literature on financial toxicity, including how it can be assessed with validated tools, the downstream impact on patients, risk factors, and employment concerns of survivors. Whenever possible, we highlight data from research featuring patients with gynecologic cancer specifically. We also review studies with interventions aimed to mitigate financial toxicity and offer the reader real world examples of interventions currently being used. Lastly, we provide an overview of health policy developments relevant to financial toxicity and advocate for innovation in the development and implementation of strategies to decrease the financial toxicity patients experience following a diagnosis of gynecologic cancer.

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/CONCLUSIONS: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/CONCLUSIONS: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.

OBJECTIVE:In 2018, evidence-based surgical guidelines were introduced to identify appropriate patients with low-grade endometrioid endometrial cancer for ovarian conservation. We sought to identify trends and demographic shifts associated with guideline implementation. METHODS:We identified women treated for endometrioid endometrial cancer at our institution from January 2010 to June 2021. Eligibility criteria included age ≤50 years, normal-appearing ovaries on preoperative imaging, no family history of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome or Lynch syndrome, and no hormone receptor-positive malignancy. Trends in ovarian conservation were examined with the Cochran-Armitage trend test or in a logistic regression model. Associations between ovarian conservation and clinicodemographic factors before and after guideline implementation were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS:Of 420 women ≤50 years of age undergoing surgery for endometrioid endometrial cancer, 355 (85%) met the criteria for ovarian conservation-267 (75%) before and 88 (25%) after guideline implementation. Median patient age was 45 years (range 25-50); 62% were non-Hispanic White, 10% Hispanic White, 8% non-Hispanic Black, 0% Hispanic Black, and 20% Asian. Patients were significantly more likely to choose ovarian conservation after (48%) compared with before guideline implementation (21%) (p<0.001). Pre-guidelines, non-Hispanic White women were less likely to elect for ovarian conservation (12%) compared with non-Hispanic Black, Asian, or Hispanic White women (28%) (p=0.002). Similarly, older women were less likely to elect for ovarian conservation compared with younger women (p<0.001). There were no differences by obesity (p=0.68), marital status (p=0.86), or insurance (p=0.89). Post-guidelines, there were no differences in ovarian conservation between non-Hispanic White women (36%) and non-Hispanic Black, Asian, or Hispanic White women (50%) (p=0.56). Older women were still less likely to elect for ovarian conservationcompared with younger women (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:After guideline implementation, ovarian conservation increased and uptake disparities across demographic groups decreased.

IMPORTANCE:The COVID-19 pandemic led to disruptions in delivery of cancer treatments; factors associated with treatment delay among patients with cancer who contract COVID-19 need further characterization. OBJECTIVE:To assess the associations of patient factors, social determinants of health, severity of COVID-19, and timing of COVID-19 diagnosis with the risk of treatment delay. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This prospective cohort study was conducted from March 2020 through July 2021 at 60 academic and community medical practices in the United States. Participants included patients with any cancer diagnosis who were scheduled for treatment and contracted COVID-19. Data were analyzed in February 2022. EXPOSURE:Positive test result for SARS-CoV-2. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The main outcomes were treatment delay, defined as more than 14 days between the date originally planned for treatment and the date of initiation of therapy, or discontinuation of therapy. Multivariable analyses were used to assess outcomes. RESULTS:A total of 3028 patients (1470 patients [49%] aged ≥65 years; 1741 [58%] women) were included in the registry. With 962 of 2103 patients (46%) experiencing anticancer drug delay or discontinuation, delays were higher among Black patients compared with White patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.87; 95% CI, 1.40-2.51), Hispanic or Latino patients compared with non-Hispanic or Latino patients (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.34-2.72), patients with 2 or more comorbidities compared with patients with 0 to 1 (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.53), patients with metastatic disease rather than locoregional disease (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.29-2.05), and patients who experienced COVID-19 complications compared with those who did not (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.24-1.86). Residing in an area with a higher proportion of residents reporting Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95) and contracting COVID-19 later in the pandemic, compared with those who were infected in March to June 2020, (eg, January to March 2021: OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.53) were associated with lower likelihood of drug therapy delay. A total of 95 of 202 patients (47%) experienced delay or discontinuation of radiation treatment, with having 2 or more comorbidities associated with delay (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.20-6.20). Higher local-area median household income was associated with lower likelihood of radiation treatment delay (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-0.94). There were 89 of 125 patients (71%) who experienced surgical treatment delay, and delays were higher among patients in the South compared with those in the Midwest (OR, 9.66; 95% CI, 2.14-52.3). Interestingly, patients with 2 or more comorbidities, compared with those with 0 to 1, experienced lower likelihoods of surgical treatment delay (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.07-0.88). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Our findings suggest that individual patient factors, social determinants of health, and COVID-19 severity and diagnosis date were associated with exacerbated health disparities during the pandemic in regards to cancer treatment delay.

OBJECTIVE:As healthcare expenditures continue to rise, identifying mechanisms to reduce unnecessary costs is critical. The objective of this study is to estimate the annual cost of wasted indocyanine green (ICG) used for sentinel lymph node mapping in patients with endometrial cancer. METHODS:Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database and Premier database, we determined the annual number of cases in which sentinel lymph node mapping with ICG would be used and the median cost of ICG to institutions and patients, respectively. We assumed that gynecologic oncologists use 2-4 mL (20-40%) of the currently available ICG vial kit (25 mg per 10 mL) per case. Estimated waste was then calculated using cost as a measure of institutional waste and charge as excess cost transferred to patients or payers. RESULTS:An estimated 45,864 cases of localized endometrial cancer were identified and eligible for sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping. The mean total cost associated with ICG was 99.20 and the mean charge was $483.64. The estimated excess annual cost to hospitals was $2,729,825 to $3,639,767. Similarly, using mean charge data, the annual cost of wasted drug for patients and payers was $13,308,999 to $17,745,332. CONCLUSIONS:The annual cost of wasted ICG due to its current manufactured vial size exceeds $2 million for hospitals and $13.3-$17.7 million for patients. We suggest ICG vials should be packaged in a 10 mg vial kit (2-4 mL sterile solution) to avoid drug waste and the financial impact to institutions and patients.